ML19312C706
| ML19312C706 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 01/05/1970 |
| From: | Dromerick A US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Boyd R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912190912 | |
| Download: ML19312C706 (13) | |
Text
_ - -.. _ _
}
s.!AN E E3 R. S. Boyd, Assistant Director for Reactor Projects, DEL THRU:
S. Levine, Assistant Director for teactor Technology, DEL an;;fa:I e-137 7. %
r, ;
j DUKE FOWER COMPANT -- OCCNEE NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1, 2, AND 3, DOCKET NOS.
/270/287; FSAR REVIEW, REQUE.W FOR ADDITIONAL STacCTunAL Ou We have reviewed the structural information presented in the FSAR for the Oconee Euclear Plant and have found it deficient for the purpose of evaluating the adequacy of the proposed design to pro-tect the public health and safety.
We met with the Rechtel Corporation, the Architect-Engineer for this plant, from December 16, 1969, through December 19, 1969, to I
discuss general problems related to structures of the type used in the Oconee facility. As a result of tha.t meeting, in conjunc-tion with our review of the Oconee application, we have reached the following conclusions for Oconee :
(1) The requests for additional information listed in Appendix A should be formally transmitted to the applicant.
(2) The applicant should be advised of the serious deficiencies of his application relating to certais structural matters.
These matters can be identified by reference to the specific questions from the set we previously submitted to you (October 30, 1969). We understand that EP will inform the i
applicant of these matters, advise the applicant that Bechtel l
is aware of them as a result of our general orating, and sug-Sest to the applicant the desirability of voluntarily submit-ting information (see Appendix B) in a timely manner to correct the deficiencies.
(3) Bechtel intends to submit Topical Reports to DEL on Containmaat Design, Seismic Considerations, and Testing Baquirements. These reports are expected to answer our concerns on matters as indi-cated in the appropriate coluess in Appendix B.
The applicant should be advised of this and informed that these items could be responded to by reference to the Bechtel Topical Beports provided that they have been formally submitted to us by Bechtel.
J w2 no9/ 2 g
E. s. soyd 2
g;3 5 gg If the reports are not available at a time consistent with the schedula j
for our processing of the Oconee replication, then formal responses to these items will be needed in the application. We request RF to inform the applicant of this situation.
A. W. Dronarick, Chief Containment & Component RT-952A Technology Branch DRL:C&CTE: FPS Division of Easctor Licensing
Enclosures:
Appendix A - Revised Raquest for Additional Information Appendix B - Question / Response Disposition cc w/encis:
C. Long, DEL A. Schwencer, DEL A. Gluckmann, DEL G. Arndt, DRL
- 1. Shewmaker, DEL bec:
S. Levine R. DeToung
)
A. Dromerick F. Schauer Distribution:
Suppl.
DRL Reading C&CTB Reading AD/RT Reading i
omer >
..Q
&CTH.....!..D.RL ;.C&CTB DADgl AD;RT.
EDCToulng_,,l/l9
,d %
L"&
SL& Vine
$URNAh8E k.IS SMSKISS.R.,./d)TQSer_iQk
..11..{l1Q..
..l.1l.......DD
.1L.C.Do....
..1L.E179 oars >
^
mrm.tzc-ass can. sn
T:
DUKE PrWER COMPANY OCONEE NUCI2AR STATION UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 E/ISED REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATICN 1.0 on page 5-12 it is stated that the finite element mesh for the base slab was extended down into the foundation material to take into ecosideration the elastic nature of the foundation material and its effect upon the behavior of the base slab. Ihis extension below the base slab is apparently not shown on Figure 5-4, " Reactor Building Finite Element Mesh."
Please provide a drawing of the mer used to account for the effects of the foundation material.
l 2.0 It is understood that the tendon access gallery is structurally separated in the vertical direction from the base slab.
Please describe how the prestress gallery was considered in the design of the base slab.
3.0 The finite element mesh shown for the containment building apparently does not include the interior structure. What influence does the interior structure have on the stresses in the base slab computed by the finite element analysis ? How was the base slab designed to resist the seismic shear and overturning moment from the interior structure ?
