ML17296A827
| ML17296A827 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 07/23/1980 |
| From: | ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17296A826 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007280590 | |
| Download: ML17296A827 (37) | |
Text
Mr. D. G. Eisenhut, Director July 23, 1980 ANPP-15984 JMA/JPS Page 2
Please do not hesitate to call if further clarification of these items is necessary or if we can provide any assistance in the expeditious processing of our application.
Respectfully submitted, ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY By:
E wean an Brunt, Jr.
APS Vice President, Nuclear Projects ANPP Project Director State of Arizona
)
) ss.
County of Maricopa)
On its own behalf and as agent for all other joint applicants Subscribed a
sworn to before me this 43 day of h
N My'ommission expires:
>,; gg@mmissitui &gls@ijy,g gg f
3
, 1980.
cc:
J. Kerrigan (w/attach.)
- Chairman, Maricopa County Board of Supervi sor s A. C. Gehr 80GVSg0 e
~~
C t
E a
pz
~< ~ ie ~ y ~ ee""
ATTACHMENT 1
PVNGS FSAR TABLE OF CONTENTS Question 2A.1 (NRC comment on sec-tion 2.5.2.7)
(6/18/80) 2A-1 September 1980 2A-i 07-17-80 Amendment 2
1
( ~
PVNGS FSAR APPENDIX 2A No probability for operating basis earthquake I
RESPONSE
The response is given in amended section 2.5.2.7.
September 1980 2A-1 07-17-80 Amendment 2
~ ~
7 t
I I
0
fjil. L
- GEOLOGY, SEISMOLOGY, AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING Regarding item C above, the use of soil-column analysis to study site effects is inappropriate for a number of reasons.
First, the soil-column analysis assumes vertically propagating shear (SH) waves as the only mode of wave propagation.
This is a gross simplification that neglects the contribution of sur-face waves and body waves coming at other angles of incidence.
- Secondly, there are essentially no measurements of strong motion obtained at depth that can serve as reliable excitations for such models.
Thus, the excitation must be estimated from
. motions obtained at the ground surface which is a circuitious way of determining ground surface motion.
Finally, the two properties of the soil column that are paramount. in determin-ing its calculated effects on surface motions are the funda-mental frequency and the damping in the fundamental mode.
The fundamental frequency is determined, in large part by the depth of the column, with larger periods associated with deeper soil columns.
However, at the El Centro site, no specified site period can be identified either from strong-motion records or from microtremor recordings and no such site periods are (133) present in the records studied by Hudson' and Crouse'137)
The amount and type of damping associated with the soil column analysis is uncertain and is based primarily on empirical data haying wide scatter.
In view of the oversimplifications and uncertainties inherent in a soil column analysis, it is thought preferable to make a
more direct extrapolation from measured data.
2.5.2.7 0 eratin Basis Earth uakes OBE The level of vibratory ground motion selected as the OBE is represented by the 0.10g design response spectra presented in section 3.7.1.1.
~This earthquake level is half that-of the postulated SSE (0.20g spectra) as required in 10CFR Part 100, Appendix A.
The level of shaking represented by the 0.10g Amendment 2
2.5-124 07-17-80 September 1980
)
P p
PVNGS FSAR GEOLOG SEISMOLOGY, AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING design response spectra is greater than the shaking levels that may be reasonably expected to occur at the site during the operating life of the plant.
This conclusion is based on the follow).ng:
~
Low seismicity of the region
~
Absence of capable faults within approximately 70 miles of the site
~
Results of probabilistic analyses contained in Algermissen and Perkins and ATC.
(155)(156)
(157)
According to these references, the accelerations at the site with a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years (which corresponds to an average return period of 475 years),
are less than 0.05g.
September 1980 2.5-124A 07-17-80 Amendment 2
J I
l
- GEOLOGY, SEISMOLOGY, AND GEOTECHNICAL,ENGINEERING 149.
Bechtel Power Corporation, 1976, Technical Require-
- ments, Construction of Test Fills for Category I Structural Backfills.
150.
151.
152.
- Whitman, R. V., "The Res onse of Soils to D amic ioa~incOs,>>
Defense Atomic Support Agency, U.S.
