ML19322B165
| ML19322B165 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 04/03/1970 |
| From: | Sharpe R JOHN A. BLUME & ASSOCIATES, ENGINEERS |
| To: | Case E US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| CON-AT(49-5)-4011 NUDOCS 7912020022 | |
| Download: ML19322B165 (5) | |
Text
I i
. see Frameiseo, caliform g 94105 4-3-70 4-9-70 1 F '1
.4
~
LTR.
Last we
'EPORT:
Vaha
.g C
70:.
ORI 3.s CCa CTH ENF 1
A EdSon O. Case action NecrSSARY O
CONCdRRENCE O
DATE ANSWERED NO ACTION NECESSARY O CCM M ENT O
eve CLASSIPs POST OFFICE FILE CCCE:
9 f U
REC,No, 50-269 50-270 50-287 DESCRIPTION: (Must Be UnCJ Assified)
REFERRED TO DATE RECEIVED BY DATE Ltr trans comments & questions on Duke A. Droserick 4-9-70 Power Co(Oconee 1,2,6 3) for two B&W
, f, em,.,, n,,
Topical Rpta(LAW-lOOO8,Part 1 &
BAW-10000,Part 2) and trans:
DTs7RTatwTome ENCLOSURES Wq Negulatory filef3)(1 ea docket)
Attachecnt _A Seismic Review Ciionee w ( %, w,,a Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3' H. Price &' staff asn,, 4, htow.n.a m'.
Bora n-W'=e n-a, d',j j ' n., _., 3."
8 ' '.
l Ir-(5 cys ree'd)
P* Howe
'd1 t
AkU.1 l/ C Ibng/Karas(3) ftV ail.itA 0P T.') F.,"-7 4 #21.- - a-a 1 * /,1 fM u.s. ATOMIC ENERGY CoMMissON MAIL CONTROL FORM ream,AEgpres o...........,...v...-.....
t 7912020pM
[,
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.',nt:n, 612 HOWA A0 STREET. SAN FR ANCISCC, CAli'ORNI A 94105 * (415) 397-2525
$7/[s*wlNIO um. cer April 3, 1970 b
hs ',/'
.@,~.
q N
7
,i s..
n,.
.s,
,.s s
P, $'O:.:h*: $
I!
.g,. c,'O d $Q.QE;j.g"h Mr. Edson G. Case, Director 9 k g
Division of Reactor Standards b
't,
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission k'
3 Washington, D.C.
20343 W \\
Contract No:
AT(49-5)-4011 Blume Project No:
2085511
Subject:
Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3 Duke Power Company Docket Nos. 50-269, 270, 287
Dear Mr. Case:
In accordance with your request, we have reviewed two Babcock
& Wilcox Topical Reports, BAW-10008, Part 1, " Reactor Internals Stress and Deflection Due to Loss-of-Coolant Accident and Maximum Hypothetical Earthquake," and BAW-10008, Part 2, " Fuel Assembly Stress and Deflection Analysis for Loss-of-Coolant Accident and Seismic Excitation."
Our opinion in general has been discussed with members of the DRL staff.
Attachment A presents a more specific listing of our'. comments and questions with regard to the adequacy of the analyses.
Very truly yours, JOHN A. BLUME & ASSOCIATES, ENGINEERS m
-- - y Roland L. Sharpe Executive Vice President RLS:nik 1
Enclosure o
'g
^
o ATTACHMENT A SElSMIC Rt./IEW OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 DUKE POWER COMPA g (Docket Nos. 50-269,270,287)
The following is a list of comments and questions resulting from a review of two Babcock & Wilcox Topical Reports:
BAW-10008, Part 1,
" Reactor Internals Stress and Deflection Due to Loss-of-Coolant ' Accident and Maximum Hypothetical Earthquake," June, 1969; and BAW-10008, Part 2 " Fuel Assembly Stress and Deflection Analysis for Loss-of-Coolant Accident and Seismic Excitation," October,1969 BAW-10008, Part I
'1.
Section 1:
It is stated that both time-histories and response spec-tra are used as input to the seismic analyses.
Please provide a copy of the spectra used in the analysis, and comparisons of this spectra and the response spectra from the time-history with the OConee response spectra.
2.
Section 1:
Please discuss the applicability of the design ground response spectra at the support of the reactor vessel.
How were possible modifications of the spectra due to soil-structure inter-action effects accounted for in the design.
3 Section 2:
It is stated that horizontal accelerations of 0.25g and vertical accelerations of 0.169 were applied to the internals.
Are these accelerations actually applied "to the internals" or are they used as input to the model of the reactor vessel and internals?
This statement seems to imply that a static approach is employed rather than a dynamic approach.
if this is so, justify the approach.
4.
Par. 3.1.4:
It is stated that the core contacts the upper grid during a LOCA.
The size of the gap is not stated nor is there any explana-tion of how the impact is considered in the analyhis.
The results JOHN A. BLUME & ASSCCIATES. ENGINEERS 2na <
~
x c.
q shown indicate a smooth reseonse with no indication of impact effects.
Please explain in detaii how this analysis was performed.
5.
Par. 3.1.5: Explain what is meant by " appropriate dynamic load factors."
How were they derived and applied in the analysis? How were the re-actor vessel and Internals analysed for the LOCA pressure load? iHow was this load applied to the model of the reactor vessel and internals?
6.
Par. 3. i.6.2: Describe and present the results of the investigations leading to the selection of the nine-mass model shown in Figure 22.
Show that the nine-mass model adequately represents the behavior of the physical system.
7.
Par. 3.1.6.2: Please justify the decoupilng of the reactor vessel from the remainder of the nuclear steam system (steam generators,
piping,etc.).
8.
Please describe in detail (including equations) the analytical tech-niques used in both the LOCA and seismic analyses.
It is not cicar whether digital or analog techniques were used, where the time-history or response spec,trum methods were used, or when linear or non-linear.
analyses were used.
BAW-10008, Part 2 1.
Par. 4.1.2:
Please describe and present the r.esults of the detailed investigations leading to the selection of the nine-mass model shown in Figure 5 for the "fi rst segment."
Show that it adequately represents the behavior of the physical system.
Please justify the decoupling of the reactor vessc1 from the remainder of the nuclear steam system (steam generators, piping, etc. ).
.2.
Par. 4.1.3:
Please describe in detail the non-linear analysis per-formed. What assumptions were made and how do these relate to the physical. system?
JOHN A. St UME & ASSOCIATES. ENGINEERS
~
^
'3.
Par. 4.1.3:
The curve labeled "El Centro" in Figure 6 does not appear to be the spectrum of the El Centro earthquake but the Oconee design spectrum.
Please clari fy.
4.
Par. 4.1.4:
Show a diagram of the model used for the "second segment."
Show how the input forces and motions were applied for both the LOCA and earthquake.
5.
Par. 4.2:
It is not clear how the mathematical model is.shown in Figure 7 relates to the physical system shown in Figure 2.
Please explain in more detail.
6.
Please describe in detail (including equations) the analytical tech-niques used in both the LOCA and seismic analyses.
It is not clear whether digital or analog techniques were used, where the time-history I
or response spectrum methods were used, or when linear or non-linear analyses were used.
l e
o 9
4 G
e 4
4.
. JOHN A. BL,UME & ASSCCIATES. ENGINEERS
' __. ' ; J
_