ML18018A639

Forwards Response to Structural Engineering Branch Draft SER Open Item 1 Re Soil/Structure Interaction.Item Closed

ML18018A639
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	07/29/1983
From:	Mcduffie M CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
LAP-83-292, NUDOCS 8308030020
Download: ML18018A639 (11)

Text

DOCKET 05000400 05000401 NOTES:

REGULATO INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION'EM (RIDS)

AGCYSSION NBR: 8308030020, DOC ~ DATE: 83/07/29 NOTARIZED:.NO FACIL:50-400 Shear on Harr is Nuclear Power Plant~

Unit 1~,'Carolina

,50"401 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant~

Unit 2i Carolina AUTH,NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION MCDUFFIE~M+A.

Carolina Power 8 Light Co.

RECIP ~ NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION DENTON,H,R, Offic~ of Nuclear Reactor Regulationi D{aector

SUBJECT:

For wards ~response to Structural Engineering Branch draft 'SER Open Item 1 re soil/structure interaction, Item closed.

DISTRIBUTION CODE!

B001S COPIES RECEIVED:LTR. j ENCL. f "SIZEe

,TITLE: Licensing Submittal:

PSAR/FSAR Amdts L Related Correspondence RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME NRR/DL/ADL NRR LB3 LA iNTERNAL: ELD/HDS1 IE/DEPER/EPB 36 IE/DEQA/QAB

'21 NRR/DE/CEB 11 NRR/DE/EQB 13 NRR/DE/MEB 18 NRR/DE/SAB 24 NRA/DHFS/HFEB40 NRR/DHFS/PSRB NRR/DSI/AEB

- 26 NRA/DSI/CPB 10 NRR/DSI/ICSB 16 NRR/DS I/PSB 19 NRR/DSI/RSB 23 RGN2 EXTERNAL: ACRS 41 DMB/DSS (AMDTS)

LPDR 03.

NSIC 05 COPIES LTTR ENCL 1

0 j

-0 1

'0 3

"3 1

1 1

2

'2 1

1 1-1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1

~

1 1

1

) 3 6

6 1

1 1

1 1

1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME NRR LB3 BC KADAMBIop 01 IE F

ILE'E/DEPER/IRB '35 NRR/DE/AEAB NRR/DE/EHEB NRR/DF/GB 28 NRR/DE/HTEB 17 NRR/DE/SGEB 25 NRR/DHFS/LQB f32 NRR/DL/SSPB

• 'RR/DS I/ASB NRR/DS I/CSB 09 NRR/DS I/ME'TB 12

'NRR/D I/RAB 22 04

/MIB BNL(AMDTS ONLY)

FEMA REP DIV 39 NRC PDR 02 NTIS

-:COPIES LTTR ENCL 0

1 1

1 1

1 1

0 1

1 2

2 1

.1i 1

1 1

0 1

1i.

1 1

1 1

1 0

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

",TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED e L'TTR

'53 ENCL 46

I)c gl)ri.W

>>))) W" 1 I"

If

")ic I

'0

)>

)

K W ll ri II

'KK) R )c)c) f l

)KWKI>f 0ic f,

~

" Ick "Ki)'k p)>r) t ii Il t,.)

K.WI y) c) K I'

') r)oil', ll Wr K f k ()')>>,

>~

laic) j,(i ),

f )Kcr'I 0,,K') f f $

Cy

~ 'c

) !1 l<<

~ "W W

~

~

\\

.I" ))<)l )

il '.(

(K ~ 11 t )QI)'f,)l) ) 9>re g)'J

~)E'li)$) )giii)c) r" k r ))y ig

>> f ) ) I)') ',) ) 1) w' w )

c J ') w," )

1 e' f ) t) w 4c wrcC ~cc ~'&Ccrc

))ac)i)WKK) WP )Q')

, k )Iii

>I

)c>>

') 'J [~

J~~.r( gg j[ )r) ll icr (fit')

1 J W

>IK'r i

~

W(LIWW )

i(g e)r>>

IW

)IW,I ~ WX (W,'W II k>,)y'i I )(II)>>.

) W)tcc)) 1')

W

) -Kl

~ I c

l',( )Kf'-'(fg ) ilail Clhr >rKI WW (k)

J)(

>I I )Kl 4

'(I 1 <<")il IK k

C~

l' 3,)I )

',(1>KX

'i'WW,<<;

W'ir l

i Ir)$ gi((fg' l !.)c)pre g'q+f,.)l" WW% i v>LI

'W Cc )(

').

I I g f ~cKK KW'iel

!;; )X J,owl~<])W

":l t W '~ J @<<II(WWI"l t

)7 l(

f L

l W

Jt l(X

<< l w

K'()

ii Wr j I WAX)Wc Fc

'W)I g f>

W$ <<ll)

) ">>'l>W W l)III uWQ, (lj,

)l)%

II I 'ii Kali W

1 t'y]

il

)

Iky w."e 4

fk )

"d W>->i~>.a> y 4 cf t cc k(-K )

Wc lc

CO)QE, Carolina Power & Light Company JUL 39 1983 LAP-83-292 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC.

20555 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT NOS ~

1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS ~ 50-400 AND 50-401 DRAFT SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT

RESPONSE

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH

Dear Mr. Denton:

Carolina Power

& Light (CP&L) hereby transmits documentation of our response to the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Draft Safety Evaluation Report Open Item l.

