ML20214G550
| ML20214G550 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1972 |
| From: | Maccary R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Boyd R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0123, CON-WNP-123 NUDOCS 8605220271 | |
| Download: ML20214G550 (7) | |
Text
1 NAY 31 1972 1
i 1
Roger S. Boyd, Assistant Director for BUR's, Directorate of Licensing
)
HANFORD NUCLIAR gTATION, UNIT 2, DOCKET No. 50-397 Adequate responses to the enclosed Request for Additiemal Information by the L Meshanical Engineering Branch are required before we can souplete our review of the subject application. These requests sencarn the reactor internal structures, reactor ooelant pressure boundary, seismic design criteria, and pipe whip criteria submitted in Sections 3, 4, 5,12 and Appendix C of the PSAR and Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 5.
The position of the applicant on pipe whip reflects General Electric's generic position that, among other outstanding items, does not postulate breaks in straight pipe ras. Our final review of the applicants proposed pipe whip criteria will be deferred pending the development of a regulatory position on this matter.
In addition to the above requests, adequate responses to our previous request for information on Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (dated 2/17/72 and pertaining to Amendment 19 to the Quad Cities saation) are also required. The Quad Cities Aa.endment 19 relates to the General Electric program on a generic basis and therefore is applicable to the subject application.
This request for additional information supplements the previous request dated November 26, 1971.
0*++nm s,n,c g' so w y f)C g :~ L ' ~397 R. R. mm E. R. Maccary, Assistant Director for kasetor safety Direc} orate of Licensing ec w/encle E. J. Bloch, DDR
- g. R. Banauer, DRTA J. M. Hendrie L l
F. gebroeder, L l
R. Clark, L l
D. Lange, L
- g. Miner, L
- g. Hou, L K. Espur, L J. Richardson, L
- wNE **1 t
, [.5:
L : ME....... '
.L L gy..
w D,. A' me......Q...k......
t W. G. Itc Do.. ld_,, L,
k
,b L
na h s wesso. L R... har ?.aq.= x -
9=r
.. nou 2. m ry DATE >
.~.....
5./ ].f/.7.2..
Form AEC-51, (Res 9-53: AECM 0240
- o en-te-s:ees-i en-c?s 8605220271 720531 PDR ADOCK 05000397 A
PDR l
HANFORD NUCLEAR STATION - UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-397 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A.
Reactor 1.
The answer to Question 3.2, Amendment 2, concludes that the dynamic effects of LOCA to reactor internals can be treated statically, because the frequencies of the applied forces are 10 times lower than the systems natural frequencies. Provide a sucraary of your analyses and results which led to such frequency separation. In addition, provide a discussion of tha following (1) flow modes which are considered as the possible initial condition cf LOCA which may have a wide frequency band width in the range of the response natural frequencies.
(2) the shock nature of the transient forcing function caused by the sudden occurrence of LOCA that may also introduce a wide frequency band width.
t I
e
B.
Provide the dynamic testing procedures used in the design of Category I mechanical equipment (such as fans, pump drives, valve operators, heat exchanger tube bundles) to withstand seismic, accident and operational vibratory loading conditions, including the methods and procedures employed which consider the frequency spectra and amplitudes calculated to exist at the equipment supports.
Where tests or analyses do not include evaluation of the equipment in the operating mode, describe the bases for assuring that this equip-ment will function when subjected to seismic accident loadings and vibratory loadings.
2.
Justify the answer to Question 4.19, Amendment 2 that states inherently, under restricted deformation criteria, calculated primary stresses will be in the elastic range. State whether all active components will be designed in the elastic range during emergency and faulted conditions; justify any exceptions noted in your response.
3.
The answer to Question 4.20, Amendment 2 states that the valve pressure boundary integrity design will be per NB 3500 of AS"E Section III and the pump pressure boundary integrity design will be per NB 3410 (a)
(
and manufacturer's calculations based on ASME Section VIII. NB 3500 and NB 3410 (a) do not address themselves to emergency and faulted conditions. If paragraphs NB-3655 and NB-3656 are not employed, provide the stress limits to be used for inactive pumps and valves under emergency and faulted conditions and justify the basis for their application.
4 The answer to Question 4.23, Amendment 2 states that the " Report on Overpressure Protection" will not be submitted until the FSAR is published. To facilitate. our review, provide the basis and ana-lytical approach (e.g., preliminary analyses) that will ba used s
to establish the overpressure relieving capacity required for the reactor coolant pressure boundary.
l C.
Plant Structures and Shieldine, 1.
The use of 20% of critical damping for horizontal and vertical response for the soil structure interaction may not be conservative.
Provide justification for the use of this high damping value instead of using a more appropriate critical damping factor.
2.
Response to Question 12.14, Amendment 2 is not satisfactory. The use of static factors for design of systems and components should be justified by demonstrating that the contribution of all significant dynamic modes of vibratory response under seismic excitation have been included.
3.
The response contained in Paragraph 2.3.1 of the answer to Ouestion 12.18, Amendment 2 is unacceptable. The leak tightness of the primary contain-ment fission product barrier should be maintained throughout any pipe break event regardless of any analysis that might show that offsite close consequences are less than 10 CFR 100 guidelines.
4.
Paragraph 2.5.1.1 of the answer to Question 12.18, Amendment 2 states that plastic instability analyses may be performed. Provide a descrip-tion of the procedures which will be applied to assure the validity of the results obtained from these analyses.
5.
Paragraph 2.5.1.2 of the answer to Question 12.18, Amendment 2 states that strains shall not be excessive based on a percentage of static ultimate strain or fatigue cyclic strain. Provide the quantitative strain limits to be used.
6.
Table 12.2-3 of the PSAR shows a list of containment penetration load combinations and categories. Load combination C is listed as a faulted condition. Provide justification for considering this combination as a Faulted Condition.
1 a
e I
I
D D.
Equipment Desien Criteria 1.
Regarding the use of faulted condition stress limits fer Class B and C equipment as shown in Paragraph C.5.2.3 of the PSAR, provide the following:
a.
A specific identi:1:ation of the pressure containing components and piping for which you intend to use faulted condition stress limits.
b.
The loading combinations (including accidents and seismic events) for which, these faulted conditions would apply.
c.
A detailed description of the method (s) you intend to use to calculate the component and piping stresses. Justify these calculational methods relative to the applicable codes, d.
The basis for exceeding the limits comparable to the emergency con-dition limits of Section III of the ASME Code when Normal plus Safe p
Shutdown Earthquake loadings are used for seismic design in the absence of postulated pipe ruptures.
l l
l 1
.