Army Waterways Experiment Station Report 426, 1976.
Mitchell, J. K., "Fundamentals of Soil Behavior,"
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New York, N.Y., 1976.
Schimming, B. B., Haas, H. J.,
- Saxe, H. C.,
"Study of Dynamic and Static Failure Envelopes,"
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 92, No.
SM2, March, 1966.
153.
154.
155.
156.
Dayall, U., Allen, H.,
"The Effect of Penetration Rate on the Strength of Remolded Clay and Sand Samples,"
Canadian Geotechnical
- Journal, Vol. 12, No. 3,
- August, 1975.
Vesic',
A. S., Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations, Foundation En ineerin
- Handbook, (Winterkorn, H. F.
and Fang, H. Y., editors)
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, pp. 121-147, 1975.
Algermissen, S. T.,
and Perkins, David M., "A Technique for Seismic Zoning:
General Considerations and Parameters,"
Proceedings of the International Confer-ence on Microzonation for Safer Construction Research and Application; Seattle; Washington, October 30 to November 3, 1972, Vol. II, pp. 865-878.
Algermissen, S. T.,
and Perkins, David M., "A Proba-bilistke Estimate of Maximum Acceleration in Rock in
~ Contiguous United States,"
U.
S.
Geo.
Surv.
Open File Report 76-416, 45 p.,
1976.
September 1980 2.5-189 07-17-80 Amendment 2
0
~
e f t
- GEOZOGY, SEISMOLOGY, AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 157.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), "Tentative Provision for the Development of Seismic Regulation for Build-ings,"
ATC Report 3-06; NSF Report, NSF-78-8, NBS Special Publication 510; 505 pp.;
June 1978.
Amendment 2
2.5-190 07-17-80 September 1980
~ ~ I
PVNGS FSAR TABLE OF CONTENTS Question 3A.1 (NRC comment on section 3.8.3.5)
(6/18/80) 3A-1 l~
September 1980 3A-i 07-17-80 Amendment 2
s f
0
PVNGS FSAR APPENDIX 3A No input of allowable limits and factors of safety against structural failure
RESPONSE
The response will be provided in a December 1980 amendment, as noted in arne'nded section 3.8.3.5.
September 1980 3A-1 07-17-80 Amendment 2
~, ~ l e
r
PVNGS FSAR DESIGN OF CATEGORY I STRUCTURES The allowable stresses are those specified in the applicable codes.
The stress contributions due to earthquakes are included in the load combinations described in section 3.8.3.3.
Detailed descriptions of allowable limits and factors of safety against structural failure for the loading combinations discussed in section 3.8.3.3 will be provided in a December 1980 amendment to the FSAR.
This discussion will include a
summary of reactor coolant system pipe support design values.
3.8.3.6 Materials, ualit
- Control, and S ecial Construction The following basic materials are used in the construction 'of internal structures:
A.
Concrete B.
Reinforcing steel Deformed bars f'
psi ASTM A-615 f, psi.
Grade 60
= 5,000 or greater 60,000
'inimum C.
Structural and miscellaneous steel Rolled shapes,
, psi Y
Grade 50 36,000 minimum 50, 000 Forgings ASTM A-237. f
, psi Class C
58,000 and 60, 000 (varies depending on mate-rial thickness)
Amendment 2
3.8-86 07-17-80 September 1980
I r
r 1
I l'
PVNGS FSAR TABLE OF CONTENTS Question 5A.1 (NRC comment on section 5.2.4)
(6/18/80) 5A-1 Question 5A.2 (NRC comment on section 5.3.1.6)
(6/1'8/80) 5A-1 September 1980 5A-i 07-17-80 Amendment 2
E C,
PVNGS FSAR APPENDIX 5A Only addresses accessibility of inspection areas
RESPONSE
The response is given in amended section 5.2.4.
))..(*'...)(//
Only addresses Unit, 1 reactor vessel
RESPONSE
The response is given in amended section 5.3.1.6.
September 1980 5A-1 07-17-80 Amendment 2
r I
PVNGS FSAR I~RITY OF REACTOR COOLANT PRESSURE BOUNDARY 5.2.3.4.2 Control of Welding 5.2.3.4.2.1 Avoidance of Hot Crackin Components in C-E Scope of Supply Refer to CESSAR Section 5.2.3.4.2.1-A.
