ML20024C886

Forwards Comments on Util Status Rept for Seismic Design Review Presented at 830510 Meeting.Addl Meeting Necessary to Address Concerns

ML20024C886
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	06/29/1983
From:	Clark R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Garrity J Maine Yankee
References
NUDOCS 8307190289
Download: ML20024C886 (18)

Text

/

y GLb a

3)N 2 9190

) @ Q5'O Docket No. 50-309 Mr. John H. Garrity Senior Vice President Nuclear Engineering and Licensing Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company 83 Edison Drive Augusta, Maine 04336

SUBJECT:

May 10, 1983 - STATUS REPORT FOR SEISMIC DESIGN REVIEW.

We are reviewing the material presented to the NRC staff on May 10, 1983 by Maine Yankee and your consultants. Your presentation was characterized as a " status report" on work in progress. However, we found the meeting of limited value in that there was inadequate time allocated for interchange between the staff and your consultants.

i We are providing written comments at this time to ensure that your program will fully address our concerns and that your formal submittals will be complete. At the time of your submittal, we should hold an additional meeting with you and your consultants. This meeting should.be planned with sufficient time for a complete discussion.

Our comments are divided into three major areas as follows:

A.

There are a number of commitments made in your letter dated June 21, 1982, which were not covered in your presentation. Your final sub-mittal should address these commitments.

l l

B.

Our letter dated August 26, 1982 provided comments ana guidance in response to your letter of June 21, f

1982. Your final submittal should address our com-ments and reflect our guidance.

C.

As a result of your presentation, we have specific technical questions.

Your response to these questions l

should be provided in the appropriate technical submittal.

l However, you may wish to discuss these questions in tele-conferences with the appropriate NRC staff prior to pre-l paring your answers.

l Each of the above comments is elaborated in Enclosure I.

If you have any questions or need assistance in arranging for discussions with the staff, please contact the NRC Project Manager.

l-8307190289 830629 FDR ADOCK 05000309 l

....C,........

PDR SURNAME)

DATE) f unc ronu ms oo-eo3 nneu cao OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usago: n-a-see

F c-Mr. John G. Garrity Enclosure II is a copy of " Reevaluation Guideline Seismic Criteria for SEP Group II Plants (Excluding Structures)." This document was referenced in our letter dated August 26, 1982, but was not 'available at that time.

'~erely.

On,nal siaW8 Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Brar;ch #3 Division of Licensing nclosures:

DISTRIBUTION As stated Afo'cket File al cc: See next page

1. 3 g

D.Eisenhut JHeltemes RAClark PKreutzer (3) 0 ELD NSIC E.L. Jordan J.M. Taylor (1)

ACRS (10)

KHeitner Gray File l

f n

u omer >. 08 13

• 0L...

.0.R.S,0,;.0L$U.Gl...h... SERB.....

5$bNr,3{;.....

ORBd3: L.....,

..NA.u.69r.... XHe.i.t.ner/.dd.

.B.....a

.WRu sell...

A..

sun==c >

..@lijL83........6D.J./.83........6/h.83.........!L 8 3........fi/g /83.....

j em>

Nac ronu sia omeo) nacu 024o OFFIClAL RECORD COPY usoeoani.-m*o

Encicsure 1 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON MAINE YANKEE STATUS REPORT FOR SEISMIC DESIGN REVIEW MAY 10, 1983 A.

Pres lus Commitments Your letter dated June 21, 1982 contained commitments to carry out the following:

- Development of suitable site specific ground response spectra along the general lines of 10 CFR 100, Appendix A methods.

- Review of pertinent literature and records for identification of information developed since plant licensing relating to the geological and seismological basis for earthquake hazard definition.

> ~

This subtask includes information obtained in a Maine Yankee spon-sored study of the so-called Robinhood Fault.

- Consideration of a ground motion monitoring capability upgrade.

We believe each of-the above items to be an important part of your original commitment that was not addressed in your presentation.

They should be addressed in your final submittal.

t B.

NRC Staff Comments and Guidance

- Our letter dated August 26, 1982 provided NRC staff comments and guidance in response to your proposed program. We 4

reiterate the following comments and guidance because they were not ' reflected in your presentation.

General Comments - The scope of the proposed program does not include the systems necessary to achieve safe (cold) shutdown and the accident mitigating j

systems. Details have not been provided on the analysis methods and criteria to be utilized.