4.0 What are the maximum thermal stress calculated for the valls of the spent fuel pool under normal conditions and af ter prolonged outage
Oconee 1, 2, & 3 2
~ ~;
of the fuel pool cooling system? What provisions have been made to control cracking of the concrete structure under these conditions 7 5.0 How were the fuel storage racks designed for seismic loadings 7 6.0 With regard to the capability for periodic containment leak rate testing, indicate the degree to which instrumentation and equip-ment located within the containment must be protected or removed prior to the initiation of a full accident pressure test.
Tabulate the items to be removed and those to be protected along with an estimate of plant down time to accomplish the removal and protection.
- 7. 0 What are the capabilities of and precautions that must be taken to prevent internal equipment damage if the proof test were to be carried out at some later date than the initial proof test?
3.0 The integrated leak rate test to be made at various times during the 40-year life will be conducted at a pressure of 50% of design.
Evaluate the extent to which such tests would also servs to verify the continued struccarat integrity of the containment.
?.0 On what basis was each of the independent test laboratories selected ? To what organization did the test laboratory personnel report all their findings and what organization exercised control over the test laboratory?
i l
l Oconee 1, 2, & 3 3
a 1
10.0 In imp!amantation of the " Records Requirements" of the General j
i Design Criterion, specify the design reports, fabrication / quality control records and as-built construction drawings that are now maintained by the applicant for the Class I structures, equipment, and systems.
Indicate the definite steps that are being taken to obtain those not yet available.
Include a schedule of times when these vital records will be within your control.
It is requested that the containment design report be submitted.
11.0 For containment coatings, please provide the following information:
a.
Identification of natsr',a1 to be used, location, and function.
b.
Physical and chemical characteristics.
c.
Performance under accident (LOCA) conditions including washdown, radiation, steam, temperature, and jet impinge-ment effects.
d.
Experimental data on the effect of exclusion formed by spray solutions and coating material on recirculation through spray nozzles and the core.
e.
Effect of coating on core and heat exchanger heat transfer surfaces if carried in solution.
12.0 Indicate the tendon corrosion inhibitor being used as tendon filler.
If a change has been nada from the NO-OK-ID originally indicated, justi-fy in detail each test data, performance data, etc., the equivalence of the material selected.
I Oconee 1, 2, & 3 4
J 13.0 The containment proof test plans and containment nonitoring accomplished to dat. have not been described in sufficient detail for us either to evaluate the adequacy of the planr ?ng for conduct of the test or permit us to assess the meaning of test results in terms of structural adequacy.
Provide for the structural proof test:
An updated description of the instrumentation to be used to a.
t monitor the structure during the te st.
Place particular emphasis on the extent to which embedded instrumentation remains operable and describe the extent to which failed instrumentation will interfere with judging structural adequacy from the test and/or will be replaced prior to the pressurization of the structure.
l b.
The final procedures for and sequence of structural proof l
testing to include procedures for and extent of observation of structural behavior during pressurization and depressuri-nation of the structure.
Include a discussion of the extent to which the internal containment temperature will be controlled and the basis for the control selected.
i 14.0 For each component, system, and structure identified to require a high degree of safaty related seismic resistance (i.e., identified as Class I) provide a separate section with the following information:
l
l Oconee 1, 2, & 3 5
j'"
'j70 1
An engineering sketch of the principal structural features a.
of the item.
t I
b.
A sketch of the mathematical model idealicing the system f
for dynamic analysis purposes.
c.
A tabulation of the mass and section propertiew that constitute the model.
I d.
A description of the degrees of freedom considered and a l
discussica (to include examples) of the procedures used I
for lumping masses and computing section properties.
A discussion of the accuracy with which the modal describes e.
i the particular item considered.
t 15.0 For components, systems, and structures identified as requiring i
i a high degree of safety-related seismic resistance and analyzed by l
a dynamic method provide in addition:
l a.
ae equations of motion for the approximating model.
The matrix algebra format may be used but all matrix elements will be specified.
j b.
The procedure for evaluating resistance elements (and, as applicable, damping elements) for the matrix shown in f
"a" above.
c.
The mode shapes, frequencies, and participation factors if f
a modal analysis procedure is indicated.
l i
i
l Oconee 1, 2, di 3 6
7 i
l f
d.
The :aanner in which imodal damping percentages have been I
datarmined if a spectral analysis procedure is indicated.
A justification for the technique used and the specific modal values employed should be included.
Tae input forcing function considered if different from e.
the basic ground motion characterization.
f.
The procedure employed for combining modal effects, if a spectral analysis procedure is indicated.
