ML20039E201
| ML20039E201 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1981 |
| From: | Nelson T LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| To: | Russell W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-A-0415, CON-FIN-A-415 SM-81-286, NUDOCS 8201070008 | |
| Download: ML20039E201 (5) | |
Text
-
Lawrenca Livermore National Laboratory A
October 26,1981 SM 81-286 Docket 50-213 FIN A0415 0) 9 4
RECEtVED Mr. William T. Russell, Branch Chief Systematic Evaluation Program Branch
. 97 JM 6 1982>
Division of Licensing
'~
urnumrm y Office of Nuclear Reactor Reg.
CM.Hf".Eta d)g'y Washington, D.C.
20555 4
,i,
Subject:
PROGRAM PLAN REVIEW FOR liADDAM ECK
- " h Nd The enclosed document represents a summary of the program plan review for the subject plant. It is presented in the form of a checklist. Each applicable item is given two reviews. The first one is an " acceptance" review, to check if that particular item has been addressed. The second is an " adequacy" review, to judge if the proposed methodology to address the item is acceptable for the purpose of reevaluation. The numbers in the parentheses refer to comments that are listed at the end of the checklist.
The items marked yes in the " adequate" column mean that there is no deviation from current criteria, which includes Regulatory Guides, Standard Review Plans and SEP criteria. If they are marked yes with a number in parentheses, they do not meet the letter of current criteria but are decmed adequate for the reasons explained in the corresponding comment. It should be noted that even if the methodologies are deemed adequate from a review of the program plan, the application of the proposed methods must be reviewed in detail when the analysis results are submitted.
Additional data and comments regarding the program plans can be found in the previous submittals for each plant.
Sincerely, W
Thomas A. Nelson Project Manager Structural Mechanics Group Nuc.letr Test Engineering Division TAN /mq
~0179m' 3f Enclosure
/
h J/l l
8201070008 811026' PDR ADOCK 0S000 P
l j
An Enta!onoorturryErrokyfM * (.htWdly L4 CaYxtis
- RO Box 808 LMymorc. Cohkma 945bo = Teicfhyn (415)4224100 = Tsx 9 t0-33G-0339 CCLLL L%fR
p HADDAM ECK EVIEW
SUMMARY
DF TE SEISMIC EEVALUATION PROGRAM PLAN October 27, 1981 ITEM ADDESED?
AEQUATE?
-I.
32i1 and Foundation A.
Rock Site (Partly).
yes yes.
B.
. Soil Site (Partly Backfill) yes.
Insufficient-J Data o
Foundation Input o
Generation of time history o
Modeling technique.
Computer Codes,
o C.
Description of Foundation no D.
Free Field Input Spectrum yes no-(1)
II. Structural A.
List and Description of Category I yes (2)
Structures or Structures Affecting Category I Systems or Components B.
Modeling Techniaues o
Damping yes yes (3) o Stiffness.modeling yes (4) yes o
Mass Modeling yes-yes o
Consideration of 3-D effects yes yes C.
Seismic Analysis Methods o
Response Spectrum, time h_istory yes (5) 01 equivalent static analysis.
o Selection of significant modes yes (4) yes o
Relative displacements yes (4) yes..
o Modal combinations-yes yes (6)
'o-Three component input yes yes (6) o Floor spectra generation no
.o
-Peak broadening yes no (7).
o Load combination yes (8)
L.
ITEtt ADDRESSE[R ADEQUATE?
D.
Analytical Criteria o
Codes and criteria, incluJing yes yes AISC, ACI and NUREGG-DJ98 E.
Computer Codes o
Description and verification yes (4) yes (9)
III. Structural Inteority of Mechanical and Electrical
[omoonents, Pioino and Supports A.
List and Description of yes (2)
Systems and Components B.
Modeling Technioues o
Eccentric masses yes no (10) o Mass distribution yes yes o
Support flexibility yes no (11) o Spectra selected yes yes (12)
C.
Analytical Procedures o
Damping yas yes o
Span tables, dynamic analysis yes
'yes o
Overturning no o
3 component input yes yes o
Support analysis yes no (13) l D.
Analysis Criteria l
o ANSI B31.1 yes no (14) o ASME B&PV code yes yes o
o Load Combinations yes yes E.
Computer Codes o
Description and t'rification yes yes
4 e
Comments-1.
A 0.17g SSE is proposed which does not meet the 0.21g site specific
-spectrum.
12.'
NRC staff will determine the adequacy of the scope..
3.
For reinforced concrete structures with only slignt cracking, 5% of critical damping may be slightly nonconservative, thus the input to equipment.may be larger than that predicted. 5% of critical damping should be used only for concrete structures with considerable cracking.
4, A discussion of models and programs used for reanalysis was presented at the September 30, 1981 meeting.at URS/J. A. Blume.
Si The methods of developing static loads must be justified.
6.
General reference is made to RG 1.92.
' 7.
Depending on the dispersion in material properties, a + 5% frecuency broadening:of spectral peaks for the in-structure response spectra based on average properties may not be conservative eno' gh to account for.
u modeling uncertainties, particularly if concrete aging is not considered.
8.
The b' asis for the overturning and sliding evaluation was not specifiec
.(i.e. equivalcnt static loads corresponding to base shears and moments or time history loads).
R9.
Computer code verification should be provided.
- 10. All safety related piping, regardless e# size, should be analyzed taking into account mass eccentricity for mater operated valves and other extended structures.
It was indicated that eccentric masses would be included for piping 2-1/2"$ and larger, but it is not clear how eccentricities would be treated for smaller piping.
- 11. Support flexibilities will be included, however analytical termination i
points for-each. pipe stress. problem should cccur only when all~ six degrees-l
'of-freedom are restratted.
It's not understood how this can be accomplished by the procedure cresented by item 4 on page 7 of Ref. 2.
It-i Lis not certain that item 5 imp 3'.es six degtf-es of freedom the way it is i
stated. Eauipment.that's attached to pising runs should be shown not to l influence the piping systems significantly before the piping is decoupled from the equipment.
i
- 12. If a component _ support. s located away from the center of rigidity, the i
[
effect of torsional response of the building should be included in the i.
floor spectrum used to analysis the component.
i s
1 i
l
+-%--r
-._.2m,-
r e
-+r,--
-,-----i--~.1
~e
=
- - - - - + - - - - -
r e
~
- 13. No mention was made on how uplift due to ti.ermal and seismic loading will be treated and no SSE induced anchor displacements are to be included in the stress analysis. The latter is en exception to ANSI B31.1, and is not felt to be acceptable.
No discussion of aualification of electrical equipment is presented. A minimum program to verify anchorage adecuacy is anticipated.
It is stated that aualification of electrical equipment for nonstructural failure modes will be addressed by the Owners' Group.
- 14. The basic piping allowable stress is increased from 1.2 to 2.4 S.
This h
is not consistant with ANSI B31.1 and is not felt to be acceptable.
In addition, a compressive axial load of up to 0.9 times the critical buckling load is proposed. This should be justified.
References 1.
"Haddam Neck Plant, Systematic Evaluation Program, Seismic Reevaluation",
Docket No. 50-123, B10051, W. G. Counsil to D. M. Crutchfield, August 5, 1980.
2.
"Haddam Neck Plant Seismic Reevaluation Program SEP Topic III-6, Seismic Design Considerations", Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Document No. A01629, August 11, 1981.