Specific Comments and Guidance -

I.

The scope of the analysis of plant structures, systems and com-ponents should reflect the evaluation outlined (as developed for i

SEP Phase II).

The acceptance criteria for this analysis should be drawn from the documents referenced in our letter.

i II. A supplemental schedule should be provided clarifying the time frame for the completion of the evaluation. This should include evaluation of the balance of the safe (cold) shutdown and accident mitigating systems.

l

~

m.

lw -

s t..

~,..

A

(

C.

specific TechMcalfQuestions j

~

"1.

~

The following technical questions" refer to:your presentation.of May 10,.1983

. ~ <,

j,

_lw e a _.: s

11..What was the fpil historic predicted peak ground acceleration '

(PGA) at New Brunswick as of 19817 'What,does.this tell. us-about'the 1982 event?,,How does this compare to.similar.

calculations perforined for the _ Maine Yankee site region.

2.

In the zonation method, what are the end branch peak ground'.

acceleration values at 10-3 and 10-4,per year?

3.

Site specific spectra similar to those generated for Maine

' tYankee have been developed for the Yankee Rowe plant.

Some of the source zones were the same-for botr, studies.

Discuss any difference assumed in the upper magnitude or. recurrence

~

relationship for these zones.

4.

In de~veloping the site specific spectra, was any "A"L.value uncertainty ass'umed? If. not, discuss the effects' of this on the results.

5.

For. Zone G, was the Algermissen and Perkins. recurrence -

__ relationship used? If not, why not? How does it compare 1

s to the relationship used?

6.

Are there any otherfgeologic structures which could produce a large earthquake near the plant?

7. ~Doesn't the~ weighting methodology used tend to reduce the

-overall' seismic risk by averaging in large aseismic regions with the few known active seismic areas?

8.

The historic model is considered to be the most accurate at return periods of the order of the length of. the historic record. Discuss the adequacy of the zonation model? con-sidering that i.t under-predicts thet ground motion of the

' historic model at these return periods.

9.

Your. presentation on the New Brunswick and New Hampshire earth _ quakes attempted to identify structures with which these events are associated. geologic Considering the seismicity level in the Maine Yankee area, what evidence do you have that such structures do not exist in the vicinity of the-plant?

10. How do you plan to evaluate equipment " functionality"?

How will'your' evaluation cover secondary effects from a seismic event, such as fire or flooding.

11. How did your containment-structural analysis account for contiguous; structures such as the pumphouse, valve house and, fuel building.

=1

12.

• Provide a list of structures, systems and components covered and not covered in your review that corres-ponds to the listing in Section 1.3.7. of the Maine Yankee FSAR.

I 4

4 Y

e i

i m.,....,_.

,,,.._,._m_,_-__,

h

$-1 c

e.

REEVALUATION GUIDELINE SEISMIC CRITERIA

~

FOR SEP GROUP II Pl. ANTS (EXCLUDING STRUCTURES)

INTRODUCTION In support of NRC's Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) for Group II Plants, the following Reevaluation Criteria have been established. These criteria include recomended load combinations with allowable stresses and/or' loads for piping systems, component supports, concrete attachments, and equipment. These criteria are based on linear elastic analyses having been performed. The acceptance criteria are generally based on the ASME Code. For situations not covered by these criteria, (i.e. items 1

constructed of cast iron) compatible criteria shall be developed by the licensee and will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The licensee is requested to justify major deviations in criteria which appear less conservative than those specified herein.

OEFINITI0flS ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, " Nuclear Code Power Plant Components," 1980 Edition, Winter 1980 Addenda, General membrane stress. This stress is equal to the average

=

o, stress across the solid section under consideration, excludes discontinuities and concentrations, and is produced only by mechanical loads.

Bending stress. This stress is equal tar the linear varying j

=

o b portion of the stress across the solid section under consideration, excludes discontinuities and, concentrations, and is produced only by mechanical loads.

Design or mad am operating prassure loads and design P

O mcchanical loadi.

[

1

f.f Inertial loads due to Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) and SSE

=

design mechanical loads where applicable.

Loads due to thermal expansion of attached pipe (constraint T

=

of free end displacement).

Loads due to weight effects.

W

=

Loads due to SSE anchor movement effects.

AM

=

CrWeal bucWng stress.

