ML20247G635
| ML20247G635 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/20/1989 |
| From: | Fields M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Charemagne Grimes Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8907280143 | |
| Download: ML20247G635 (7) | |
Text
_.
- j M * *4, UNITED STATES M,. 8"
'g.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,*g-p WASHINGTON, D. C,20556
- (.
July 20, 1989
!~
i Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Christopher I. Grimes, Director Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation THRU:
ames H. Wilson, Assistant Director for Projects Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Mel Fields, Project Nanager Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
FORTHCOMING MEETING
- WITH TV ELECTRIC Date & Time:
Monday, July 31, 1989 l
10:00 am - 5:00 pm Location:
3 Metro Center I
Suite 610 Bethesda, MD 20814
Purpose:
To discuss FSAR Sections 3.7 and 3.8 for Comanche Peak Unit 1 (see attached agenda)
Participants *:
NRC TU Electric C Rinaldi T. Hicks, et al K. Bandyopadhyoy, BNL M. Fields
,h~~2
/
Mel Fields, Project Nanager l
Co;aanche Peak Project Division
)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
cc: See next page 1
CONTACT (s)
Nel Fields or Melinda Malloy l
(301)492-0765 (301)492-0738
)
)
- Meetings between NRC technical staff and applicants for licenses are open for interested members of the public, petitioners, interveners, or other parties to attend as observers pursuant to "Open Meetings and Statement of NRC Staff Policy," 43. Federal Register 28058, 6/28/78.
u
//Qs 8907280143 890720 r
r 1
PDR ADOCK 05000445
(
r A
PDC g
i l'
.y A
y cc:
Asst. Director for Inspec. Programs Joseph F. Fulbright I
Comanche Peak Project Division Fulbright & Jaworski U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1301 McKinney Street P. O. Box 1029 Houston, Texas 77010 Granbury, Texas 76048 Roger D. Walker Regional Administrator, Region IV Manager, Nuclear Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Texas Utilities Electric Compny i
611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Skyway Tower Arlington, Texas 76011 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Lanny A. Sinkin Christic Institute Texas Utilities Electric Company i
1324 North Capitol Street c/o Bethesda Licensing Washington, D.C.
20002 3 Metro Center, Suite 610 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde, Esq.
Garde Law Office William A. Burchette, Esq.
104 East Wisconsin Avenue Counsel for Tex-La Electric Cooperative Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 of Texas Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell Susan M. Theisen 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C.
20007 Environmental Protection Division P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station GDS ASSOCIATES, INC Austin, Texas 78711-1548 Suite'720 1850 Parkway Place
.Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President Marietta, Georgia 3000 -8237 Citizens Association for Sound Energy 1426 Scuth Polk Jack R. Newman j
Dallas, Texas 75224 Newman & Holtzinger 1615 L Street, NW E. F. Ottney Suite 1000 P. O. Box 1777 Washington, DC 20036 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 i
George A. Parker, Chairman Public Utility Committee Senior Citizens Alliance of 1
Tarrant County, Inc.
l 6048 Wonder Drive l
Fort Worth, Texas 76133 Mr. W. J. Cahill, Jr.
3 Executive Vice President, Nuclear i
Texas Utilities Electric Company I
400 No. Olive Street, L.B. 81 1
Dallas, Texas 75201 1
1 f
l
\\
o i
E _ - _ -- --_--_ - _
DJ
PROPOSED AGENDA FOR NRC/TU ELECTRIC MEETING ON COMANCHE PEAK FSAR SECTIONS 3.7 AND 3.8 July 31, 1989 i
i 10:00 am - 10:15 am Introduction and Opening Remarks 10:15 am - 5:00 pm Discussion of issues / questions listed below FSAR SECTION 3.7:
1.
The correction to FSAR Section 3.78.1.2 on page 3.7B-2, identified as i
Evaluation No. 3.7-007-3.7.1-Q has not been impleented in the current j
version of the FSAR (Amendment 68). Revise the FSAR to incorporate your j
commitment for Evaluation No. 3. 7-007-3. 7.1-Q.
3 I
2.
Evaluation No. 3.7-009-3.7.1-N discusses the approval of Code Case H-411, which is endorsed by R.G.I.84 Rev. 24, and states that, " conditions of approval require FSAR documentation of all stress problems using this Code Caso". This information is not found in Amendment 68 to the FSAR, i
Provide this information.
3.
Figures 3.7 B-41 thru-50 have been intentionally deleted from the FSAR.
Indicate the reason for this deletion and discuss if it represents a change in the proposed analyses procedures and potential safety implication of the change, as applicabic.
4.
Provide clarification on the following issues related to FSAR Section 3.78.2.9, which addresses the effects of parameter variations on the floor response spectra:
a)
The peaks should be widened by 10% rather than only 10%.
b)
Specify the parametric bounds that were used to obtain the reference peaks used for widening (e.g. best estimate).
c)
Distuss the parametric studies, e.g. the various parametric values used in the analyses and the resulting responses.
d)
Justify the use of the maximum vertical ground acceleration lower I
than the maximum horizontal accelerations over the entire frequency l
range as opposed to the requirements of RG 1.60.
5.
Evaluation No. 3.7-054-3.7.2 requires revisions to the structural model for the Service Water Intake Structure. Discuss how the effect of the structural backfill for the Service Water Intake Structure was accounted for in the calculation of the soil spring stiffness values.
6.
The FSAR sh%1d include a discussior, on the seismic analysis of Category i tanks.
l 7.
In your discussion for the development of Floor Response Spectra (Section l
3.7B.2.5, page 3.7 6-40) you mention the tenn, " Typical refined response spectra." Provide an explanation of this statement.
l 8.
In Section 3.78.2.8, yoa state that the internal bracing of the Turbine Building will prevent its failure during a seismic event.