3 The predicted deformations and internal shears, moments, axial and torsional forces at critical points resulting from the analysis.
h.
A tabulation of resultant stresses at critical locations for the item under consideration for both the seismic forces separately and, also, in combination with the other combined loads. Also specify, for comparison, the allowable values at these locations.
Include the cyclic basis for the values specified.
16.0 For items identified as requiring a high degree of safety-related seismic resistance and analysed by an approximate static method also provide:
a.
Details on the specific procedure used to include the manner of static force selection and application in computing design accelerations, displacements, shears, moments and stresses.
Oconee 1, 2, & 3 7
-.g b.
Justification of the conservatism of ths procedure with respect to results obtainable through a more exact analysis, The predicted deformations and internal shears, moments, c.
axial and torsional forces at critical locations resulting from the analysis.
d.
A tabulation of resultant stresses at critical locations for the item under consideration for both the seismic forces separately and, also, in combination with other combined loads.
Also specify, for comparison, the allowable values at these locations to include the cyclic basis for the values specified.
1 17.0 For compenents, systema, and structures identified to require some degree of seismic resistance (i. e., identified as Class II) provide a 1
i detailed description of the procedures used, the constants selected j
and examples of their application in a specific situation to an example (a) component, (b) structure, and (c) system.
13.0 Provide a discussion of the possibility and significance of dynamic coupling between the nuclear steam system and the supporting structure (internal structure within the containment building).
19.0 What provisions were made to transfer seismic and wind shear forces across construction joints ?
)
20.0 It is understood that spectra from the highest point in the Auxiliary Building at which the piping systems are anchored are used l
l l
.-m Oconee 1, 2, & 3 3
JA!!
for piping in both the Auxiliary Building and the Turbine Buildind-Will not the spectra for the two buildings be differ-int and exhibit different amplifications at different frequencies 7. Has rocking of the Turbine Support Structure been considered ? Please demonstrate that if the spectra from the Auxiliary Building are utilized for pipes in the Turbine Building, the resulting seismic stresses will be con-servative.
21.0 It is understood that the Turbine Building has been designed to resist the earthquake loadings postulated for the site La order to protect the Seismic Class I equipment and piping located within the 1
Turbine 3uilding.
The structure has been designed for a uniform static lateral coefficient of 0.22 g(7) for the maximum hypothetical i
earthquake, and this coefficient corresponds to the peak spectral acceleration for 2% damping.
Please demonstrate that this method is conservative as stated.
Can contributions from the various modes of response result in an 1
acceleration at the roof that is higher than 0.22g7 If so, will the J
structure be able to withstand this loading?
22.0 Indicate the extent and manner to which earthquake strong motion damage assessment devices are being installed in the facility. Also, indicate the manner in which data from such devices will be evaluated and used in evaluating the facilities' operational status.
hsiG
~'
QUESTION / RESPONSE DISPOSITION OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 STRUCTURAL REVIEW QUESTION LIST DATED OCTOBER 3, 1969 Being Voluntary Submittal To be Covered Question Asked Acceptable by Bechtel in Index Natuber Fornially Orail Respoitse Titrougia Applicant Topical Report A1.1 X
A1.2 X
A2.1 X
A2.2 X
A2.3 X
A2.4 X
A2.5 X
A2.6 X
A2.7 X
A2.8 X
X A2.9 X
A2.10 X
l I
X A2.11
'IO QUESTION / RESPONSE DISPOSITicM 2
Being Voluntary Submittal To be Covered Question Asked Acceptable by Bechtel in Ladex Number
[ornally_
Oral Responne Through Appitcant_
Topical Report A2.12 X
A2.13 I
A2.14 I
g A2.15 K
A2.16 K
A2.17 X
A3.1 X
A3.2 X
A4.1 X
A4.2 X
A4.3 I
A5.1 X
A5.2 X
AS.3 X
9
QUESTION / RESPONSE DISPOSITION 3
- }l(,1 Being Voluntary Sulnaittal To be Cuvered Question Asked Acceptable by Bechtel in Inden Wsunber Formull y Oral hosponse Throup.h Applicant Topical Report 31.0 X
m2.0 X
C1.0 X
C2.0 X
C3.0 X
C4.0 X
C5.0 X
C6.0 X
D X
E1.0 X
E2.0 X
E3.0 X
E4.0 X
E5.0 X
E6.0 X
E7.0 X
E8.0 X
l
.