S

=

bk Allowable stress intensity at temperature listed in ASME Code.

5,

=

Yield strength at temperature listed in ASME Code.

S

=

1 Ultimate tensjle strength at temperature listed in ASME Code.

5

=

Local membrane stress. This stress is the same as o,

=

o except that it includes the effect of discontinuities.

)

g ASME Code Class 2 allowable stress value. The allowable S

=

stress shall correspond to the metal temperature at the section under consideration.

This stress General Primary Membrane Stress Intensity.

P,

=

intensity is derived from the average value across the thickness of a section of the general primary stresses produced by design internal pressure and other specified I

Design Mechanical Loads, but excluding all secondary and peak stresses. Averaging is to be applied tn 'the stress components prior to de, termination of the stress intensity values.

A i

l V

g

E-3 1

Local Membrane Stress Intensity. This stress intensity is P

=

the same as P, exc'ept that it includes the effects of V

discontinuities.

Primary Bending Stress Intensity. This stress intensity is P

=

b I

derived from the linear varying portion of stresses across the solid section under consideration produced design pressure and other specified design mechanical loads.

Secondary and peak stresses are,not included.

SPECIAL LIMITATIONS 1.

Critical buckling loads (stresses) must be determined taking into account combined loading (i.e., axial, bending, and shear), initial imperfections, residual stresses, inelastic deformation, and boundary conditions.

Both gross and local buckling must be evaluated.

Critical buckling loads, (stresses) shall be determined using accepted methods such as those contained in NASA Plates and Shells Manual or I

ASME Code Case N-284.

m

S.'D 2.

Where stresses exceed inaterial yield strength, it shall be demonstrated that brittle failures and detrimental cyclic effects are precluded, and that dynamic analysis assumptions are not nonconservatively affected. Where significant cyclic effects are identified, it shall be demonstrated that the structure or component is capable of withstanding ten full peak deformation cycles.

3.

Where results of analysis indicate that the allowable stresses of the original construction code are exceeded in any of.he load t

combinations specified herein, it shall be demonstrated that the in-situ item was designed and fabricated using rules compatible with those required for the appropriate ASME Code Class (Subsection NX2000, 3

E '

4000, '5000,' and 6000). In cases whcra compatibility with the appropriate ASME Code Subsections was not substantially achieved, appropriate reductions in these limits shall be established, r

justified, and applied.

O e

O 9

0 O

e

'O 4

---,__-,_.-._,_._,__._,,,,..,_._.,,,._.,,,,,.,___,__.-.,,,,._,,,,__._..,,,,.,y

_______,,_.____y

E-f ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR PIPING Using Code (a) Class 2 analytical procedures [ Equation (9),

1 4C-3653.1], the following stresses are not to be exceeded for the specified pipin9

lass 1:

P, + Pb" 0.+ SSE,1 1.8 5 N*

3

+SSEf12.4 5 alass 2:

P, + Pb= W+P D The effects of thermal expansion must meet the requirements of

@quation (10) or (11) of NC-3653, including moment effects of anchor dis-slacements due to the SSE if anchored displacement effects are omitted from 1

9C

@quation (9) of NC-3653. Class 1 analytical procedures (N8-3600) can also c

ee utilized if appropriate allouable stresses specified in N8-3650 are used.

I Branch lines shall be analyzed including the incrtici and displacer.. ant input due to the response of the piping to which it. is attached at the

$h' attache nt paint.

l i..-

l I

i l0 The references to ASME Code equation and paragraph numbers on this page Gorrespond to the 1980 edition of the code,1931 winter addenda. This was j

(one in order to avoid confusion int' oduc.cd by the initial 1980 edition of r

lthe code which renumbered the equations di:lerently from nast and present pditions of the code. Equation numSers pr sented nn this page reflect

@ommon homenclature utilized in the nucle..c industry.

l 5

3

-y-

_.__].-_,_

-6

p. &

I ACCEPTANCE CRITERI A FOR CLASS 1 COMPONENT. SUPPORTS Acceptance Criteria (a)

Imposed Load IDI Combinations Linear Plate and She11 The higher of:

Code Subsection NF or Design, Level A, and Leve'l B Limits I

W+PD+T Pr. + Pb 1 1.5 Sm O

The higher of:

'AM P*2 Sy(5)Sm or

<1

+

SSE

+

W+P D' 1

c Code Subsection NF or Level 0 Limits not to exceed 0.7 Su 5 Sm or I

Pt + P W(C

+

SSE

+

41 W + Po + T 1.85 Sy not to exceed 1.05 Su O

In addition to the cbove criteria, the allowabic buckling stress shall be is determined in accordance with Special limited to 2/3 Sbk* "I#8 3bk Limitation 1.

a.

