ML20235D908
Text
_ - _ - - _
I Dit tbution:
Dockee (2)d:::--
ACRS (16)
WNyer (2)
DR Reading Newmark & i DRL Reading Apg 7 197l BWR-1 File CKBeck Docket Nos. 50-324' MMMann and 50-325 SHanauer FSchroeder Asst. Directors, DRL EGCase, DRS j
Mr. J. A. Jones RRMaccary, DRS I
Senior Vice President SERS Group (2)
BGrimes, DRL Operating & Engineering Group Carolina Power & Light Company Br. Chiefs, DRL/DRS SMKari 336 Fayetteville Street WRButler Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 DKartalia, oGC
Dear Mr. Jones:
Compliance (2)
We have reviewed Design Report Hos. 7 and 8 on the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant which you filed with your ~1etters dated December 22 1970 and February 26, 1971.
As you know Design Report No. 7 contains structural design information for the Brunswick containments and Design Report No. 8 provides your analysis of the consequences of a small steamline break within the drywell.
We have found. a need for additional information, as detailed in the enclosed " Request for Additional Information," to complete our review of the matters addressed in these reports.
If you have any questions on the above, please contact me.
Sincerely.
Originel SWd by Fras: S.'.
.? r
/
[ p Peter A. Forris, Director Division of Reactor Licensing
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire ec:
Shaw, Pittman, Potts, Trowbridge 6 Madden 910 17th Street, N.W.
7.
C.
20006
/
s OFFICE )
.D.E1 [.SM.d7.1..
IN...pR
.Q WRButler:e oy m
SURNAME >..DERMth.........
.m_.
..[.Schrged e r.
oArE >
4./5/71 4/h/.71 4 /,[. / 71 4/7./7,1 Form A EC.318 (Rev, B-63 u.s. Govtna um remTwo orrict 2196,- o-364-s os 0709250403 870921 Z8 1
7_
UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20$45 April 7, 1971 Docket Nos. 50-324 and 50-325 Mr. J. - A. Jones Senior Vice President Operating & Engineering Group Carolina Power & Light Company 336'Fayetteville Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Jones:
We have reviewed Design Report Nos. '7' and 8 on 'the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant which you filed with your letters dated December 22, 1970 and February 26, 1971. As you know Design Report No. 7 contains structural design information.for the Brunswick containments and Design Report No. 8 provides your analysis of the consequences of a small steamline break within the drywell.
We have found a need for additional information, as detailed in the enclosed " Request for Additional Information," to complete our review of the matters addressed in these reports.
If you have any questions on the above, please contact me.
Sincerely, Peter A. Morris, Director Division of Reactor Licensing
Enclosure:
l Request for Additional Information cc:
G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts, Trowbridge & Madden 910 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20006
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1.0 DESIGN REPORT NO. 7 1.1 The statement that the suppression chamber liner is in complete tension under accident loading requires further substantiation in view of the temperature gradients assumed in Figure 45.
A gradient profile different from that indicated in Figure 45 which would show a significant drop at the liner / concrete interface due to the thermal effects of the interface boundary and the masses of water and concrete is likely.
Consider such a gradient to exist during the containment pressurization accident and, assuming that a long-term period is required before stabilization of the gradient can take place, discuss whether the suppression chamber liner is then in a state of tension, or whether compressive buckling may take place.
(ref: p.1-3, Fig. 45).
1.2 Describe the checking procedures which will be used as a means of design control (as part of the AEC Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants - 10 CFR Part 50 - Appendix B) to determine the validity of the computer analyses, with regard to correct input data, procedures and results, as applicable to the design of the containment structure.
1.3 Furnish the design stress limits used in the analyses to check the adequacy of design as referred to on pages 1-3 and 6-1.
1.4 Since the analysis presented is limited to axisymmetrical loading, describe the manner in which non-symmetric loads, such as earthquake, were taken into account in the design of the containment structure.
1.5 The combined load equations on page 4-7 do not include local load effects, such as jet load or pipe thrust and the statement on page 6-1 does not provide an adequate explanation of how these loads are accounted for.
Furnish the loading assumptions made, and the design methods and criteria used for these loads.
1.6 It appears that the cracking pattern at the top and bottom of the drywell which is described on pages 4-20, 21 and in Figure 24 is assumed to be l
oriented at 45. Justify the use of this angle of cracking, since it may not be conservative with respect to the amount of shear reinforcing provided.
l 4
)
, 2.0 DESIGN REPORT NO. 8 2.1 State why the vent pipe penetration and the personnel lock penetration will be the only sleeves designed to meet the governing load equation of 1.1D+P20+T340 as noted on page 6-2, in view of the fact that all containment penetrations may be subjected to the loadings of this equation.
_ _ _ - _ _ _ -. -