ML13304A644
| ML13304A644 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 08/15/1980 |
| From: | Lipinski R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13304A641 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8008220124 | |
| Download: ML13304A644 (11) | |
Text
ATTACHMENT 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY,
)
)50-362 OL (San Onofre Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Units 2 and 3)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF ROMUALD E. LIPINSKI CONCERNING INTERVENOR CONTENTION 1(a) (DEWATERING WELLS)
- 1. I am currently a structural engineer, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regula tion of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, (NRC). In my position I am responsible for review and evaluation of safety analysis reports with regard to structural and earthquake engineering aspects of nuclear power plants. A detailed resume of my professional qualifications is attached.
- 2. Southern California Edison Company (SCE) has identified and evaluated the dewatering wells which might have a potential effect on structures at SONGS 2 amd 3. Out of the twelve dewatering wells, wells 6, 7 and 8 have been identified as those which because of their size and proximity
'to Category I structures, might be of concern./
The results of analysis well 8, the largest and most proximate well to seismic Class I structures, were extrapolated to wells 6 and 7.
1/ Iwo wells are located offsite.
8008220/9zQ
-2 The information concerning the techniques used for investigation of the cavities has been reviewed by the Hydrology and Geotechnical Engi neering Branch (see Affidavit of John T. Greeves) and have been found acceptable. For my part, I reviewed the "Report on the Results of Analyses Performed on Well 8 at the SONGS Units 2 and 3, San Onofre, California" by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, August 25, 1980, and Enclo sure 4 to the letter from J. C. Haynes to Robert Baer, dated January 21, 1980, which contained Reanalysis of Electrical Cable Tunnel Structure, Proprietary and Confidential, dated December 27, 1979. (Reference 7 of the Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition), as well as confirmatory calculations submitted on the electrical tunnel
- 3. Basically, the Applicants' analyses consisted of comparing the present stiffness of the soil, due to the cavity, to the stiffness of the original foundation material at the site.
The applicants determined that the maximum increase in settlement do decrease in stiffness.due to the cavity occurs at wells 7 and 8 and is about 8 percent at the fuel handling structure, Unit 3, and about 5 percent at the containment structure, Unit 3 (less than 1/10 inch).
- 4. The effects of the cavity on the settlement of structures were also investigated by calculating the potential change in volume of the soil in well 8 beneath the containment structure due to the drainage of excess pore water pressures. Since the pore water pressure exerted by water occupying the voids in the soil is related to shear strength of
-3 the soil, by calculating volumetric changes in soil voids, its bearing capacity and hence the amount of settlement can be estimated. The maximum settlement of the containment structure calculated this way was less than 1/10 inch.
- 5. Based on the foregoing, the applicants determined and the Staff con curred, that the only Category I structure which might be affected by the dewatering wells is the seismic Category I electrical tunnel struc ture which is located next to the containment base of Unit 3 and spanning across the cavity of well 8. The Bechtel Power Corporation analyzed the capability of the tunnel to span across the cavity for a distance of 25 feet. This electrical tunnel extends from the safety equipment building to the fuel handling building between the contain ment structure and the tank building and houses safety-related electri cal cables. It is 17'-0" high and 13'-0" wide on the outside dimensions; its roof and floor slabs are 2'-0" thick and the walls are '-6".
- 6. In order to assess the width of the cavity, the analysis was performed using finite element method. In that analysis, soil and the structures were postulated as a combined system and the dynamic response of the soil-structure system was evaluated using the computer program FLUSH.
The model incorporated the Unit 3 containment structure, the tunnel structure, the grout and the soil filled cavity. The artificial time history of acceleration representing the postulated design basis earth quake (DBE) previously developed for SONGS 2 and 3 was used as the
-4 control motion for the response computations.
The control motion was specified at the finished grade of the plant site; a peak acceleration of 2/3g and total duration of 80 seconds was used.
