ML19317G456
| ML19317G456 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 04/06/1971 |
| From: | Sharpe R JOHN A. BLUME & ASSOCIATES, ENGINEERS |
| To: | Case E US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| CON-AT(49-5)-3011 2085523, NUDOCS 8003160064 | |
| Download: ML19317G456 (10) | |
Text
..
4' NO.!
DATE RECElv50 DATE OF OOCUMENT:
John A. Blues & Associates, Engineers April 6, 1971 Am il 13, 1971
- 2 FROM
OrN =
M 0;
-u,0.T; San Francisco, California f 'J5 u R.
g Roland L. Sharpe O R6G; CC OTHEN yg 1
Mr. Edson G. Case ACTION NECESSARY O
co~cuaaEacE O
DATE ANSWERED:
NO ACTION N(CESSARY O co -ENT O
e<:
F ELE CODE; CLA&&s P:
50-302
[,%..,'1 FQ4T OFF4CE U
R,.N, REFERRED TO DATE RECErvED SY DATE DESCRWTeON; (Most 60 Vfol5lifatdlug:
- ,13.-1 Cl Ltr trans the ov w/2 cys for ACTION y'?
w/2 extra cys s ',
N ISTRIBUTICH:
D Review of the Seismic Analysis of th3 ENCLOSURES:
Crystal River Unit #3 Nuclear Generatd~" %% File Cy Plant Florida Power Corporation......
Morris (3)
) fS.! _
(8 cys enc 1 rec'd)
,1 f ! -
K 2.i...
-muARas.
DL
[ -
u.s. Arouc sucnoT couuisSION MAIL CONTROL FORM FOaMfg; sus g u.s. GovERNMEN T PRINTING OF FIC E: 1970 406 979 80031000(4 /
Sosoa ea a..us J 0 H fl A. 8 L U ni E i A S S 0 0 i A T E 3. E D G l l1 E E fl 8
!amur; 6'12 HOWAPO STAEET
- S AN FR ANC ;S t C. C t,N Oc tiu 9:105 - ilis) 397-2525
!Slii"v.' e"+ '
sic <:..ta April 6, 1971 YJ
@\\ th Mr. Edson G. Case, Director
<7[f7//
Division of Reactor Standards 4,0..' *'d//{[^ hQ 1['
-U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
'?
'd*
Washington, D.C. 20545 ce Contract:
AT(49-5)-30ll
../ c, [,/p, [
Blume Project No. :
2085523
,.s
Subject:
Crystal River Unit No. 3
, (<'
[
Nuclear Generating Plant g !,.
Dear Mr. Case:
In accordance with your request, we perfotsed a general review of the FSAR Volumes I through V, for the Crystal River. Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant in order to evaluate the adequacy of the seismic design of the plant.
-As a result of this review we have determined that there is insufficient information presented in the FSAR for us to perform a detailed and complete evaluation of the seismic' analyses and design of all Class I items.
We are enclosing herewith eight copies of a report listing a number of fairly general questions. Upon receipt of the requested information we will quite possibly have additional questions.
Very truly yours, JOHN A. BLUME & ASSOCIATES, ENGINEERS
'f 4'
as Roland L. Sharpe Executive Vice President c
RLS:vdr
.co g r
),
Enclosures e.gW
~..y Y
,'f s
,v1
~ - '
.- i DD2
- .._..s @
7
HWVinITh10U
- n. ~ r -
..,m.
REVIE'10F THE SElSHIC ANALYSIS OF THE CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT NO. 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT hf-f ~? !
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION J".."
~
(Docket No. 50-302)
The following is a summary of questions and comments resulting from a pre-liminary review of the Seismic Analysis of the Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nu-clear Generating Plant as presented in the FSAR(1)* reference documents.
The comments and questions are arranged in the following order:
1.
Seismology, Seismicity, and Basic Seismic Criteria ll.
Foundation Geology and Elastic Constants.
.il.
