ML20003G526
| ML20003G526 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1981 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Gary R TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104290747 | |
| Download: ML20003G526 (12) | |
Text
7 Eta
/
'o UNITED STATES 8"
'n NUCLEAR itEGULATORY COMMISSION h-WASHING TON, D. C. 20555
%...../
April 23,1981 6' (9 Docket Nos. 50-445 4
and 50-446
.p
\\
kl. [
k APR23gggyh f Mr. R. J. Gary u,, %
2 Executive Vice President and 1,,
%=w
- General Manager
/
J Texas Utilities Generating Company o,
2001 Bryan Tower
.b Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Gary:
SUBd.CT: DESIGN AUDIT OF COMANCHE PEAK BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH The Structural Engineering Branch (SEB) has reviewed the information provided in your FSAR for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2.
As an additional part of its review of an operating license application, the SEB cont ucts an audit of the structural design of the safety-related structures within.ne station. This design audit will consist of a review of the design reports and drawings prepared for Category 1 structures with the objectives of confirming that basic design criteria, analysis methods, and codes and standards were properly utilized in the design of these structures. The audit team will also audit the design of selected structures which are representative of the types of structure-load combinations encountered in the station design.
The audit team will consist of members cf the SEB and our consultants.
This letter transmits a design audit checklist developed by'SEB for the conduct l
of the audit. We request that your staff; 1) review the enclosed design audit I
checklist, 2) arrange to make available for review the requisite design l
information, and 3) meet with the SEB audit team at a mutually agreeable time j
and place. We suggest that the meeting be held at the Gibbs and Hill offices in New York during the week of May 11, 1981. We anticipate that the completion i
l of the audit will require a full week of meetings.
It will be important to l
have available at the meetings the design engineers who authored and are thoroughly familiar with the design reports and drawings supporting the l
structural design.
1 I
8104290'N1 A
Mr. R. J. Gary When the site and time have been selected, we will then issue a meeting notice. As interested members of the public may wish to attend the meeting, notice must be issued a minimum of two weeks before the meeting is held.
Please select a site which will not preclude members of the public from attending.
If you have any questions regarding the conduct of the requested meeting or the information included in the design audit checklist, please call us.
Sincerely,
?hi -d d Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
Design Audit Checklist cc: See next page e
l l
l 1
A Mr. R. J. Gary Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 cc: Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Mr. Richard L. Fouke Debevoise & Liberman Citizens for Fair Utility Regul.
1200 Seventeenth Street 1668-B Carter Drive Washington, D. C.
20036 Arlington, Texas 76010 Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
Resident Inspector /Comance Peak Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels Nuclear Station 2001 Bryan Tower c/o U.S.N.R.C.
Dallas, Texas 75201 P. O. Box 38 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Mr. Homer C. Schmidt Manager - Nuclear Services Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Mr. H. R. Rock Gibbs and Hill, Inc.
393 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10001 Mr. A. T. Parker Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15320 David J. Preister
~
Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President Citizens Association for Sound Energy 1426 South Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 Geoggrey M. Gay, Esq.
West Texas Legal Services 100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.)
Forth Worth, Texas 7610E l
ENCLOSURE COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN AUDIT CHECKLIST STRUCTURAL AUDIT OF COMANCHE PEAK Part I - General Analysis I.
BASIC DESIGN CRITERIA A.
"g" value - free field B.
Spectra (attach figs. for all damping values, ductilities) 1.
zero period acceleration 2.
frequency (or period) interval C.
Damping D.
Artificial time history and corresponding spectra (attach figures) 1.
original time history and its composition, i.e., rising time, stong motion and tail end.
2.
base line correction, check the integrated velocity and displacement time histories 3.
time interval - compatible with the highest "requency considered in the spectral calculation E.
Motion duration F.
Components of motion including their relative motion amplitudes G.
Dead and live loads for various operating floors and base slab H.
Ground water level I.
Back fill earth pressure, wind, overpressure due to postulated external explosions (as applicable)
J.
Other considerations
, II. ANALYSIS METHOD A.
Seismic Analysis 1.
Mathematical model-general description with sketch.
a.
parameters used (1) concrete modulus (2) rebar modulus and yield strength (3) Poisson's ratio (4) damping (5) properties of foundation materials shear modulus subgrade reactions e
bearing capabilities a
(6) other parameters b.
stiffness calculations (1) exterior walls (2) interior walls 2.
Method of Analysis a.
method of analysis used (time history, response spectrum methods, etc.) and consideration of torsional and transla-tional response (1) general description (2) findings and connents b.
selection of r. umber of masses and degrees of freedom (1) general description (2) findings and comments
. c.
number of modes considered (1) general description (2) findings and coments d.
combining modal responses (1) actual procedures used (2) general findings e.
consideration of three components of motion i
(1) actual procedures used (2) general findings f.
consideration of soil-structure interaction (1) general description (2) findings and comments g.
decoupling criteria for subsystems (1) general procedure (2) key examples (3) general findings and coments
~
h.
modeling of hydrodynamic effects in spent fuel pool
- i. modeling of spent fuel pool wells and interior floor slavs and equipment thereof 3.
development of in-structure iesponse spectra a.
general procedures (1) smoothing (describe specific smoothing method used)
(2) peak widening b.
typical results (attach figures)
4 4-
~
B.. Stress Analysis 1.
shear walls and floors a.
mathematical model - general description w/ sketch b.
method of analysis-incorporation of torsion c.
load combinations 2.
foundation mat a.
mathematical model - description of boundary. conditions b.
method of analysis c.
load combinations d.
key results (figures, etc.)
3.
material to protect against structure - structure interaction-a.
mechanical properties b.
additional pressure on walls c.
findings and comments 4.
vertical dynamic analysis
~'
a.
mathematical model - general description with sketch b.
development of stiffnesses, including floor stiffness, as applicable c.
method of analysis C.
Computer Programs Used in Analysis 1.
assumptions and limitations 2.
applicability 3.
verification sensitivity study in case of numerical solutions (e.g., finite element analysis) 4.
load input (include all cases) 5.
output (include all cases) 6.
other discussions
. D.
Overall Stability 1.
forces and moments from seismic analysis 2.
various cases considerad 3.
bearing pressure versus bearing capability and safety factor against bearing failure 4.
factors of safety a.
sliding b.
overturning E.
Interaction of Non-category I Structures with the structure considered 1.
identification of pertinent non-Category I structures 2.
consideration given to potential failure of non-category I systems on Category I systems 3.
general findings and comments F.
Design Consideration for Tornado Missiles 1.
design requirements 2.
models for a.
local damage b.
overall response 3.
load combinations 4.
forces 5.
general comments and preliminary audit findings I
III.
CONFORMANC2 TO ACCEPTABLE CRITERIA A.
Identification of deviations, if any B.
Justification of deviations and disposition of the deviations C.
o;neral comments i
t
Part II-Audit of Key Designs A.
Exterior Shear Walls 1.
design requirements 2.
design loads (from general analysis) 3.
forces and moments at key sections 4.
detailed design of rebar placement at key sections 5.
general comments and preliminary audit findings B.
Interior Shear Walls 1.
design requirements 2.
design loads (from general analysis) 3.
forces and moments at key sections 4.
detailed design of rebar placement at key sections 5.
general comments and preliminary audit findings C.
Main Floors and Roofs 1.
design requirements 2.
design loads (from general analysis) 3.
forces and moments at key sections 4.
detailed design of rebar placement at key sections 5.
general comments and preliminary audit findings D.
Steel Structural Bracing Systems (if any) 1.
design requirements 2.
design loads 3.
forces and moments at key sections 4.
general comments and p eliminary audit findings E.
Foundation Mat l.
design requirements 2.
design loads (from general analysis)
. 3.
forces and moments at key sections 4.
detailed design of rebar placement at key sections 5.
general comments and preliminary audit findings F.
Main Frame Concrete Column Design (Key Columns) 1.
design requirements 2.
design loads (from general analysis) 3.
forces and mesents at key sections 4.
detailed design of rebar placement at key sections 5.
general commetns and preliminary audit findings G.
Secondary Floors 1.
design requirements 2.
design loads (from general analysis) 3.
forces and moments at kev sections 4.
detailed design of rebar placement at key sections
~
5.
general comments and preliminary audit findings H.
Detailing at Floor-Wall Joints 1.
design requirements l
2.
design loads (from general analysis) 3.
forces and moments at key sections 4.
detailed design of rebar placement at key sections 5.
general comments and preliminary audit findings t
. I.
Dynamic Effects Applied to Floors and Walls by Machinery 1.
design requirements 2.
design loads (from ganeral analysis) 3.
forces and moments at key sections 4.
details design 5.
general comments and preliminary audit findings L.
Crane & Support 1.
design of bets (columns and roof trusses) a.
design requirement b.
design loads (from general analysis) c.
forces and moments at key sections d.
detailed design e.
general comments and preliminary audit findings 2.
design of girders supporting crane rails a.
design requirements b.
design loads (from general analysis) c.
forces and moments at key sections d.
detailed design e.
general comments and preliminary audit findings 3.
design of spent fuel bridge a.
design requirements b.
design loads (from general analysis) c.
forces and mements at key sections d.
detailed design e.
general coments and preliminary audit findings
- M.
Fuel Pool Linear Design l.
stresses and strain controls 2-conformance to code requirements 3.
analysis procedure and results
- 4. consideration of accidental drop of crane loads 5.
corrosion effects (e.g., pitting) on liner integrity 6.
preliminary findings of audit results
.I.
1 i
l i
1 a
k' d
+
,,., -..