ML20234F599
| ML20234F599 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, 05000447 |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1975 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20234A777 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-40 NUDOCS 8707080274 | |
| Download: ML20234F599 (6) | |
Text
p ',
(
+
RECE:VED MAR 4 1975 1975 MAR 6 ' Pli! 3 44 SUPPLEMENT NO. 3
'J.S.470gjc... @. 7 TenisE SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN TE MATTER, OF GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
' GENERAL ELECTRIC STANDARD SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT DOCKET NO. STN 50-447 0
8 4
8707080274 870610 PDR FOIA THOMASB7-40 PDR
nn~
i 1
I k
1-1 l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) in the matter of the General Electric Standard Safety t
Analysis Report (GESSAR) was issued on November 13, 1974. Suppiament No.1 to that SER was issued on December 7,1974 and Supplement No.
2 on February 21, 1975.
In that report and the supplements, the staff noted that there were (1) areas where the applicant had not supplied enough information for the staff to complete its review, (2) items where the staff had only recently received informatica from GE and had not completed its review, and (3) certain staff requirements that would be made conditions of the Preliminary Design Approval (PDA) unless GE made commitments to meet these requirements.
The purpose of this supplement is to update the SER and Supplements 1 and 2 by providing the staff's evaluation of additional information received since the issuance of those documents. Each of the following sections in this supplement is numbered the same as the section of the SER that is being updated.
Where appropriate, item numbers af ter each topic refer to the item number in the list of outstanding issues dated November 5, 1974, issued with the staff SER and most recently revised with the February supplement.
1 1
f b
~
1-2 1.8 Requirements for Future Technical'Information' 1.8.1 Development of BWR Technology General Electric Company has recently informed us that '
~
as a result of the normal design process, certain modificatimes are expected to be made in the BWR/6 8x8 fuel design. These changes are being made to improve the performance of the fuel during normal operations.. An added effect is that the average power density would be reduced'. These changes would occur -
as a result of the normal progression of the design process, and had not the GESSAR' review been delayed, they would have l'
occurred post-PDA.
The present schedule calls for GE to submit a topical report discussing the design changes late -
this year. We will develop our review schedule later this year.. In the event the proposed changes are not acceptable, the present fuel design described in Section 4 of GESSAR and our SER would be acceptable. We consider this acceptable for the issuance of a PDA for GE.
l
f l
1
\\
i 3-1 3.0 DESIGN OF STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS 3.2 Classification of Structures, Systems and Components 3.2.1 Seismic Classification (Item 1)
In Supple =ent No. 2 to the SER we noted that we could accept less than a Category I seismic analysis for the offgas system.
We also stated that we were pursuing with GE and the industry methods of arsuring that frequent releases could not occur without Leeting Category I requirements.
i P4 sed on further evaluations and discussions, we have r==had the following conclusions.
- 1) For the evaluation of the Off-Gas System support elements, GE should adopt a simplified seismic analysis procedure to determine seismic loads. The simplified procedure consists of consideration of the system as a single degree of freedom system and picking up a seismic response value from applicable floor response spectra,' once the fundamental frequency of the system is determined. The floor response spectra are to be obtained using a simplified analytical model (e.g. a one or two degree of freedom system) from application of the Regulatory Guide 1.60 design response spectra normalized to OBE level minimum ground acceleration at the foundation of the building housing the Off-Gas System.
1
3-2
- 2) The allowable stresses to.be used for the system support I
elements should be those given in the AISC Manual of 1
Steel Construction, 7th edition 1970, including the l
one-third allowable stress increase provision for load.
-]
')
combinations involving earthquake loads. For design of f
1 concrete foundations of the system, where applicable, use i
of the ACI 318-71 Code with one-third increase in allowable stresses for seismic loads will be acceptable.
- 3) The Quality Sta adards Group D (Augmented) should apply to i
\\
the Off-Gas fystem excluding its support elements. The cDustruction and inspection requirements for the' support elements should comply with those stipulated in AISC or I
ACI Codes as appropriate.
i l
We have recently informed GE of the above conclusions, but they I
have not responded.
j l
l 1
1 l
1 i
l
___---_---d
, : o....
e
~
A-1 i
APPENDIX A Continuation of Chronology February 28,.1975 Amendment 29 filed. This amendment addresses out-standing issues listed-in the September 12, 1974 letter to GE.
r I
5 9
4 o
^ '
n,..
- em i
ay.-
MAR 4 1975 SUPPLEMENI NO. 3
.I.
j i
TO THE SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
IN THE MATTER OF GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY GENERAL ELECTRIC STANDARD SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT DOCKET NO. STN 50-447 ACRS Office Copy - 3etain\\
for the Life o:? tLae Committee l
- 4ff) M t% Vh V!9 W c m d '1 A & q +o ri L g
ii r
rotwt s
..-.-..a..
z._
m -
i
~e,,
b?
i i
1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
I p
The Nuclear Regulatory. Commission's Safety Evaluation Report L
(SER) in the matter of the' General Electric Standard Safety-l.
Analysis Report (GESSAR) was issued on November 13, 1974. Supplement No. l' to' that SER was issued on December 7,1974 and Supplement No.
2 on February 21, 1975.
In that report and the supplements, the' i
staff noted that there were (1) areas where the applicant had not supplied inaugh information.for the staff to complete its review, 1
l (2) items where the staff had only recently received information from GE and had not completed its review, and (3) certain staff requirements that would be made conditions of the Preliminary Design Approval (PDA) unless GE made commitments to meet.these i
requirements.
The purpose of this supplement is to update the SER and Supplements 1 and 2 by providing the staff's evaluation of additional information received since the issuance of those documents.
