ML18003A920
| ML18003A920 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1983 |
| From: | Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Utley E CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8306240463 | |
| Download: ML18003A920 (12) | |
Text
JUN 8 583 Docket Nos.:
50-400 and 50-401 Mr. E.
E. Utley Executive Vice President Carolina Power 5 Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Utley:
DISTRIBUTION Document Control 50-400/401 NRC PDR L PDR NSIC PRC System LB¹3 Reading JLee NPKadambi
- Attorney, OELD
TMNovak Sang Kim Norman Romney
Subject:
Transmission of Results of Structural Audit and Open Items NRC staff conducted a Structural Audit on Shearon Harris at Ebasco in New York City between March 7 to March 11, 1983.
Enclosed is the staff report of the results thereof.
Included are a list of open items and lists of attendees at the meetings.
Please incorporate the open items in the enclosure into the Open Items list of Chapter 1 of the Draft Safety Evaluation Report for Shearon Harris.
Sincerely, igiaal si8nea by GeorSe W. KniSMo George H. Knighton,. Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing
'nclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page
'3062404h3 830603'PDR ADOCK 05000400 E
PDR OFFICE/
SURNAME/
OATE IF DL:LB¹3 Q~+
NPKadariibi/y 6/~ /83, DL G
to'n'"
6/g /83
~
~..!
NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGPO: 198)~~~
r.
,r
. ~/
Shearon Harris Mr.
E.
E. Utley Executive Vice President Power Supply and Engineering and Construction Carolina Power
& Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 CC:
George F.. Trowbridge,
- Esq, Shaw, Pittman, Potts Trowbridge 1800 M
- Street, NW Washington, D.
C.
20036 Richard E. Jones, Esq.
Associate General Consel Carolina Power
& Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Mall
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Ms. David Gordon, Esq.
Associate Attorney General State of North Carolina Post Office Box 629
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Thomas S.
- Envin, Esq.
115 (!. Morgan Street
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. George Maxwell Pesident Inspector/Harris NPS c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
,=ou-.e 1,
Box 315B New Hill, North Carolina 27562 Charles D. Barham, Jr.,
Esq.
Vice President
& Senior Counsel Carolina Power
& Light Company Post Office Box 1551
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. John Runkle, Executive Coordinator Conservation Council of North Carolina 307 Granville Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr, Wells Eddleman 718-A Iredell Street Durham, North Carolina 27705 Mr. George Jackson, Secretary Environmental Law Project School of Law, 064-A University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
>c P.h~]) is Lctchin Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr. Travis Payne, Esq.
723 W, Johnson Street Post Office Box 12643
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Mr. Daniel F.
- Read, President CHANGE Post Office Box 524 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Bradley W. Jones, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reqion II TOl Marietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Richard D. l!ilson, M.
D, 725 Hunter Street Apex, North Carolina 27502 Regional Adminstrator - Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Karen E. Long, Esq.
Staff Attorney Public Staff -
NCUC Post Office Box 991
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
STRUCTURAL AUDIT REPORT SHE R
N H RRIS PLANT 1.
Introduction 2.
Between March 7 and March ll, a structural design audit of the Shearon Harris plant was conducted at the Ebasco New York office.
Ebasco is the architect and engineering firm for the Carolina Power and Light Company who is the owner of the Shearon Harris Plant.
Me reviewed the design calculations of the major Category I structures and discussed verification of the computer codes used for the plant evaluation.
During the audit,,
any lack of information or insufficient 'explanation of the data was classified as an open item for la'ter clarification and resolution.
These items are discussed in the report and summarized in the section entitled as open items.
Attendance lists are attached at'he back of the report for all five days of the meeting.
Structural Audit (a)
D namic Model and Earth uake Anal sis Time history input was used in the Shearon Harris earthquake analysis.
The input bounds the R.
G. l.oO response spectra anchored at 0. 15g.
All the major Category I structures are founded on sound rock with the exception of manhole structures.
The foundation rock is modeled with translat'onal and rotational springs.
However, in the FSAR, such model is described erroneously as fixed base.
The applicant'greed to amend the description ir, a
future amendment.
(open item 1).
In evaluating earthquake responses of the Category 1 Structures, a
dynamic code developed by Ebasco was used.
The structures, modeled as a mass-spring
- system, were secured at the foundation mat.
More detailed analysis was performed using commercially available STARDYNE code.
The detailed evaluations by the STARDYNE code consisted of torsional analysis and uplift of the structures.
There were two items that required further explanation regarding the STARDYNE code dynamic modeling:
modal damping of the structures and spring representation of the bed rock.
It was noi clear that the STARDYNE modal damping is same as the one used in the Ebasco in-house dynamic code (open item 2).
For the springs, analyt>cal representation of one-way spring mechanism is not well explained
{open item 3).
No physical anchor exists between the foundation mat and the bed rock.
Therefore, only downward compression load is transmitted to the bed.rock.
An uplift of the foundation.mat is a
possibility when the'compressive load is no longer present as in the case of an earthquake when an excessive horizontal load is developed.
