ML19322B161
| ML19322B161 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1969 |
| From: | Sharpe R JOHN A. BLUME & ASSOCIATES, ENGINEERS |
| To: | Morris P US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| CON-AT(49-5)-3011 NUDOCS 7912020018 | |
| Download: ML19322B161 (14) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:FROM TE OF DOCUW*NT: DATE EECEl ED N3 ~ ,g -h r!}! $J 'Ta-
===a = ofs.E= gwg } E to one CC. oTwa= Dr Peter A. Itarris 1 ACTION NECES$ARY O co~cuaatuct O oATr a~sweaso-NO ACTION NECE35ARY O couuC~T O Sv: C L.A 5 5 s F POST OFF4E FILE CCDC T REG. NO-j DESCRIP TICN. (Must Be Unclassif;ed) REFERRED TO DATE RECENED BY CATE 1 Ltr trams the following: A. Bromarisk J-3-69 w/2 ers for ACT[0E BTEFETEUPION: E NCLo s v REs.
- g c -.t.
1m of .uo r=>,vo11 2f - 12 p r-JDb0~ ENDE = 18 Tim
- I (3 eys ree'd)
ACDrDE'L10E1 i
- 1. -
a i I. Fries & Staff Ieng(W/ Orig & 3 en sys!",Crig to De returmet to ol6) ,r,, c.' .w foi s u.s. ATQMIC ENERGY COMMISION MAllCONSOL FORM roayjg,2285 e u.s. Govtemastaf PfitfissG 0FFICE: 3314 78 P30RORONAL 7912020b
j J O 4. % 4 SL6WE J O H N A. B L U M E A S S O C I A T E S, E N G I N E E R.S
- t.r.'~n";#,
612 HOWARD STREET - S AN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105. (415)397-2525 $7v'fs"w 'INI.' LLOVO A LEE September 2, 1969 Dr. Peter Morris, Director .-{'ll - C) Division of Reactor Licensing fhy' , Cy) U.S. Atomic Energy Commission sv 'v y0 Washington, D.C. 20343 /'C' G gf. ;( h w. Contract No: AT(49-5)-30l l c Blume Project No: 2085511 ^ o.A
Subject:
Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2 and 3 /.3 Duke Power Company ) Final Safety Analysis Report ,/ Docket Nos. 50-269, 270, 287
Dear Dr. Morris:
In accordance with your request we have performed a gene. al review of the FSAR, Volumes I and 2 for the Oconee Plant and also made a visit to the plant site on August 13 and 14. We are enclosing herewith three copies of a list of questions and comments resulting from this review and trip to the site. It is possible that additional questions will be generated after re-ceipt of the information requested in the attached. Very truly yours, JOHN A.BLUME & ASSOCIATES, ENGINEERS (M/) C3 h Roland L. Sharpe Executive Vice President i RLS:Js Enclosure 20 'ld
m SEISMIC REVIEW OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 DUKE P0 DER COMPANY / (Docket Nos. 50-269, 270, 287) The attached is a list of comments resulting from a preliminary review of the reference documents (see attached list) for the Oconce Plant. The re-view was primarily directed toward seismic considerations, but a general review of the structural characteristics and design concepts was performed. The questions 2nd comments have been arranged in the following categories: I. Introduction and Summary II. Reactor Coolant System III. Reactor Building, IV. Interior Structure V. Class I Piping Systems - Reactor Zuilding VI. Class I Piping Systems - Other Buildings VII. Class I Equipment VIII. Auxiliary Building IX. Turbine Building ,l\\ ) ,/, -f,,, . q:- QQ s Cf/ , s.- 4.;C H N A. BLU M E & ASSCC:ATES ENGINEERS k d
9 m 7 .l I. INTRODUCTION AND SU41ARY 4 t It is stated that' Appendix IC, " Systems Design Critoria for Natural Phe-nomena" will be submitted later. We will complete our review of Section I of the FSAR when this appendix is received. 4 l I i I i 1 .i i 1 ? t i l h i ? 2~'- . JCHN A. ~ BLUME & ASSCClATES. ENGINEERS 1 T -e-y +g = - - ,-y- .,n---, y + y,. y rw e - ~. = - -re-y