Each of the following sections in this s_pplement is numbered the same as the section of the SER that is being updated.
i I~
Where appropriate, item numbers af ter each topic refer to the item number in the list of outstanding issues dated November 5, 1974, issued with the staff SER and most recently revised with the February supplement.
j N
____._____c,
., ?
g.
'd..
1-2 1.8 Requirements for Future Technical Information 1.8.1
-Development of BWR Technology General Electric Company has recently informed us that as a result of'the normal design process, certain modifications.
are expected to be made in the BWR/6 8x8 fuel design. These changes are being made to improve the performance of the fuel during normal operations. An added effect is that the average power density would be reduced. These changes would occur 1
as a result of the normal progression of the design process, and had not the GESSAR review been delayed, they would have occurred post-PDA.
The present schedule calls for GE to 1
submit a topical report discussing the design changes late this year. We will develop our review schedule later this j
l year.
In the event the proposed changes are not acceptable, j
1.
1 l
the present fuel design described in Section 4 of GESSAR and our SER would be acceptable. Ve consider this acceptable for the issuance of a PDA for GE.
l 4
I I
l J
l l
=
l l
I i
l i
-~
l 3-1 3.0 DESIGN OF STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS 3.2 Classification of Structures, Systems and Components l
3.2.1 Seismic Classification (Item 1) t In Supplement No. 2 to the SER we noted that we could accept less than a Category I seismic analysis for the offgas system.
j We also stated that we were pursuing with GE and the industry
\\
l methods of assuring that frequent releases could not occur without meeting Category I requirements.
Based on further evaluations and discussions, we have reached the following conclusions.
- 1) For the evaluation of the Off-Gas System support elements, GE should adopt a simplified seismic analysis procedure to determine seismic loads. The simplified procedure consists of consideration of the system as a single degree of freedom system and picking up a seismic response i
value from applicable floor response spectra,'once the j
fundamental frequency of the system is determined. The floor respYnse spectra are to be obtained using a simplified analytical model (e.g. a one or two degree of freedom system) from application of the Regulatory Guide 1.60 design response spectra normalized to OBE level minimum ground acceleration at the foundation of the i
building housing the Off-Gas System.
I
\\
r
..m
-9 4...'.-
342 1
- 2) The allowable stresses to be used for the system support
- elements should be those given in the AISC Manual of Steel Construction, 7th edition 1970, including the one-third allowable stress increase provision for load combinations involving earthquake loads. For design of concrete foundations of the sy' stem, where applicable, use of the ACI 318-71 Code with one-third increase in allowable' stresses for seismic loads will be acceptable.
' 3) The Quality Standards Group D (Augmented) should apply to the Off-Gas System excluding its support elements. The construction and inspection requirements for the support elements should comply with those s,tipulated in AISC or ACI Codes'as appropriate.
We have recently informed GE of the above conclusions, but they have not responded.
i
.I J
9 0
0
_m
.-m-
A-1 APPENDIX A Continuation of Chronology February 28, 1975 Amendment 29 filed. This amendment addresses out-standing issues listed in the September 12, 1974 letter to CE.
I i
l I
l l
i h
- l
_e_________.
- --r.-
w- =A
7eoasp,2 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 FEB 211975 D75 FEB 24 k1 9 33 AdV kYbdbifE 0$
Raymond F. Fraley, Executive Secretary REACTOR SMEGUARDS Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Transmitted for information of the Committee are two (2) copies of the following document:
Letter to Mr. Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Containment Safety, Division of Technical Review, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, from Mr. Ivan F. Stuart.
Manager, Safety and Licensing, General Electric Company, I
regarding Relief Valve Vent Clearing and Steam Quenching i
Vibrations.
Ph %
Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Containment Safety Division of Technical Review Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc: NRCPDR(w/ encl)
%{F(3$ffkhf$
Ar'~3 emovewom aso
- s.19 @
/
3 GEN ER AL h ELECTRIC
, NUCLEAR ENERGi DIVISION GENERAL ELE 5RIC COMPANY,175 CURTNER AVENUE, SAN JOSE, CAllFOGM Mail Code Phone (408) 297-3000 TWX NO. 910-338-0116 BWR PROJECTS DEPARTl l
i E3 FEE 24' tal 9 33 J.5, ATOM.C :
+ iCOMM.
ADVISORY COMMilTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS February 14, 1975 j h~
x lx.
W/;. '..
c.'f 0f? l s
-\\
- R].
Ql ml j.,e.
1, g R.L. Tedesco
'% '",E
' ~ ' ' '
Assistant Director for
+.
- .,'. ) '
's Containment Safety Directorate of Licensing Office of Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 SITBJECT:
RELIEF VALVE VENT CLEARING AND STEAM QUENCHING VIBRATIONS
Reference:
Letter to I.F. Stuart from R.L. Tedesco, January 17, 1975
Dear Mr. Tedesco:
In the reference letter you asked for a schedule by which GE would submit information relating to the verification gf the modeling for relief valve initial clearing loads as well as the evaluation of the potential for vibrations due to relief valve discharge to a hot suppression pool. The comments expressed during the generic Mark III Containment meeting held here on February 12 and 13 together with the specific items identified in the reference letter are being incorporated into the program planned for resolution of these concerns.
The program and schedule are to be reviewed internally and then transmitted to you by Maren 3,1165.
s g
.&M Iva F.
tuar, Manager SafetyandLicensink
@*"2* ACRSOFF!DE00PY Jo so: Remove from ACRS00c BE SURE TO INCLUDE Mall CODE ON RETURN CORRESPONDENCE
- 172,
- A