ML20040B438
| ML20040B438 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 12/02/1981 |
| From: | Nelson T LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| To: | Russell W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040B432 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-A-0415, CON-FIN-A-415, TASK-03-06, TASK-3-6, TASK-RR SM-81-313, NUDOCS 8201260052 | |
| Download: ML20040B438 (5) | |
Text
mome,
[ g Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory i
2 W4
.s M hJ December 2, 1981 SM 81-313 Docket 50-29 FIN A0415 Mr. William T. Russell, Branch Chief Systematic Evaluation Program Branch Division of Licensing Office cf Nuclear Reactor Reg.
Washington, D.C.
20555
Subject:
PROGRAM PLAN REVIEW FOR YANK:E ROWE 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 puIpose of reevaluation. The numbers in the parentheses refer to comments tnat are listed at the end of the checklist.
The items marked yes in the " adequate" column mean that there is ' o* deviation n
.from current criteria, which includes Regulatory Guides Standard Review Plgns g
and SEP criteria.
If they are marked yes with a number in barentheses, they do not meet the letter of. current criteria but are deemed adeouate for the reasons explained in the corresponding comment.
It should be 'noted that even if the methodologies are deemed adeouste from a review of the program plan, the application df the proposed methods must M reviewed 50 detail when the analysis results are submitted.
Additional data and coments regarding the program plans can be found in the previous submittals for each plant.
Sincerely, A 7 m tv
~ *.
Thomas A. Nelson Project Manager Structural Mechanics Group Nuclear Test Engineering Division TAN'/mg..
5 9
023&n Enclosure 8201260052 820122 PDR ADOCK 05000 P
- - L a cce n z epa + unws t:# Cda=a
- PC % E >i u me Ca*7-2 (~'W ' ~+ = =4 M C2*"C ' *" *3EE*E: b UCLLL LWR r
m-
-,a,,..n
--.9 m
VAhXEE ROWE REVIEW
SUMMARY
OF THE SEISMIC REEVALUATION PROGRAM PLAN ITEM ADDRESSED?
_ ADEQUATE?
I.
Soil and Foundation A
Rock Site n/a n/a B.
Soil Site o
Foundation Input yes nu (1) o Generation of time history yes no (2) i o
Modeling tecnnicue no
\\
o Computer Codes no 1
1 l
C.
Descriction of Foundation yes no.(3) j D.
Free Field Inout Spectrum yes no (4)
II. St ructura1_
A.
List and Descriotion of Cateoory I yes
.* (5)
Structures or Structures Af fect'ino Catecory I Svstems or Components B.
Modelino Technioues o
Damping yes yes e
Stiffness modeling yes sp (1) o Mass Modeling yes no (6) o Consideration of 3-D effects yes yes C.
Seismic Analysis Methods Response Spectrum, time history yes no (7) o or equivalent static analysis o
Selection of significant modes no o
Relative cisplacements 9.yes yes o
Modal combinations yes yes o
Three component input yes yes o
Floor spectra generation no o
Peak broadening yes yes
{
o Load comoination yes yes I
l l
ITEM ADDRESSED?
ADEQUATE?
D.
Analvtical Criteria o
Codes and criteria, including yes no (8)
AISC', ACI and NUREG/CR-0098 E.
Computer Codes o
Description and verification yes (9)
III. StructJ'ral Inte0ritV O[
Mechanical and Electrical Components. Picino ano Succorts A.
List and Description of yes (5)
Svstems and Comoonents B.
Modelino Technioues o
Eccentric masses yes yes o
Mass distribution yes no (6) o Support flexibility yes no (10).
g yps yes,(11) o Spectra selected C.
Analytical Procedures l
o Dapping yes yes l
t I
p Span tables, dynamic analysis yes yes l
l o
Overturning no 3 comphnent input o
no I
o Support analysis yes no l
(10,12)
D.
Analysis Criteria o
ANSI B31.1 yes yes o
g*
o NUREG/CR-0098 no o
Load Combinations yes yes E.
Comouter Codes o
Description and Verification yes (9)
Comments
(
l.
According to the Program Plan, stil-structure interaction' effects will be neglected because studies perforned previously have shown these effects to i
be negligible. However, no reference about the previous studies was given in the program plan. Further justification is required for the assumption that the effects of soil-st vcture interaction can be neglected, especially for structures such as the concrete reactor support structure and the turoine building.
Possible effects on floor spectra should also be addressed.
2.
The program plan states that artificial time history will be generated using the computer program, SIMQUAKE of Earthquake Engineering System, Inc. No further details of the approach are presented. Use of only one-artificial time history will require justification.
3.
No discussions about the' types of foundations are given in the Program Plan, other than that "the bearing capacity for the soil underneath all footings shall be assumed to be 6 ksf if wind or earthquake leads'are not considered and 10.6 ksf if they are.. Compacted backfills shall be assumed.
to have a bearing capacity of 4 ksf".
'"= !!ct'rcr Trcporer uri c : cpe:t re cthdr-th:- thct rperi i?" by 'