ML20134P055
| ML20134P055 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200003 |
| Issue date: | 11/26/1996 |
| From: | Diane Jackson NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Liparulo N WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9611270217 | |
| Download: ML20134P055 (5) | |
Text
"&0 s
ps p
UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066 4 001 November 26, 1996 i
Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo, Manager Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Activities Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230
SUBJECT:
STAFF RESPONSE TO WESTINGHOUSE LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 12, 1996, REGARDING ASME CODE CASE N-284, REVISION 1
Dear Mr. Liparulo:
i The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Civil Engineering and Geosciences Branch has reviewed your response dated February 12, 1996, to our request for additional information (RAI) regarding the use of ASME Code Case N-284, Revision 1, in the AP600 application.
Due to the large number of errors (typographical and otherwise) contained in the revision, the staff is requesting the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Committee for further review and clarification. The staff's comments to the committee are enclosed. Because of this request, the staff is not in a position to endorse the use of Revision 1 to ASME Code Case N-284. However, the staff can perform the review on a case-by-case basis.
This appears to have been done in the review of the AP600 steel containment for buckling of the containment ellipsoidal head under internal pressure.
It appears that Westinghouse has used the ASME Code Case N-284 in the design of the equipment hatch inside cover.
With respect to its design for buckling, the staff has made its position clear to Westinghouse in RAI #220.100. That is, the buckling of the equipment hatch spherical covers may not be considered to be local because the covers do not form a portion of the containment shell even though they are part of the containment system.
Its failure may result in excessive release of radioactive materials.
The boundaries of ASME Subsection NE include the penetration assemblies such as equipment hatches that are attached to the containment vessel. The equipment hatch cover design should be based on ASME Subsection NE-3133.4 and NE-3222.
untRECNTS W
\\
270031
\\
9611270217 961126 PDR ADOCK 05200003 A
PDR u
4 i
..Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo' Novmeber. 26, 1996 c
i If you have'any questions regarding this matter, you can contact me at
- (301) 415-8548.
i Sincerely.
original signed.by:
t l
' Diane T. Jackson,. Project Manager Standardization Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of. Nuclear Reactor Regulation-1 Docket.No.52-003
Enclosure:
As stated.
cc w/ enclosure:
~
See next page i
)ISTRIBf'LON:
1
-b Beket # e #
'PDST R/F-TMartin PUBLIC DMatthews TQuay
.TKenyon BHuffman JSebrosky DJackson.
JMoore, 0-15 B18 WDean, 0-17 G21 ACRS'(11)
GBagchi, 0-7 HIS Slee, 0-7 HIS
~
DOCUMENT NAME: 'A:CCN284RI LET
. w.,
e. c.,,.00 DI SK.)
e. c.,,.
(9J AP6
.w.,
n
-m OFFICE-PM:PDST:DRPM,l D:PDST:DRPM-[
l l
I NAME DTJackson:sg M TRQua Q tt)
DATE 11kg/96
//
11hlh9Vikh (0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
1 Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo Docket No.52-003.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation AP600 cc: Mr. B..A. McIntyre Mr. Ronald Simard, Director Advanced Plant Safety &' Licensing Advanced Reactor Programs Westinghouse Electric Corporation Nuclear Energy Institute Energy Systems Business Unit 1776 Eye Street, N.W.
P.O.-Box 355 Suite 300.
Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Washington, DC 20006-3706 Mr. John C. Butler Ms. Lynn Connor Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Doc-Search Associates-Westinghouse Electric Corporation Post Office Box 34 Energy Systems Business Unit Cabin John, MD' 20818 Box 355 i
Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Mr. James E. Quinn, Projects Manager LMR and SBWR Programs Mr. M. D. Beaumont GE Nuclear Energy Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division 175 Curtner Avenue, M/C 165 Westinghouse Electric Corporation
. San Jose, CA 95125 One Montrose Metro 11921 Rockville Pike Mr. Robert H. Buchholz i
Suite 350 GE Nuclear Energy Rockville, MD: 20852 175 Curtner Avenue, MC-781 San Jose, CA 95125 Mr. Sterling.. Franks U.S. Department of Energy Barton Z. Cowan, Esq.