Indeed, i.t was stated in the FSAR that a partial uplift is expected.
This one-way spring is a characteristic of a non-linear spring and a careful verification of the code is needed.
It should be noted that the design criteria allows only 10Ã margin against the worst case overturning moment.
Containment Sui ldin and Internal Structures The major code used for the stress analysis of the containment building and internal structure is the SHELL code.
This is an in-house developed axisymmetric code which accounts for concrete cracks in tension.
The cracked model may reduce forces and moments as much as 805 from uncracked model.
An iteration process was used to obtain a final crack size of the concrete.
There were several comparisons of the SHELL code of uncracked cross sections.with other available codes and closed form solutions.
- However, we were unable to find any verification results or the cracked model (open.item 4).
Once the extent of the crack was estimated by the SHELL code, static and stress analyses were performed using the STARDYNE code.
We observed an impressive finite element representation of the internal structure.
The applicant incorporated the crack size rom the SHELL code 'into. the STA8DYNE.
Its exact procedure was unclear and left as an, open item (open item 5).
We also found that the STARDYVE model used a flat plate element to represent a thick wall.
We requested an estimate of error, if any, in using their plate model, especially, with regard to rather localized loads
{open item 6),
Nainsteam and feedwater lines were physically anchored at the.
containment wail and, as a result, there was considerable local reinforcement.
They were unable to obtain a list o-the loads that are imposed on the wall including the resultants from the piping analysis
{open item 7).
In the drawing, it was specified that the hole of the leak chase channel be plugged after the local pressure test is completed.
They were informed of the issue of plugging raised by the containment system branch while we were reviewing the Shoreham plant.
We did not raise the issue ourselves at this time.
In evaluating the response of the steamline break the load was treated as a static load.
We questioned if there is any dynamic effect, of the pressure load on the structure (open item 8).
Also, in view of possible asymmetric distribution of the pressure, shell oval modes may be important.
The contain-meni and some of the cylinder like structures (support to the steam generator) were modeled as a beam which assum s
a rigid cross section.
Justification of such an assumption was requested
{also open item 8).
Dynamic analysis of the tank building was reviewed.
This particular building houses Category I tanks including a
condensate storage tank.
The building and the tank were modeled first by a series of spring, mass and damper systems.
Dynamic response of the model provides time history motion at the base of the tank as well as forces and moments.
- Next, a
detailed dynamic analysis was performed for the tank alone using the base floor motion as an input.
Nore springs and masses were provided.
Reasonable models would provide approximately close results at common points, namely, at the base and at the top of the tank.
However, the detailed model
- resulted, in some cases, more than twice the value (i.e.,
acceleration) of the combined building-tank model.
Me requested an explanation (open item 9).
He were surprised to learn that they did not perform such comparisons in the past.
(d)
Other Cate or I Structures Me also reviewed cable tray, emergency cooling water systems, fuel handling building, auxiliary building and electric cable manholes.
The manhole is a narrow reinforced concrete structure and it is the only Category I structure resting on soil.
In our first round of questions, telo questions were raised on the SHAKE code for the manhole dynamic evaluation.
After discussing the function of the manhole, which is to provide space for installing ard maintaining electric cables, it was apparent that the safety significance of the manholes is relatively minor compared with other Category I structures discussed elsewhere.
Open item 10 was identified during the fuel handling building review where the applicant neglected to include sloshing effect on the earthquake response analysis.
3.
Conclusion In general, the applicant was responsive to our specific question and well prepared for the audit with few exceptions....
Open items 2
and 7 constitute such exceptions.
It should be noted that the non-linear aspects of the computer code have not been well verified
{open items 3 and 4). It seemed that a sophistication needed to use the non-linear code was lacking.
4.
Li'st of 0 en Items Amendment of the statement in FSAR, page 3.7.2-6,
>rom a fixed base to a spring-mass system in representing the bed rock.
2.
Discussion of STARDYNE damping expression.
3, 6.
Discussion and verification of,bed rock representation as one-way spring by STARDYNE when the stability (overturning moments) analysis was performed.
Discussion and verification of the concrete crack model in SHELL code.
(Ebasco in-house code used or conta>nment axisymmetric analysis).
Discussion of concrete crack model..in STARDYNE static analysis (transfer of crack size from SHELL code).
Justification of use of thin flat plate application to a thick structural member in the STARDYNE code.
7.
8.
9.
}0.
Tabulation of loadings at the anchor point of mainsteam and feedwater pipes on containment wall.
Justification for not using dynamic factor on LOCA pressure loading in containment analysis and also for not considering an oval mode of shell dynamic response.
Explanation of difference in acceleration and moment at common points between detailed tank analysis and overall tank-building analysis.
Chanoes in margin of safety when a sloshing effect is included in the fuel handling building earthquake analysis.