Provide information which will support this statement.
l I
l-l
i g-9.
-Evaluation No. 3.7-039-3.7.3 identifies a reduction of the number of the maximum amplitude loading cycles for OBE and SSE.
Provide a correlation of or the basis for the proposed number of cycles with those of the time history used in the analyses.
- 10. Provide definitions for p and /S in pages 3.7N-10 and -18.
- 11. Clarify whether "the envelopefloor response spectrum," identified'in page 3.7 N29, envelops the acceleration values for all pipe support locations at all applicable frequencies.
3
- 12. State whether you have used the Power Spectral Density Function, as stated in page 3.78-14, in the seismic qualification of equipment.
If it has been utilized, provide the applicable information in the FSAR.
- 13. Clarify bow the horizontal and vertical accelerations have been combined. The first paragraph of Section 3.78.3.8.2 is not clear and j
specific enough to address this staff concern.
FSAR Section 3-8:
- 14. Provide the results of your determination of the ultimate capacity of the contaiment structure and discuss the analytical procedures as per the requirements of US NRC SRP NUREG-0800 Section 3.8.
Also, specify the extent of plastic deformation allowed in the structural evaluation of CPSES components.
15.
Identify and discuss the desi n codes utilized in the determination of thermal stresses for CPSES.
Evaluation No. 3.8-012-3.8.1-U)
- 16. Specify the stud welding equipment that did not satisfy the requirements of CC-4543(a) and justify the basis of its acceptance.
- 17. Address the following staff concerns:
a)
How do the new analysis results compare with the old analysis and, for the containment, compare them with the test results.
b)
For the containment analysis, state how the strains from the cylindrical wall analysis compare with those from the new analysis at or near the boundary locations.
c)
Also justify and discuss the following statement: " Properties of materials are known with sufficient accuracy, and assumption made i
are sufficiently conservative so that other variations need not be considered." (Top of page 3,8-40).
j l
1
4 '
r
, 18. Provide a more descriptive detail of the electrical penetration, e.g.,
0-ring, pressure monitoring, junction box, etc, identified in Figure 3.8-8.
- 19. Identify the controlling weights of the equipment supported by the overlay plates ard structural shapes attached to the liner plate.
- 20. The overlay plate welded to the liner plate is similar to a thickened liner plate.
Discuss why the requirements for a thickened liner plate should not be applicable to an overlay plate as we?,1.
21.
For personnel airlock, clarify your statement, "no additional requirements
.for blocking beyond normal locking procedure." (Page 3.8-4)
- 22. Provide clarification regarding the use of the folicwing requirements of the AISC and ACI design codes:
(a) State if the development length criterion satisfies ACI-318-83.
If not, provide details and basis for the non-conformance.
(b) Specify that the AISC allowable values used in these formulas do not include the 33% increase in allowable stresses provided by the AISC code.
- 23. The responses to Questions 130.25 and 130.28 do not provide requested specific information. You stated compliance with SRPs 3.8.3 and 3.8.4.
However, Q.130.25 requests a listing and discussions of physical changes and Q.130.28 requests infomation pertaining to controlling sections of Category I Structures, resulting from the use of criteria identified in ACI 318 and SRPs 3.8.1, 3.8.3, and 3.8.4.
Address Q.130.25 and Q.130.28 with more pertinent 'infomation for staff review and evaluation.
- 24. The last paragraph on page 3.8-23 allows the reduction of a fillet weld by not more than 1/16 inch. Provide justification for the proposed acceptance criteria. Also, justify why only indications greater than 1/16 inch are required to be examined by Liquid Penetrant or Magnetic Particle methods.
)
- 25. We recognize that various concrete codes were used for CPSES at different times and that certain exceptions have been taken to these codes, as Etated in the FSAR. However, you should clearly state as to the extent CPSES com-1 plies with the current codes referenced in the SRP (e.g. ASME Section III, Division 2 and ACI 349) and the applicable provisions of the above listed regulatory guides.
26.
In page 3 8-90 you state that,
- Local Section strength may be exceeded for CPSES structural components". Specify the maximum extent the local strength capacity has been exceeded for the affected CPSES design and bases for accepting the local section strength exceedances.
]
1
- g;/
- ., m. ;
'O
- 4., :;
27.
In Evaluation No. 3.8-068-3.8.2, it is implied that the structural material list is not complete and that the Engineer may approve the use of equivalent material. State if this practice applies for any major and miscellaneous structure components or just minor, non safety related
. components.. Olscuss how 'this approach would guarantee adherence to the design requirements of the design codes, SRPs,-RGs and other applicable Standards.
I 28.
In Evaluation No. 3.8-078-3.8.3, you state that the PCI acceptance criteria:can be used for brackets and corbels design in place of the ACI 318-77 acceptance criteria.. Thel FSAR requires adherence to the ACI-requirements. Therefore, provide a. comparison of the applicable requirements and a discussion on the acceptability of the PCI criteria-Specific examples need to be discussed in your submittal.
29.
Identify the missing information between Sections 3.8.5.3.3 and 3.8.5.4.3, or. address why this information has been deleted.
I L
i' i
L 4
July 20, 1989 DISTRIBUTION FOR MEETING NOTICE DATED JULY 31, 1989 Sddosh$Id NS7
-NRC PDR Local PDR ADSP Reading CPPD Reading DCrutchfield TQuay CGrimes PMcKee JHWilson l
JLyons RWarnick BZalcman JPartlow MMalloy MFields CHaughney OGC EJordan BGrimes Guard's Desk (WF)
NRC Participants ACRS(10)
GPA/PA JGilliland,RIV/PA CPPDjNRR AD:CPP RR MFfeuds:cm JHWils 07/w/89 07?)of DFo(
I g
i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -