ML19329C467

Review of Seismic Design Criteria for Davis-Besse.

ML19329C467
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	07/17/1970
From:	Kost G, Sharpe R JOHN A. BLUME & ASSOCIATES, ENGINEERS
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML19329C466	List: ML19329C465 ML19329C467
References
CON-AT(49-5)-3011 NUDOCS 8002140846
Download: ML19329C467 (7)

Text

_ - . - -_. -.. . -.

i REVIEW 0F THE SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA I FOR THE j DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION (DocketNo.50-346) l I

July 17, 1970 i

\.

i JOHN A. BLUME & ASSOCIATES, ENGINEERS

> San Francisco, California 1

l 5 l 8002140  % ,., , _

2253 W 3

~

REVIEW OF THE SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA FO R TH E DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION (Docket No. 50-346)

INTRODUCTION This report summarizes our review of the engineering factors pertinent to the seismic design criteria of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. The power station will be located on the south western shore of Lake Erie in Ottawa County, Ohio, approximately 21 miles east of Toledo and 9 miles northwest of Port Clin:en, Ohio. The design and construction of the plant will be performed by Bechtel Corporation under the direction of the, applicant, The Toledo Edison Company. The nuclear steam supply system will be manufactured by Babcock & Wilcox Company. Application for a construction permit has been made to the U.S. Atomic Energy Ccmmission (AEC Docket No. 50-346) by The Toledo Edison Company. A Safety Analysis Report has been submitted in support of the application to show that the plant will be designed and constructed in a manner which will pro-vide for safe and reliable operation. Our review is based on the infor-mation presented in the Safety Analysis Report and is directed specifically towards an evaluation of the seismic design criteria for Class 1 structures, systems, and components. The list of reference documents upon which this review has been based is given at the end of this report.

DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY The Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station site region is characterized by flat plains having poor drainage and consists primarily of marshland with the western area rising to 4-6 feet above Lake Erie. The major streams in the region are the Maumee River and the Toussaint River (or Creek) which have very low flow velocities. All the streams generally flow toward the northeast into Lake Erie. Site soil is composed of a surficial deposit of stiff, desiccated lacustrine clays ranging from 6 to 9 feet in thickness and underlain by 4 to 20 feet of till. innediately below is

• hf k? ~

.J O H N A. St.L;VE & ASCCCiA-~ES. INGINEEPS t

m bedrock composed of argillaceous dolomi te wi th shale partings and varying amounts of gypsum and anhydri te. No faults are known to exist in the site locally.

The containmen sys t-m consists of a cylindrical s teel pressure vessel wi th hemispherical c >me and ellipsoidal bottom enclosed by a reinforced concrete shield building having a cylindrical shape wi th a shallow cose roof. An annular space of about 4'-6" is provided between the containment vessel and shield building along with soace between the domes. Both structures are joined at the base and supported on competent rock at finished grade.

The height of the shield building f rom top of foundation ring to top of dome is 274'-6". The wall and dome thicknesses will be about 2'-6" and 2'-0" respectively. A shell thickness of 1-1/2 inches will be used in the design of the containment vessel to enclose the 130-foot diameter interior space. Reinforced cencrete cons truction will be used for the Auxiliary Building including the spent f uel and control room areas. The Turbine Building will consist primarily of steel f rame cons t ruction wi th concrete slabs and a massive concrete turbine support s tructu re .

STRUCTURAL DES IGN CRITERI A AND LOADS All s tructures , equ ipment , systems, and piping are classified according

.to function or consequence of f ailure as either Class I or Class 11 as defined in Appendix 5A of the Safety Analysis Report. Class I structures, sys tems, and equipment a re those whose f ailure could cause uncontrolled release of radioactivi ty or are those essential for immediate and long-term operation following a design basis accident. They are designed to withstand the appropriate seismic loads simultaneously with other applicable loads without loss af function. S tructures and equipmen t under Class 11 desicnation are those whose failure would not result in the in the release of significant radioactivity and would not prevent reactor sh ut down. A listing of Class I s tructures , equipment , and sys tems i s given in Appendix 5A.