STRUCTURi'2. DESIGN AUDIT ATTENDANCE LIST EOR 3-7-83 JOHN F GARIBALDI VINCENT J ROSSETTI JOHN HEADS JOHiN HANCHAZ TIM J McCARTHY N
D RO~QiEY S
B RIM RACY g~rBER JOSEPH VO~ "R EBASCO - NUCLEM'LICENSING EBASCO - NUCLEAR LICENSING CP&L NUCLr&R. LICENSING EBASCO CIVIL EBASCO CIVIL U. S.
4i'UCLEM REGULATORY COM1ISS ION U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COiKISSION EBASCO CIVIL - SUPERVISOR EBASCO CIVIL -
LAG) DISCIPLINE ENGINEER ARCHITECTURAL~- STRUCTUR
.'H
~f GOYAL EBASCO CIVIL LEAD DISCIPLI!iE ENGINEER COiNCRETE-HYDBAULIC
~ ~
STRUCTURAL D"SIGN AUDXT ATTENDANCE LIST FOR 3-8-83 VINCENT J ROSSETTI JOHN EADS H LEE WILLIAMS KAO DING CHIU T i~fcCARTHY S KIN J
LENAHAN N D RO.LXEY
~fURRAY 'WEBER SHIA'OCAL EBASCO LICENSING CP&L LICENSING CP&L HPES EBASCO CIVIL CONSULTING EBASCO CIVIL DESIGN USiNRC SGEB USNRC CIVIL ENGR R IX USNRC - SGEB EBASCO CIVIL.ENGR EBASCO CIVIL ENGR E.S K04'AE.SKI J ~idXC'r~
J SHIEH J
F GARIBALDI part-time D PATEL DEAN SHAH EBASCO ; CIVIL ENGR EBASCO CIVIL ENGR
.EBASCO CIVIL DESIGN EBASCO LICENSING "BASCO CIVIL DESIGN EBASCO HECHANICAL ENGINEERING
ATTENDANCE 3-9-83 JOHN EADS VINCENT J ROSSETTI H LiE h'ILLLVfS J
LENAHAN S KXl'f M hrBER i KOh'ALSKI R SONI T."fcCARTHY L Y CHU J SHIEH S
GOYAL N
D ROiQiEY J xigXCv N L RESNANSKY A I TURNER CPGL LICENSING iBASCO LICENSING I
CP&L HPES, A/S NRC R II EBASCO CIVIL EBASCO CIVIL EBASCO CIVIL iBASCO CIVIL EBASCO CIVIL "BASCO CIVIL EBASCO CIVIL USNRC EBA'SCO CIVIL EBASCO PIPE RUPTURE EBASCO CIVIL DESIGN A BAUZEK J
P GARIBALDI EBASCO CONCRETE HYDRAULIC EBASCO LICENSING
~ a
~
~
ATTE.'iDANCE OF 3-10-83
~4
%lg
~ ~ i VENC "iT J ROSSETTE JOHN ~~S J LEYdZKN S
KXM A BAIG J F NEVXLL iM WEBER J MANCHAK E
S KOh'ALSKE N P K.MAMI N D ROMNEY L Y CHEU SHI.Vi GOYAL I LAI EBASCO LICENSING CP&L LICENSING iNRC - R XI NRC/NRR/SGEB EBASCO CEVIL CP&L CEVIL ENGINEERING EBASCO CIVIL ENGINEERING EBASCO CIVIL ENGINEERING EBASCO CiVIL ENGINEERING NRC/NRR/DL NRC/NRR/SGEB EBASCO
>> CEVIL EBASCO
- CIViL EBASCO CEVIL Y HUANG E h'ANG C SHIH h
HSU A BOHK P FIPJA M GAGLEAME R SONI EBASCO CIVIL EBASCO CIVIL EBASCO CIVIL-SAG EBASCO - CIVIL-SAG EBASCO'- STRESS ANALYSiS EBASCO MECH~iICAL ENGENEERING EBASCO - MECF~XECAL ENGINEERING EBASCO STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING M KUTCHER D PATEL Z T SHX T J McCARTHY BASCO MECHANXCAL DESIGN EBASCO CIVIL DESIGN EBASCO SPECIAL ANALYSES EBASCO-CEVIL DESIGN &:."
ATTENDANCE 3/11/83 John Eads Vincent J. Rossetti James T. McGuinness E.
S.
Kowalski W. Chao
'H.
P.
Kadambi Sang Bo Kim N.
D.
Romney R. Soni T. J.
McCarthy J.
Grim Z.
T. Shi J.
Lenaham Shiam N. Goyal Joseph Womer J.
Manchak R. Matzalle J. Garibald N. Weber CPSL Licensing Ebasco L~censing Ebasco Structural Engineering Ebasco Civil Engineering Ebasco Civil Engineering NRC/NRR/DL NRC/NRR/DE/SGEB NRC/NRR/DE/SGEB Ebasco Ebasco Civil Design Ebasco Civil.Engiyeering Ebasco SAG NRC -
R II Ebasco Civil Engineering Ebasco CivIl Engineering Ebasco Civil Engineering Ebasco Project Manager Ebasco Licernsing Ebasco Civil Engineering