- 7. The structural analysis of the tunnel was performed by the applicants and the major assumptions used are listed below:
- a. The stiffness of the foundation material was reduced to zero within the area where the ratio of pore pressure is greater than 0.3. The span of 25 feet, for the tunnel, was estimated on that basis.
- b. Combination of three components of seismic response was done using the method described in the NUREG/CR-0098, "Development of Criteria for Seismic Review of Selected Nuclear Power Plants" by N. M. Newmark Consulting Engineering Services, Urbana, Illinois, May 1978.
- c. The tunnel was assumed to behave as a box-type beam for flexural consideration. The change in cross-section has been disregarded.
- d. Seismic loading has been calculated using 1.5 times the peak response of the applicable response spectrum. The response spectra used are the same as those used for other Category I structures of the San Onofre Plant Units 2 and 3.
- 8. The analysis submitted by the applicants was reviewed by the Staff.
Although we agreed with the mechanics of the analysis, several questions were brought up regarding the basic assumptions. The most critical
-5 of these questions are with reference to assumptions (b), and (c) as listed above. The reasons for these questions are as follows:
- 1. With respect to assumptions (b), the calculations did not use the method approved by the Staff, i.e., SRSS. (Square root, sum of the squares) (SRP § 3.7.2). Consequently, the Staff felt that combination of the three-dimentional components of seismic motion should not be based entirely on these criteria.
In view of the above, the Staff could not confirm the correctness of the calcula tions, and for that reason the applicants were requested to perform a confirmatory analysis based on the criteria delineated in the Standard Review Plan, Section 3.7, in order to verify that the method used by the applicant to combine the three components of ground motion was conservative.
- 2.
With respect to assumption (c), although we concur with the appli cants that the assumption that the tunnel has a uniform cross section will result in the lower foundamental frequency, which is the most significant because it results in the highest amplitude of vibratory motion and hence produces the highest stresses, we felt that the stresses in the area of discontinuity of the tunnel may be higher when the abrupt change in the cross-section is considered, and for this reason we believed that the actual con figuration of the tunnel should be investigated. This conclusion was based on the commonly accepted fact that a break in uniformity
-6 of the cross-section of a member produces "stress risers" and very often it becomes the critical section from the point of view of structural design. Furthermore, the analysis did not consider stresses due to longitudinal wave propagation.
- 9. In view of the above, we requested that applicants provide additional information which would verify that the analysis submitted for our review is conservative. In response to our request, the applicants demonstrated that the technique of combination of three components of seismic responses based on the NUREG/CR-0098 methodology is equivalent to square root of sum of squares (SRSS). They reanalyzed the tunnel for the condition with one end fixed and the other simply supported.
This condition does represent the tunnel framing into the gallery structure which would provide complete fixity due its mass. The appli cants also performed another analysis which accounted for the stresses due to longitudinal wave propagation. On the basis of the above, we concluded that the structural design of the tunnel is conservative and would not be adversely impacted by any of the dewatering well cavities.
- 10.
For the reasons listed above, the Staff finds that the applicants have adequately performed structural investigations and analyses which show that the cavities existing at the site will not have any adverse effect
-7 on the electrical tunnel or any other seismic Class I adjacent structures at SONGS 2 and 3.
Romuald E. Lipinski V
I hereby certify that the information listed above is true and accurate to the best of my personal knowledge.
Persqnally appeared before me this
/.s '-day of August, 1980, was Romuald E.
'ipinski who swore that on his personal knowledge the information above is true and accurate.
N MMary P
E L118 MOOMMISSION EXPIRM 4U 1, s
ROMUALD E. LIPINSKI PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH.
I am a Structural Engineer in the Structural Engineering Dranch of Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I am responsible for the review and evaluation of adequacy of criteria used in the structural design and analysis of Seismic Category I structures, systems and components of nuclear power plants assigned to the branch.
I received a B.S. degree in Civil Engineering in 1957 and the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering in 1961, both from the Newark College of Engineering, Newark, N.J..