JOHN A. SL.UME & ASSOCIATES. ENGlN EE *?S

l m

The design loads for the Davis-Besse Station shield building are based on ultimate strength design criteria as presented in ACI 318-63 and as modi fied in Appendices 5B and 50. Structure design loads are increased by load factors based on the probability and conservatism of the pre-dicted design loads. Yield capacity reduction factors are applied to the stresses allowed by the applicable building codes.

The containment s tructure will be designed in accordance with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section ill, Class B. A " design internal pressure" of 36.0 psig along wi th a coincident design temperature of 264 will be used. All structures are designed for 40 psf roof load.

Wind loads will be determined from ASCE Paper 3269 including gust factors and variation of wind velocity wi th height. The cri teria of the fas tes t -

wind for a 100 year recurrence results in 90-mph basic wind at 30 feet above grade. The structure will be designed for tornado loading which corresponds to a design tornado with a total tangential and forward velocity of 360-mph and an atmospheric pressure drop of 3 psi in 3 seconds.

Tornado generated missiles considered in the design will be a 12 foot long, 8 inch diameter wooden pole traveling at 250 mph and a 4000 lb automobile at 50-mph up to 25 feet above ground.

ADEQUACY OF THE SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERI A a We have reviewed the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report and Amendments No.

)

1 through 7 In addi tion, we have discussed the various aspects of the

" ~

seismic design of the plant with members of the staffs of the Divisions of Reactor Standards and Reactor Licensing at several meetings and with the members of the staffs and the applicant at a meeting on May 19, 1970. We have the following comments regarding the adequacy of the seismic design criteria:

1. The applicant has selected a peak ground acceleration of 0.08g for the

" Maximum Probable Ea rthquake" and 0.159 for the " Maximum Poss ib le JCNN A. SLUME & ASSOC! A ES. ENG NEE 7S

O Earthquake." We concur with the selection of these ground acceler-ations. In addition, the site response spectra for the Ma> imum Probable Earthquake and the Maximum Possible Earthquake as shown on pages 2C-47 and 2C-48, respectively, are satisf actory.

2. The applicant has stated that the procedures for the design of 4 the reactor internals are discussed in Topical Resports BAW-10008.

We have reviewed these documents for the Oconee plant 'and have similar concerns for the Davis-Besse plant. We understand that these reports have been revised and will be submitted for the Davis-Besse app l i ca tion . Review and approval of these reports should be completed before implementation of the results of the reports in the final design, but the review need not be completed prior to issuance of the construction permi t.

i 3 The applicant has stated that he will use the response spectrum method of dynamic analysis for Class 1 structures , piping, and eq ui pmen t . The structures will be analyzed for response in both .

the horizontal and vertical directions. Time-his tory analyses of Class 1 structures will be performed to develop response spectra j in vertical and horizontal directions at the points of support of  !

4 piping and equipment.

l The applicant has stated that he will perform comparative analyses of the containment structure to confirm the assumption of a rigid base mathematical model. In these comparisons , a range of founda-tion material moduli will be used in the analyses to account for variations in these moduli. Should the results of the analyses of the rigid base and flexible base models dif fer signi ficantly, the most conservative values will be used in design.

We concur in general with the proposed approach to the seismic design of Class ! structures, piping and equipment. The analytical techniques proposed by the applicant ire satisfactory and if properly implemented will result in a conservative design.

l i

JCHN A. BLUME & ASSCCIATES, ENGINEE% l

CONCLUSIONS On the basis of the information presented by the applicant in the P re-liminary Safety Analysis Report and Amendments , it is our opinion that the seismic design criteria and approach to seismic design as outlined in the PSAR and Amendments I through 7, i f prope -ly implemented by the appli cant , wi l l resul t in a design that is adequate to resist the earth-quake condi tions pos tulated for the si te.

JOHN A. BLUME & ASSOCI ATES , ENGINEERS Roland L. Shar;;e Wyv i 3 /

Garrison Kost M+

O.

REFERENCE DOCUMEtJTS DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER PLAtJT Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Volumes 1-4 Amendments Number 1-7 0

2 v s' ~.2C JOHN A. BLL'ME & ASf:CC:ATIS. ENG;N E2R S