B. 'omponents Not in C-E Scope of Supply In order to preclude microfissuring in austenitic stainless
- steel, PVNGS design is consistent with the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.31 except as noted in section 1.8.
5.2.4 INSERVICE INSPECTION AND TESTING OF REACTOR COOLANT PRESSURE BOUNDARY Details of the inservice inspection program are included in sections 6.6 and 16.3/4.
Accessibility of inspection areas is discussed in CESSAR Section 5.2.4.1.
5.2.4.1 DELETED 5.2.5 REACTOR COOLANT PRESSURE BOUNDARY LEAKAGE DETECTION SYSTEMS Means for the detection of leakage from the reactor coolant pressure boundary are provided to alert operators to the exis-
'ence of leakage above acceptable limits, which may indicate an unsafe condition for the facility.
The leakage detection systems are sufficiently diverse and sensitive to meet the criteria of, Regulatory Guide 1.45 for leaks from identified and unidentified sources.
5.2.5.1 Leaka e Detection Methods 5.2.5.1.1 Unidentified Leakage
'he four methods employed to detect unidentified leakage are presented in the following sections.
Amendment 2
5.2-18 07-17-80 September 1980
4 ~ I i
PVNGS FSAR 5.3 REACTOR VESSEL 5.3.1 REACTOR VESSEL MATERIALS 5.3.1.1 Material S ecifications Refer to CESSAR Section.5.3.1.1.
5.3.1.2 S ecial Process Used for Manufacturin and Fabrication Refer to CESSAR Section 5.3.1.2.
5.3.1.3 S ecial Methods for Nondestructive Examination Refer to CESSAR Section 5.3.1.3.
5.3.1.4 S ecial Controls for Ferritic and Austenitic Stainless Steels Refer to CESSAR Section 5.3.1.4.
5.3.1.5 Fracture Tou hness Refer to CESSAR Section 5.3.1.5.
5.3.1.6 Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance Pro ram PVNGS Unit 1 Refer to CESSAR Section 5.3.1.6 for reactor vessel material surveillance program description for PVNGS Units 2
6 3.
The surveillance program monitors the radiation-induced changes in the mechanical and impact properties of the pressure vessel 4
materials.
Changes in the impact properties of the materials are evaluated by-the comparison of pre-and post-irradiation Charpy impact Gest specimens.
Changes in mechanical properties are evaluated by )he comparison of pre-and post-irradiation data from tensile test specimens.
ASTM-E-185, Recommended September 1980 5.3-1 07-17-80 Amendment 2
I
PVNGS FSAR TABLE OF CONTENTS Question 6A.l Question 6A.2 Question 6A.3 (NRC comment on section 6.2.2.2)
(6/18/80) 6A-1 (NRC comment on section 6.3.4)
(6/18/80) 6A-1 (NRC comment on section 6.3.5)
(6/18/80) 6A-1
, September 1980 6A-i 07-17-80 Amendment 2
I
p~( npj.>$ 6 -.f PVNGS FSAR APPENDIX 6A Page 6.2.2-4 missing
RESPONSE
A spot check of 60 complete FSAR's revealed that page 6.2.2-4 is present as the back side of page 6.2.2-3 in all cases.
It is concluded that reviewer's copy was an inadvertent result of a printing error.
Pages 6.2.2-3 and 6.2.2-4 have been transmitted to the PVNGS Zicensing Project Manager.
Not included
Response
This response is givep in amended section 6.3.4.
Not included
RESPONSE
The response is given in amended section 6.3.5.
September l980 6A-1 07-22-80 Amendment 2
I Ol>
I
~~!
i 5P PVNGS FSAR EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEM 6.3.4 TESTS AND INSPECTIONS Refer to CESSAR Section 6.3.4.
- 6. 3. 5 INSTRUMENT REQUIREMENTS Refer to CESSAR Section 6.3.5.
September 1980 6.3-29 07-17-80 Amendment 2
r I
I V
l!
,g)PF 9 D~p PVNGS FSAR TABZE OF CONTENTS Question 14A.1 (NRC comment on section 14.2.12)