These inad combinations shall be used in lieu of those specified in ASME Code Subsection t:F.

In addition, for brittle types'of material not specified in the Code, appropriate stress intensification factors for nntches and stress discontinuities shall be applied in the analysis.

I b.

The 1.5 Sm value from NB 3221 on which these arc based '(Code Appendix F 1323.1) shall be limited by Code Section NB 3221.3.

c.

Use larger of.

O 6

$=

ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR CLASS 2 COMPONENT SUPPORTS Acceptance Criteria (a)

Imposed Load Combinations Linear Plate and Shell i

The higher of:

)

Code Subsection NF or Design, Level A, and Level B Limits W + Po + T og + ob i 1.5 S Th'e' higher of:

W+Pof+ ;SSC +

AM og < 1.5 5 or Code Subsection NF or Level 0 Limits 0.4 S u W+Po+Tf+SSE lAM(

eg + ob i 2.25 S or

+

0.6 Su (b)

In addition to the above critt.ria, the allowable buckling stress shall be I

limited to 2/3 Sbk, where Sbl. is determined in accordance with Special Limitation 1.

t a.

These load ccmbinations shall be used in lieu of those specified in ASME Code Subsection NF.

In additinn, for brittle types of material not specified in the Code, appropriate stress intensification factors' for-notches and stress discantinuities shall be applied in the analysis.

b.

Use lesser of.

7

~

e w-w

---,.,ww,-gw.,.-,y-y.e---,----y__._,.py p-p-

,r-.-

-,--,-w,m,.-y-4-

-m-g.,.-.y.y

E-8 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR CONCRETE ATTACHMENTS

~

Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolts (a) 1.

Load Conibinations:

Same as for compment supports.

Acceptance Criteria:(b)

Wedge typc:

1/4 ultimate as specified by manufacturer.

Shell type:

1/5 ultimate as specified by manufacturer.

a), N,(c)

II. Grouted Bolts:

Replace a)

III. Concrete Embedded Anchors Load Cor.6inations:

Sarr.e as for component suppnets.

I 0.7 5, Acceptance Criteria a.

Base plate fleiibility effects must be considered, b.

Both pullout and shear loads must be considered in. Combined loading situations.

Unless stresses in the bolts and structure to which they are attached c.

are shown to be sufficiently low to preclude concretc/ grout / steel interfacc~

bond failures. Load combinations are the same as these for corr.ponent supports.

O 8

E-T O'

ACCEPTANCE CRITERI A FOR CLASS 1 MECHANICAL EOUIPMENT -

Lnading Combination (b)

Criteria (d) (9)

Component Pressure vessels W+PD+ SSEl+Nozzle Loads l Pm i 2.4 Sm cr 0.7 Su I'I and heat-exchangers (P, or P ) + Pbi 3.6 Se g

or 1.05 Su I'}

Active pumps and W+PD

,SSE + Nozzle Loads l

Pmi 1.2 Sm or S I#I

+

y other mechanical (P, or P ) + Pbi 1.8 Sm g

components (a),(c),(d) or 1.5 Sy (f) e tiozzle Loads, Pm i 2.4 Sm or 0.7 Su I'I

+

SSE +

Inactive pumps and W+PD other mechanical (Pm or Pg) + Pbi 3.6 Sm or 1.05 Su I*I

~)

1 C

components Active (a),(c),(d)

W+Pgl+SSElt ;Noz71eLoads Pm i 1.2 Sm'or Sy (f) valves b 1 8 Sm l

(Pm or P ) + P t

or 1.5 5y (f) m 1 4 Sm or 0.7 Su I'I Inactive valves (c) w + p0f +{SSE{d {fiozzle Loads 2

P b 1 6 Sm 3

(Pm or Pg) + P or 1.05 S I*I u

Tension =Syor0.7Sh*I Bolt strass shall be limited to:

}

Shear = 0.6 Sy or 0.42 Su l

Active pump:;, valves, and other mechanical components (e.g., CR0s) are a.defined as those that must perform a mechanical motion to accomplish a l

l system safety function.

b.

Nozzle loads shall include all piping loads (including seismic and thermal anchor movement effects) transmitted to the enmpongnt during the SSE.

9 l

- - ~

$-/o I

Scope and evaluation of pumps and valves are to be in accordance with c.

NB 3411, NB 3412, and NS 3546 of the Code, including seismic and thermal anchor movement effects.

t d.

For active mechanical equipment contained in safe shut down systems, it shall be demonstrated that deformation induced by the loading on these pumps, valves and other mechanical components (e.g., CRDs) do not introduce detrimental effects which would preclude function of this equipment following a postulated SSE event. For valve operators integrally attached to valve bodics, binding can be considered precluded if stresses in the I

valve body and operator housing and supports are shown to be less than yield. In these evaluations, all loads (including seismic and thermal anchor movemant effects) shall be included, e.

Use lesser of two vr. lues.

f.

Use greater of two values.

g.

The 1.5 Sm'value from NB 3221 on which these are based (Code Appendix F 1323.1) shall be limited by Code Section NB 3221.3.

e e

10 m

E //

AC' CEPTANCE CRITERI A FOR CLASS 2 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT U

Comconent Loading Combination (b)

CriteriafdI

~

Pressure vessels O + SSEl+l Nozzle Loads l em 1 2.0 S W+P and heat-exchangers (em 0F *a) + ob i 2.4 5 Active pumps and W+PD +lSSEkNozzle Loads

'm i 1.5 S other mechanical (o,er og) + ob i 1.8 5 components (a),(c),(d)

Inactive pumps and W+P D + SSE + Nozzle Loads l 'm 12.0 S other mechanical (c,or eg) + ab i 2.4 S componentsIC}

Active (a ),(c),(d) b+PD +

SSE + Nozzle loads l am < l.5 5 valves

(*m or eg) + ab i 1.8 5 Inactive valves (c) ly+p0l+!SSEl+NozzleLoads!am < 2.0 S (o or ag) + Pb i 2.4 S I

m Bolt stresses shall be limited to:

Tension =Syor0.7Sh')

Shear = 0.6 Sy or 0.42 Sh*I i

a.

Active pumps, valves, and other mechanic al components (e.g., CRDs) are defined as those that must perform a mechan' cal motion to accomplish a system safety function.

b.

Nozzle loads shall include all piping loads (including seismic ~and thtrmal anchor movement effects) transmitsed to the component during the SSE.

Scope and evaluation of pumps and vi.1ves are to be 'in accordance with c.

NC 3411, NC 3412, cnd NC 3521 of the Cole, including scismic and thermal anchor movement effects.

l i

t l

l 11 l

- - ~

,~.s en.,

n,.-n,,,,,,,,.-,-e,m-,.,-

E-4 For'activ'e mechanical equipment contained in safe shut down systems, it d.shall be demonstrated that deformation induced by the loading on these pumps, vatves and other mechanical components (e.g., CRDs) do not introduce j

detrimental effects which would preclude function of this equipment following a postulated SSE event. For valve operators integrally attached to valve bodies, binding can be considered precluded if stresses in the valve body and operatnr housing and supports are shown to be less than yield.

In these evaluations, all loads (including scismic and thermal anchor movement effects) shall be included.

c.

Use lesser of two values.

t O

O l

l l

t i

1 12

E-/3

. e ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR TANKS W + P l+lSSEl

. Lead Combinations:

D

+ Dynamic Fluid Pressure Loads (a)

I' "ddili""' th' Acceptance Criteria:

Smaller of 5, or 0.7 S

• u allowable buckling stress shall be limited to 2/3 is determined in accordance Sbk' "h'#' Sbk with Special Limitation 1.

Dynamic fluid pressure shall be considered in accordance with accepted a.

Horizontal and vertical 1

and appropriate procedures; e.g., USAEC T10-7024 loads shall be determined by appropriately enmbining the loads due to vertical and horizontal earthquake excitation considering that the loads are due to pressure pulses within the fluid. These loads shall also be applied, in combination with other loads, in tank support evaluations.

e 13

'm y-,

y-.--,,,

y-

-_.p y..n,w-,,--.p,,,_..,---,_--.m op,-

w

,.g e,,

,. -,.,,, -,,., -+--m,m,_

g,w