NE-50 Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott 19901 Germantown Road 600 Grant Street 42nd Floor-Germantown, MD 20874 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Mr. S. M. Modro Mr. Ed Rodwell, Manager Nuclear Systems Analysis Technologies PWR Design Certification Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company Electric Power Research Institute Post Office Box 1625 3412 Hillview Avenue.
Idaho Falls, ID 83415 Palo Alto, CA' 94303 Mr. Frank A. Ross Mr. Charles Thompson, Nuclear Engineer U.S. Department of Energy, NE-42 AP600 Certification Office of, LWR Safety and Technology NE-50 1 7 1 Germantown Road 19901 Germantown Road G6. antown, MD 20874 Germantown, MD' 20874
- j.
i
' Comments on ASME Code Case'N-284, Revision 1 i
I.
Missina Information and Errors of Sianificance 1.
In Rev. 1, there are new equations, which are added to Rev. O.
- However, 1
i I
the bases of these equations to enable us to verify their adequacy are not provided.
]
2 '.
In.-1511 (a)(1) a.
Should it be 0.033, instead of 0.003 in the third equation for a ?
g l
3.
In -1513 i
a.
Should it be -1512, instead of -1714.4 for torodial and ellipsoidal shells?
l
-4.
In -1521 (a)
)
a.
Should they be 4 < 0.06 and a
, instead of I < 0.2 and
- a. in the third equation?
Ipso,aThereissomedisparity. A A-4 03 6, the second equation produces and the third 0.216 + 0.7a,is implies a equation yield 1.0a which means a psi, it giks a,0.72.
Th 0.00251E.
IfE-3W106
= 75.3 ksi. Isthila i -
reasonable yield stress?
b.
Ref. I provides the equations for stringers and rings separately.
j
'Rev. I provides only one equation for both cases.
It seems to be less conservative for stringers.
Is this truly intended?
j 5.
In -1611 (c) 2 a.
Check the accuracy of the second and the third equations for A because there is a discontinuity at A - 1.7.
The second equation i
gives.0.3529, whereas the third equation gives 0.9411.
6.
In -1712.1.1 (b)(1) a.
Ref. I provides the coefficient of 1.08 for C in the range 1.5 <
- < 3.0, but Rev. I has 2.41.
Isthisadelberate'changeoran efror?
{
i 7.
In -1712.2.2 M
i a.
Should they be -A A3 g and t,, instead of -A A and tp?
3
{
b.' Should it be 6,, instead of 6 in Ag for ag?
[
c.
Should it be A A3 g - Ag, instead of A A Ay for og?
3g is missing in Nv.nder (b) External Pressure is in Rev. O, but it d.
Equation for a u
1.
8.
In Fig.-1713.1-1 (a) a.
Should it be a, instead of o in EQ (b)?
g g
Enclosure
4 T
9.-
In Fig.-1713.1-1 (b) 1
- a. 'Should it be o,, instead of ah i
b.
Should it be o, instead of e y
g in the definition of K,7 ShoulditbeKpg,insteadofKp3 in the first ordinate point?
c.
d.
Should it be a, instead of a, in the interaction curve equation?
g Should it be (Kpg, Kpg), instead of (a, o ) in the curve point?
e.
g g
10.
In -1714.3 (b) a.
Is the coefficient of 5.92 correct? Rev. O indicates it to be 4.81.
i II.
Tvooarachical Errors 1.
For consistency and to avoid misunderstanding, use italics for all subscripts and superscripts in notations.
In the following, the underlined subscripts and superscripts represent italics.
2.
In -1120 a.
Should it be ah " # I#/*H,.instead of a,, - a,FS/a,37 i
1 b.
Should they be a and and, instead of ad,; and ade,;?
nd Should they be a, - a a /fS and on " "8u, instead of o,, -
c.
.gf a(3ad;/FS and a, - W,7-1 1
3.
In -1200 a.
Should it be "i - 1 or 2 corresponding to d or 0...", instead of "i l
- 1 or 2 corresponding to ( to 0...."?
b.