Seismic Analysis A.
Nuclear Steam Supply System B.
Containment Structure and Other Class I Structures C.
Class l Piping Systems D.
Class l Equipment
> hlb'. _,
- n. -
'sr,, ; " r. ;, ~' i,
- h?/
' ! al; lb f,a
{E
.', ? ),
. 'e c.~
.T N
\\o.
I
~
^-
Il
- ' References are listed at the end of the report.
.j
- - J.j.
~, :. :- 'K:
u
- 1. - SEISMOLOGY, SEISMICITY, AND BASIC SEISMIC'rRITERIA Horizontal Ground-Accelerations and Response Soectra (Section 2)
It' is stated that maximum horizontal ground accelerations at the site were assumed to be 0.05g and 0.109.for the Design Earthquake (DE) and the Maximum Hypothetical Earthquake (MHE), respectively..
The response spectra curves for the DE used in the seismic analysis and design are shown in' Figures 2-28 and 2-29 The response spectra curves for the MHE are taken as twice those shown for the DE.
The accelerations and spectra were approved when the Construction Permi t was issued.
Seismographs (Section 5 2.3)
Seismic Instrumentation should be installed and continually maintained
- during plant operation.
Please describe the system to be used and pro-vide a response to the following questions.
Ql.2 What procedures will be utilized to maintain the seismographs
~
in an operating condition?
Ql.3 How will the data.from the seismographs be utilized in eval-uating the safety of the plant?
Ql.4 What provisions will be made to rapidly evaluate the data from the seismographs in the event of an earthquake?
delsmicity Analysis (Section 2.5.4.1)
Copies of the.PSAR and the DRL Safety Evaluation Repart have not been re-ceived by us. 'It is possible that some of the following questions are an-swered'therein.
Ql.5 is tectonic activity related to the Ocala uplift continuing or has.it ceased?
-Ql.6 Ar 'the faults located' east of the si te active or inactive?
-is evidence available to indicate direction.of fault movement
,and amount of movement occurring during a single episode of dislocation en these faults?
Could movements of the faults
- have been accompanied by earthquakes? 'If'so, could this af-n.
fect: site seismicity?. Show all known or possible. faults on a 980109 c map.-
_j g i
m
Ql.7 Discuss the relationship of historic. earthquakes in Florida to geologic structure and illustrate on a map.
Ql.8
' Present a tabulation of earthquakes relevant to the site and a map showing their epicentral locations.
Ql;9 What tsunami effects might result from an earthquake as large as or larger than historic earthquakes in northern Florida if it occurred offshore near the site? Discuss published data relating earthquake magnitude and tsunami characteristics such as-height of wave. What are possible effects of such a tsunami on the facility?
Ql.10 Has it been assumed that an earthquake equivalent to the 1879 earthquake in northern Florida having MM intensity VI could not or would not occur very close to, or beneath the site?
If so, kindly provide the basis for this assumption.
If this has not been assumed, discuss this possibility and the resul-tant ground accelerations at the site.
. so c
- 4. s._u ac s associrss. ssa:..csac u
~
l l'.F0tJtiDAT10?1 GEOLOGY Atl0 ELASTlC ' CO?lSTAflTS Q2.1
. ere soil pressures under conditions of earthquake loading W
against building walls which are ~ below ground surface consid-ered in the design?
Show that structural design is adequate to resist such forces.
Q2.2 Discuss stability of the inlet and outlet structures and pi-ping with respect to considerations of soil densification, soil liquefaction, and cut and fill slope stability under dy-namic-loading due to the DBE..
Q2.3 Present values of spring constants and damping factors of the founding materials used in dynamic analysis of structures'and state how these were derived.
3 t
I
-.4_
u,
be.
T g
g @$d 4
3 Ill.
SElSMIC ANALYSIS A.
Nuclear Steam Sucoly System (Section 4)
Q3 1 Please describe in detail the analysis procedure that was
.used to determine that the nuclear steam supply system (reactor vessel, steam generators, reactor coolant pumps, piping, etc.) meet Seismic Class I criteria.