.m m II. REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM 1. Please describe in detail the analysis and/or testing procedures used to determine that the nuclear steam supply system (reactor vessel, steam generators, reactor coolant pumps, piping, etc.) meets Seismic Class I. criteria. Include in this discussion the following: A det$iled description and sketch of the mathematical model(s) ~ a. of the system, including a discussion of the degrees of free-dom and methods of lumping masses, determining section prop-erties, etc. b. A discussion of the analytical procedures used, including the methods of computing periods, mode shapes, modal participation factors, and the procedures for computing design accelerations, displacements, shears, and moments. c. A discu;sion of the possibility and significance of dynamic coupling between the nuclear steam system and the supporting structure (internal structure within the cantainment build-ing). d. A listing of the damping values used. c. The :esults of the analyses, including the input and model used, the natural periods,_ mode shapes, accelerations, dis-placements, shears, moments, and stresses. = '3 - JCHN A.' BLUME & AESCCIATES. ENGINkERS
/ III. REACTOR BUILDING 1. In order to properly evaluate the adequacy of the design of the containment structure, it is necessary to know which loading con-ditions are actually critical to the design. To facilitate this evaluation, please provide a summary of the stresses from the var-ious loading conditions (dead load, thermal, pressure, wind, earth-quake, etc.), the total combined stress, and the allowable stress for each critical point on the structure and each load combina-tion case. Explain how the results of the seismic anal'yses were incorporated in the final design. 2. 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 consideration the elastic nature of the foundation material and its effect upon the behavior of the base slab. This exten-sion below the base slab is apparently not shown on Figure 5-4, " Reactor Building Finite Element Mesh." Picase provide a draw-ing of the mesh used to account for the effects of the foundation material. 3. 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. 4. On page 5-14, it is stated that the liner was treated as an in-tegral part of the structure. Does this mean that it was included in the finite element mesh of the containment structure? If so, please provide a detailed sketch of the mesh. 5. For which loading cases do the isostress plots shown on Figures S-6 and 5-7 apply? 6. In regard to the seismic analyses: What were the periods o'f vibration as computed for the con-a. tainment model? b. Please justify the assumption of. fixity of the base slab as shown in the model on Figure 5-10. ~ bCHN A. SL' ;ME & ASSCCfArES. ENGINEERS
/ c. Once-the inertia forces were obtained as explained on page 5-18, how were the internal forces in the containment walls and base slab computed? 7. What provisions were made to transfer seismic and wind shear for-ces across construction joints? e 8. When the. structural tests are complete, plea'se provi.de a summary of the predicted stresses, strains, and deflections versus the actual recorded values for each increment of pressure testing for each instrument. Provide an evaluation of the results of these tests as related to the adequacy and conservativeness of the design and analysis assumptions. w 5- .,:CHN' A. SL*JME & ASSCCIATES. ENGINEERS
1 1 m ...] IV. INTERIOR STRUCTURE 1. Picase describe the procedures utill:ed to ascertain the seismic adequacy of the interior structure within the c'ontainment structure. Include in this discussion a sketch of the mathematical model used and the results of the analysis in terms of periods, accelerations, shears, moments, displacements, etc. 2. The finite element mesh shown for the containment building appar-ently 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 scismic shear and overturning moment from the interior structure? I 1 i f. = r . CwN A. St.UME & AS$CCIATES. ENGINEEN J =
O. J .J V. CLASS I PIPING SYSTEMS - REACTOR BUILDING ~ 1. Please describe in detail the analysis procedures used to determine that.the Class I piping within the reactor building meets seismic Class I criteria. Include in this discussion the following: j a. The methods utilized to determine the input (response spectra) for the piping analyses. Also, please provide graphs of these spectra at the various elevations in the structure. Include a comparison of the postulated spectra for the site and the spec-tra determined from time-history used in the analysis of the reactor building. b. Typical mathematical models for