ML20213E482
| ML20213E482 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 07/29/1983 |
| From: | Bosnak R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0614, CON-WNP-61, CON-WNP-612, CON-WNP-614 NUDOCS 8308080223 | |
| Download: ML20213E482 (2) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _
v.:~,.
JtJ1.2 9 7983 4
l'E!TRAt! CUM FOR:
A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch tio. 3, DL FRCt*:
Robert J. Bosnak, Chief l'echanical Engineering Branch, DE SUB.!ECT:
Wr!P-2 C0!'P0iiErlT SUPPORT DESICrl, l'EB C0f!FIFf'ATORY ISSUE f0. 7
Reference:
1.
Letter from A. Schwencer to R. Ferguson, " Request for Additional Information Concerning Component Support Design for Ut!P-2, 0.110.40", dated March 23, 1983 2.
Letter from G. Bouchy to A. Schwencer, "liuclear Project tio. 2 Safety Evaluaticn Report (t'L' REG-0392)
Confimatory Issue tio. 7 - Component Supports", dated June 30, 1983 On March 18, 1983, the flechanical Engireering Branch requested additional infomation concerning the component support design for the Ut:P-2 (Reference 1). Based on our review of the applicant's subnittal (Feference 2) dated June 30, 1983, we have detemined that the apolicant has not adequately addressed the staff's concerns of Refarence 1.
Please transmit the attached request for additional informaticn to the applicant at your earliest convenience.
" Original Signed by R. J. Bosnak" Rcbert J. Bosnak, Chief t'ochanical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering Attachnent: As stated cc: w/ attachment R. Vollner R. Auluck R. Bosnak H. Brarrer J. Knight F. Cherny J. Prevost, ETEC M. Partznan P. Chen, ETEC Y. Li Centact:
Y. Li, DE:MEB, x4417 7
g 8308080223 830729 3N F ADOCK 05000397 W
DE:MEB>i.0/
....y/.[
DE:M l
................/......D E :MEBL.
o,,,co
../.r....
. R B.,..n.ak..
n.-a
.!L '.!.'.b...I'
..HBramE.
R 7/29/83 7/.z..q /83 7 /f..f../. 83 I
,,,,,,,.\\,,
omy rm roau m m.m mev ro OFFICIAL R ECORD COPY u m " '-w n
l j
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WNP-2 DOCKET N0. 50-397
)
110.41 The ' response to Question 110.40-1 is not complete.
The fac.t.that equipment nozzle loads meet vendor requirements is a necessary requirement but does not assure in itself that the proper categorization of the outputs of the piping analysis was used in establishing the nozzle loads.
Provide a response to the question originally asked i.e., was restraint of free expansion-and seismic anchor motion of the piping system categorized as primary stresses in the design of 1
component supports?
110.42 Paragraph 2b.21 of the response to Question 110.40-2a states that a sample of 122 supports was selected frem l
the piping systems which have generally shown large percentage load increases.
Based on the information currently available, we find this sampling basis to be inadequate. As previously requested by the staff in Question 110.40-2a, provide the amount that the 699 anchor and support directions identified in Paragraphs 2b.18 and 2b.19 of the response exceed their specified design load. Using this information, justify the sample size of 122 supports (191 anchor and support directions).
1 110.43 Paragraph 2b.22 of the response to Question 110.40-2b states that the load definition for the sample supports was refined to reduce some of the known conservatisms in the analysis.
Paragraphs 2b.35 and 2b.37 also state I
that some supports were reanalyzed to confirm design j
adequacy.
These statements do not contain an j
acceptable response to Question 110.40-2b.
Provide a quantitative discussion of how the inherent design conservatisms were applied to the reanalysis.
l l
-. -.. _ _ ~ _ -, -
, _ _ - _ _. _.._. -