ML19280B507
| ML19280B507 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 12/02/1981 |
| From: | Nelson T LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| To: | Russell W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-A-0415, CON-FIN-A-415 SM-81-313, NUDOCS 8112070233 | |
| Download: ML19280B507 (5) | |
Text
,.
s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory A
December 2,1981 SM 8.1-313 Docket 50-29 '[ I i2 FIN A0415' NQ Q V VQ'\\
e Qs
\\
7 x O D
Y 4
Mr. William T. Russell, Branch Chief gd y
Systematic Evaluation Program Branch "h
TfR 7/
Division of Licensing Q
j/
Office of Nuclear Reactor Reg.
N, N (/ 7
\\,
g Washingtc7, D.C.
20555 (ig g \\ (0 -
Subject:
PROGRAM PLAN RE5/IEW FOR YANKEE ROWE The enclosed document represents a summacy of the program plan review for the subject plant. It is presented in the form of a checklist. Each applicable item is given two reviers. The first one is an " acceptance" review, to check if that particular item 5as been addressed. The second is an " adequacy" review, to judge if the proposed methodology to address the item is acceptable for the purpose of reevalt;ation. The numbers in the parentheses refer to comments that are listed at the end of the checklist.
The items marked yes in the " adequate" column mean that there is no deviation from current criteria, which includes Regulatory Guides, Standard Review Plans and Scr cre m ia. If they are marked yes with a number in parentheses, they do not meet the letter of current criteria but are deemed adeauate for the reasons explained in the corresponding comment. It should be noted that even if the methodologies are deemed adequate from a review of the program plan, the application of the proposed methods must be reviewed in detail when the analysis results are submitted.
Additional data and comments regarding the program plans can be found in the previous submittals for cach plant.
Sincerely, O~
f4HW Thomas A. Nelson Project Manager Structural Mechanics Group Nuclear Test Engineering Division TAN /mg O3 0238m N
.5 tll Enclosure 8112070233 811202 CF ADOCK 05000029 CF A1ns. cow >ur,nn w w w &c m u ronnKeLwsmec:Mca 94%D
- TwMe H N d??DOO
- Twx 99 MD39 UCLU LVW
YANKEE ROWE REVIEW
SUMMARY
OF THE SEISMIC REEVALUATION PROGRAM PLAN ITEM ADDRESSED?
ADEQUATE 7 I.
Snil and roundation A.
Rock Site n/a n/a B.
Soil Site o
Foundation Input yes no (1) o Generation of time history yes no (2) o Modeling technique no o
Computer Codes no C.
Description of Foundation yes
'o (3)
D.
Free Field Input Spectrunt yes no (4)
II. Structural A.
List and Descri] tion of Cateoorv I yes (5)
Structures or S :ructures Af f ectina Catt:oory I Systems or Components B.
Mogelino Technioues o
Damping yes yes o
Stiffness modeling yes no (1) o Mass Modeling yes no (6) o Consideration of 3-0 effects yes yes C.
Seismic Analysis Methods o
Response Spectrum, time history yes no (7) or eouivalent static analysis o
Selection of significant modes no o
Relative displacements yes yes o
Modal combinations yes yes o
Three component input yes yes o
Flocr spectra generation no o
Peak broadening yes yes o
Load combination yes yes
ITEM ADDP JSSED?
ADEQUATE 7 D.
Analytical Criteria o
Codes and criteria, including yes no (8)
AISC, ACI and NUREG/CR-0D98 E.
Computer Codes o
Description and verification yes (9)
III. Structural Intecritv of Mechanical and E]ectrical Components. Ploing_and Supports A.
List and Description of yes (5)
Systems and Comoonents B.
Modelino Technioues o
Eccentric masses yes yes o
Mass distribution yes no (6,-
o Support flexibility yes no (10) o Spectra selected yes yes (11)
C.
Analytical Procedures o
Damping yes
, ?s o
Span tables, dynamic analysis yes yes o
Overturning no o
3 component input no o
Support ana]ysis yes no (10,12)
D.
Analysis Criteria o
ANSI B31.1 yes yes o
ASME B&PV coda no (13) o NUREG/CR-0098 no o
Load Combinations yes yes E.
Conputer Codes o
Description and Verification yes (9)
Comments 1.
According to the Program Plan, soil-structure interaction effects will be neglected because studies performed previously have shown these effects to be negligible. However, no reference about the previous studies was given in the progrtm plan. Further justification is recuired for the assumption that the effects of soil-structure interaction can be neglected, especially for structures such as the concrete reactor support structure and the turbine bu.4 ding. Possible effects on floor spectra should also be addressed.
2.
The program plan states that artificial time history will be generated using the computer program, SIMQUAKE of Earthauake Engineering System, Inc. No further details of the approach are presented. Use of only one artificial time history will reauire justification.
3.
No discussions about the types of foundations are given in the r>rogram Plan, other than that "the bearing capacity for the soil underneath all footings shall be assumed to be 8 ksf if wind or earthquake loads are not consideraa 6nd 10.6 ksf if they are. Compacted backfills shall be assumed to have a bearing capacity of 4 ksf".
4.
The licensee proposes using a spectrum other than that specified by the site specific spectrum program. Justification will be required.
5.
NRC staff will determine the completeness of the list.
6.
No method was presented for placement of or procedure for lumping masses.
Also, it was not stated how masses of large equipment would be included.
7.
Justification for use of a particular analysis procedure was not given.
8.
Stresses up to 95% of yield is acceptable; however, stresses up to 95% of the calculated buckling load may not be.
9.
It is not known whether or not all the computer codes mentioned have been officially verified.
- 10. Removing hanger effectiveness because of upward lift due to thermal and seismic loadinn may not be conservative in critical localized areas *f the system (i.e., near bends).
- 11. Relative support displacements should be considered in the analysis of piping supported et different floors.
- 12. Rod hangers may be too flexible to be considered rigid supports.
- 13. No criteria is proposed for structural integrity of electrical or mechanical eauipment other than to check nozzle loads against allowables.
References 1.
" Seismic Re-evaluation Criteria for Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Rowe, Masstchusetts," Earthauake Engineering Systems, Document No. DC-1, December 198D.
2.
Memo, Ralph Caruso to Docket 5D-29, subject: Sumrrary of kay 22, 1981, meeting concerning the seismic capability of Yankee Rowe, June 5,1981.