In response to the Structural Engineering Branch Open Item 1, "Soil/Structure Interaction",

a comparison of the spring base seismic model with the fixed base seismic model was presented to the NRC Staff during a June 15, 1983 meeting in Bethesda, Maryland.

Following the meeting, the NRC requested that the method used be briefly described and that certain clarifications be documented by letter.

The summary of our analysis methods and the three requested clarifications are provided in the attachments to this letter.

We consider this item closed.

If you have any additional questions, please contact our staff.

Yours very truly,

~/N

+'.

A. McDuffie Senior Vice President Engineering

& Construction MAM/kjr (7267 JHE)

Attachment cct Mr. E. A. Licitra (NRC)

Mr.

ST B. Kim (NRC-SEB)

Mr. G. F. Maxwell (NRC-SHNPP)

Mr. J.

P. O'Reilly (NRC-RII)

Mr. Travis Payne (KUDZU)

Mr. Daniel F.

Read (CHANGE/ELP)

Chapel Hill Public Library Wake County Public Library Mr. Wells Eddleman Dr. Phyllis Lotchin Mr. John D. Runkle Dr. Richard D. Wilson Mr. G.

O. Bright (ASLB)

Dr. J.

H. Carpenter (ASLB)

Mr. J.

L. Kelley (ASLB) y)

k 4p Favetteville Street o P. O. Box 1551 o Raleigh, N. C. 27602 aaoaOSO0ZO, SS0729

,PDR ADQCK 05000400

(

(

"E,'

PDR i

r 1

~,,<e

~

P ~

t 1

ATTACHNENT 1 Summar of Com arison The response spectra utilized for equipment procurement and structural design, broadened in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.60, and using a soil structure interaction spring constant, was compared with the spectra generated by replacing the spring constant with a fixed coupling and using actual average concrete strengths.

This comparison showed the acceleration vs. frequency curves for the fixed base case to be enveloped by the plant design basis with minor exceptions.

In those few areas where the fixed base acceleration was locally greater than the spring base, an examination of potential impact was conducted.

In all cases, the fixed base peak was lower than the spring base

peak, and occurred at a

higher frequency.

A review of the few items of potential safety significance located at these areas confirmed that there would have been no impact on design even if the fixed base response were utilized.

This confirmed the conservatism of the lumped-mass, spring base model.

4

~

~ y~

+pm r

~ >I~ I'

ATTACHMENT 2 OPEN ITEM 1 CLARIFICATIONS ITEM 1 IMPACT OF UNITS 3

& 4 CANCELLATION ON SEISMIC CATEGORY I STRUCTURES Cancellation of Units 3 and 4 has not affected the seismic design of any Unit 1 or 2 Seismic Category I structures in the Power Block.

The Fuel Handling Building (FHB) is the only Seismic Category I structure potentially affected by cancellation of Units 3 and 4.

The building is being constructed in its entirety as designed and is isolated from earth pressures due to plant grade by construction of a retaining wall on the west side of the building.

Cancellation of Units 3 and 4 does not, therefore, affect the seismic design of the FHB structure or any of the equipment, systems and subsystems within it.

Cancellation of Units 3 and 4 has not affected the seismic design of any outlying Seismic Category I structures except for the service water intake structure, which is presently being redesigned.

ITEM 2 - DERIVATION OF "f'c" VALUES USED IN THE COMPARISON STUDY The "f'c" values for concrete as used in the comparison of fixed base vs.

spring base model were the average of concrete cylinder strength values obtained by testing the concrete for each structure.

The average "f'c" values for each structure, obtained as described

above, are summarized in Table 1, attached.

ITEM 3 EQUIPMENT REVIEWED FOR SPRING BASE VS ~ FIXED BASE COMPARISON STUDY The following specific equipment was reviewed in the following area for the comparison study:

Fuel Handlin Buildin All safety-related equipment above El 286 was reviewed for possible impact:

Radiation Monitors Low Range Flow Switches Level Switches Thermocouple Assemblies and Test Thermowells Butterfly Valves HVAC Duct Supports Miscellaneous Electrical Mounting Details (dwg B-060)

Electrical Boxes (dwg B-044)

In cases where the peak of the fixed base analysis exceeds the spring base, representative node points were selected and a frequency analysis performed.

The only two pieces of equipment for which this was necessary were the cask crane and the auxiliary crane, both in the Fuel Handling Building.

~ U

'l

Two (2) representative node points on the cask crane dynamic analysis model and one (l) representative node point on the auxiliary crane dynamic analysis model were selected.

Responses in the vertical direction due to the first 12 modes (13 modes for the auxiliary crane) were combined for these three node points; and, in all cases

studied, the acceleration due to the fixed base model floor response spectrum was less than the acceleration for the spring base model.

No changes in the equipment design were, therefore, necessary.

For all other equipment

checked, the broadened spring base response spectra curves enveloped the fixed base response spectra curves;

hence, no further analysis was necessary.

(7267 JHEkj r)

TABLE 1 ACTUAL IH-PLACE CONCRETE STRENGTH BUILDING REACTOR CONT BLDG.

F.H.

BLDG.

RoAo BLDGo UNIT fi 1

RoAo BLDGo UNITS 1 6 2

TANK BLDG.

D.G.

BLDG SCREEN STRUCTo INTAKE STRUCTo AVERAGE CONC ~

CYL.

STRENGTH S'c (PSI) 5627 5347 5890 5730 5713 5739 5633 5633 (7267JHElcv)

0

~~g

~/

I E

1