Should it be 1d, instead of 1, for Ig d
since 1 is defined?
Suggest changing Ih,t,3/3 to I(h,t,3)/3 for J for clarity.
c c.
1 d.
Suggest changing [a,/a,,]2 to [ag/a yZ for clarity.
n e.
For # and #, should it be (, instead of p?
3 2
f. Should it be A,/1,, instead of A,/1, for t,7 g.
Suggest listing t,, t,, and t, on separate lines, instead of on one line.
4.
In Fig. -1511-1 a.
Should it be a, instead of a in the ordinate?
g g
b.
Should they be o and a,g, instead of ag and ag?
g c.
Should it be a, instead of a ?
e g
g
~ _
j. -
d.
Suggest change of the figure number to Fig. -1511-1, instead of Fig.
1511-1.
5.-
In Fig. -1511 e a.
Should. it be a, instead of a in the' ordinate?
j g
g b.
Suggest change of the figure number to Fig. -1511-2, instead of' Fig.
l 1511-2.
j.
6.
In -1512 (b) j a.
Should it be.o, instead of a L for 1.73 < # < 23.6?
j h
g 7.
In Fig.~-1512-1 a.
Should it be a, instead of a in the ordinate?
g g
b.
Should they be a and ag, instead of al and af ?
n g
g c.
Suggest change of the figure number to Fig. -1512-1, instead of Fig.
1512-1.
8.
In -1611 (c) a.
Suggest deleting the duplicate equation A < 0.48.
i 9.,
In -1712.1.I'(b)(1)
- a..Should it be C, instead of C 7 g
g
[
b.
Suggest changing (R/t)3 to'(R/t)I for C for clarity in the range g
j
- , >= 1.65 R/t.
in 10.
In -1712.1 (b)(2) a.
Should it be C ER/t, instead of C Et/t?
g g
4 b.
Should it be Cg =.0.988, instead of On = 0.9887 l
Should it 'be (R/t)3, instead of (R /t) in the range #,_ >= 1.65 R/t?
3 c.
11.
In -1712.1.2 (c) a.
Suggest changing (b/a)2 to (6/a)I for clarity.
12.
In -1712.1.3 (a) l a.
Suggest aligning the equations for C, and deleting the duplicate equation.
~
13.
In -1712.2.1 Should it be L,5 I, instead of L 4Rt in (c)?
R a.
g 14.
In -1712.2.2 Suggest changing 1, = 1, Ly-Lg to 1,= 1,, Ly - L, for clarity.
].
a.
15.
In -1712.2.3 ll?
Should it be 1.944Et[, instead of 1.944Et a.
i n
1
. ig, instead of Rel?
b.
Should it.be Rt c.
Should it be ig, instead of 1,27 16.
In -1713.1.1 Should they be a instead of o and o since they are not defined in tU and a1200Yo,tations?
g g
a.
b.
Should it be a,, instead of ad in (b)?
Shouldtheybe"AxialCompressionPlusIn-PlaneShear"anda),
c.
instead of " Axial Compression Plus Shear" in the title and a in (c)?
17.-
In -1713.1.3 Should it be a, # 0, instead of a,0 # 07 a.
b.
Suggest changing the article number to -1713.1.3, instead of 1713.1.3.
18.
In -1713.2.1 a.
Should it be a a,ay, instead of an""mi y
b.
Should it be a a,a, instead of arc = am?
y y
19.
In -1714.1 a.
Suggest deleting the duplicate equation.
20.
In -1714.3 (a)
- a. 'Should it be #aM, instead of #,g ?
21.
In -1714.4 a.
Should it be Fig. -1713.1.3-1,.instead of Fig.1713.3 for R ?
g
Reference:
1.
Miller, C.D., " Summary of Buckling Tests on Fabricated Cylindrical Shells in USA," Buck 11na of Shells in Offs'iore Structures. Ed. by
. Harding, J. E., Dowling, P.
J., and Agel', dis, N., London, Granada Publishing, 1982, pp. 429 - 471.
,