From 1954 to 1955 1 worked-as a designer-draftsman on the design of highway bridges under the employment of the consulting finm of Proctor, -Urquhart and Beavin in Newark, N.J..
My duties were related to design and detailing of highway overpasses and checking shop draw ings. From 1955 to 1956 I worked as a designer in Ebasco, Inc.,
(4 months) and Parco Inc., both of New York, N.Y..
My duties were, in design, checking and detailing of various parts of chemical plants and hydro-electric power generating plants.
From 1956 to 1965 I was employed.by the Public Service Electric and Gas Co., Newark, N.J. as a structural designer.
My assignments-.
were in design and preparation of layout plans and detailing of various portions of conventional power generating plants, switching stations and substations.
From 1965 to 1969 I1 worked as a structural-engineer for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Electronic Support Branch.
My duties consisted of reviewing structural designs and plans and preparation of designs and specifications of radio communication antennas.
My assignments involved also supervision of similar tasks performed by others related to design of communication facilities.
From 1969 to 1972 I was enployed as a structural engineer by the U.S. Atomic Energy Connission, Division df Materials Li.n.sing. My duties involved review of structural designs of shipping casks for transportation of irradiated fuel elements or other radioactive materials.
From 1972 to'present I have been working as a member of Structural Engineering Branch.
In that capacity I have participated in devel oping criteria for structural design and analysis of seismic Cate gory I structures in nuclear power plants, performed evaluation of technical reports concerning structural behavior under various loading conditions and reviewed the safety analysis reports of nuclear power plants of Millptone Unit 2, Nine Mile Point, Davis Besse Unit 1, Beaver Valley Unit 1, Alvin W. Vogtle etc. in the areas relating to the design and analysis of seismic Category I structures.
I am a merrber of the American Society of Civil Engineers, I am also a member of the ACI-ASME 359 Technical Compittee on Concrete Pressure Components for Nuclear Service and I participated i.n the development of ACI Standard; Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures (ACI-349).
I am a registered professional engineer in the states of New York and New Jersey and a.fallout shelter analyst certified by the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency.
.5 1
t
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY,
)
)
50-362 OL (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, )
Units 2 and 3)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION ON INTERVENORS' CONTENTION 9 (URANIUM PRICES)" and "NRC STAFF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION ON CONTENTION 1(a) (DEWATERING WELL CAVITIES)" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 15th day of August, 1980:
Ivan W. Smith, Esq., Chairman*
David R. Pigott, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Samuel B. Casey, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chickering & Gregory Washington, DC 20555 Three Embarcadero Center Twenty-Third Floor Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr., Member San Francisco, CA 94111 Director, Bodega Marine Laboratory University of California Alan R. Watts, Esq.
P. 0. Box 247 Rourke & Woodruff Bodega Bay, CA 94923 10555 North Main Street Suite 1020 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke, Member Santa Ana, CA 92701 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richard J4 Wharton, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 Wharton and Pogalies 2667 Camino Del Rio South Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
Suite 106 J. Calvin Simpson, Esq.
San Diego, CA 92108 Lawrence Q. Garcia, Esq.
California Public Utilities Commission Mrs. Lyn Harris Hicks 5066 State Building GUARD San Francisco, CA 94102 3908 Calle Ariana San Clemente, CA 92672 Charles R. Kocher, General Counsel James A. Beoletto, Esq.
David W. Gilman Southern California Edison Company Robert G. Lacy 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue San Diego Gas Electric Co.
Rosemead, CA 91770 P.O. Box 1831 San Diego, CA 92112
-2 Phyllis M. Gallagher, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1695 West Crescent Avenue Panel*
Suite 222 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Anaheim, CA 92701 Washington, DC 20555 A. S. Carstens Secretary 2071 Caminito Circulo Norte U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mt. La Jolla, CA 92037 ATTN:
Chief, Docketing & Service Branch Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (5)*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555