several piping systems for the Oconec plant. Include specifically the model of the main steam j line (and steam generator). c. A discussion of the analytical procedures used, including the methods of computing the stiffness and mass matrices, periods, mode shapes, and participation factors, and the procedures for computing design accelerations, displacements, shears, moments, and stresses. d. The detailed results including items listed under c, above, for several systems as specified in b, above. e. Provide for all systems a summary of the stresses from the various loading conditions (dead load, thermal, earthquake, etc.), the total combined stress, and the allowable stress for each critical point on the system and for each load com-bination case. .i =. '.JCHN A. BLUME & ASSCC:ATES. ENGINEIPS
m e ) .i VI. CIASS I PIPING SYSTEMS - OTHER BUILDINGS 1. We understand that the Class I pipes being designed by Duke Power Company are designed for a uniform static coefficient equal to the peak spectral acceleration from the spectrum for the appropriate support point in the auxiliary building. For these systems, please provide the following: a. Summarize the procedures currently being used. b. Demonstrate that the method used is conservative, that is, it results in seismic stresses equal to or greater than those that would be obtained by dynamic analyses. c. Provide for all systems a summary of the stresses from the various loading conditions (dead load, thermal, earthquake, etc.), the total combined stress, and the allowable stress for each critical point on the system and for each load l combination case. 2. We also understand that spectra from the highest point in the Auxiliary Building at which the piping systems are anchored are used for piping in both the Auxiliary Building and the Turbine Building. Will not the spectra for the two buildings be dif-ferent and exhibit different amplifications at different frequen-cies? 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 conservative. 5 JCHN A. St UME & ASSCCIATES. ENGINEEMS L_
p_ 1 VII. CLASS I EQUIPMENT 1. Please describe the procedures used to assure that the Class I equipment (tanks, pumps, etc.) meet the seismic design criteria. 1 Provide a summary of all such pieces of equipment and the types a, and results of the seismic analyses performed. k i 1 l i I 4 ) - l I i J f J 1. JOHN A. BLUME & ASSOCIATES. ENGINEERS ;
~ A. / VIII. AUXILIARY BUILDING ~ 1. Please provide a sketch and detailed description of the mathematical model used for the dynamic analysis of the auxiliary building and the results of this analysis. Include in these results the re-sponse spectra developed for use in the analyses of piping systems. o A + - 10'- JCHN A. BLUME & ASSOCIATES. ENGINEERS .m
O ^ J IX. TURBINE BUILDING It is our understanding that the Turbine Building has,been designed to resist the earthquake loadings postulated for the site in order to pro-tect the Seismic Class I equipment and piping located within the Turbine f Building. The structure has been designed for a unii em static lateral coefficient of 0.22g(?) for the maximum hypothetical 2rthquake, 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 accelera-tion at the roof that is higher than 0.22g? If so, will the structure be able to withstand this loading? 4 'N JOHN A. S'LUME & ASSOCIATES. ENGINEEMS
SEISMIC REVIEW REFERENCE DOCUMENTS Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2 and 3 Duke Power Company Docket Nos. 50-269, 270, 287 Construction Permit Preliminary Safety Analysis Report Vol. 1 Preliminary Safety. Analysis Report Vol. 2 Report No. I to the ACRS dated May 24, 1967 Report No. 2 to the ACRS dated June 16, 1967 Addendum to Report No. 2 to the ACRS dated July 6, 1967 Operating License Final Safety Analysis Report Vol. 1 Final Safety Analysis Report Vol. 2 "Roactor Internals Stress and Deficction due to Loss-of-Coolant Accident and Maximum Ilypothetical Earthquake," Babcock 5 Wilcox Topical Report BAW-10008, Part 1, June 1969. f 4 i s 1 12 - t JOHN A. BLtJME & ASSOCIATES. ENGINEERS (- .... - -}}