Include in this discussion the following:
a.
A detailed description and sketch of the mathematical model(s) of the system, including a discussion of the degrees of freedom and methods of lumping masses, de-termining section properties, etc.
b.
A discussion of the analytical procedures used, includ-ing the methods of computing periods, mode shapes, de-sign accelerations, displacements, shears, moments, etc.,
and the methods of combining modal responses and of de-termining combined stresses.
c.
A listing of the damping values used.
d.
How were seismic input motions derived?
B.
Containment Structure and Other Class i Structures (Section 5.2.4.1.2)
Q3.2 Please describe in more detail the analytical techniques used for Class I structures.
include in the discussion the following:
a.
A detailed description and sketch of the mathematical models of the structures, including a discussion of the degrees of freedom and methods of lumping masses, deter-mining section properties, etc.
)
b.
A discussion of the analytical procedures used, includ-ing methods of computing periods, mode shapes, design accelerations, displacements, shears, moments, etc.,
the' number of modes used in the analysis, and the method of combining modal responses.
-l ace A. a u m.: a Asseewras, esa:,uns s
v
-s Q3.3: How were soil-structure interaction effects considered in the analysis of all Class 1 structures?
Q3.'4 : Since the elastic constants utilized for the foundation materiali are based on field and laboratory data and are at the best an estimate, and since the modeling techniques o
for soil-structure-interaction effects involve approxima-tions,'how were the effects of possible variations in the constants and of the approximations in the modeling consid-ered in the seismic ~ analyses ?
Q3.5 How was the response of the structures in the vertical di-rection determined? How was the vertical response of re-latively flexible items, such as crane girders, determined?
Q3.6 For those Class I items which will be located within or ad-Jacent to Class 11 or ill structures, please explain in de-tall what precautions are taken to ensure that the failurn of Class 11 or lil structures will not adversely affect Class I items.
C.
Class I pioing' Systems (Section 5.4.5)
Q3.7 Describe in more detail the analysis and design procedures f'
_used to determine that Class I piping systems meet Class I criteria.
Include in this discussion the followir.g:
- a. _ The methods utilized to determine the input spectral accelerations.
b.
A discussion of the analytical procedures used, includ-Ing the methods of computing the stiffness and mass l'
matrices, periods, and mode shapes, and the procedures for computing design accelerations, displacements, shears, moments, and stresses.
c.
Mathematical models -and analytical results for major piping systems.
4 ~
joe a swME L Assoc;A ts. ENsiNE.rns =
p
n Q3.8 How were relative deflections -between adjacent buildings accounted for in the design of piping systems which run be-tween buildings?
Q3 9. How were possible adverse seismic-induced effects of Class 11 or til pioing systems on Class I piping evaluated and considered in the design?
D., Class i Eculoment Q3.10 Describe in detail the procedures used to assure that the Class I equipment (both mechanical and electrical -- tanks, pumps, instrument racks, etc.) meet seismic design criteria.
Provide a detailed discussion of the analysis and/or test-Ing methods that were used.
Include a description of the methods utilized to determine seismic input to equipment.
Q3.11 What procedures and methods are used to ensure that Class I items as constructed and installed in the field have the seismic resistance contemplated in the analysis?
f 7-
_ o- ~
- 2. m._u u c a a ss o c u.Tc s. a s s n e s= s
-s REFERENCES'--
1.
Final Safety ' Anal'ysis Report, Volumes l', I I, I I I, IV, and V, ' Crystal River-Unit No. 3,. Nuclear Generating Plant, Florida Power Corporation.
2.
Topical Report ' BAW-10008, Part 'l, Rev. 1, " Reactor Internals Stress and Deflection Due to' Loss of Coolant Accident and Maximum Hypothetical Earthquake," June 1970.
- 1
_-w bW #
d
(
f*
g E-
.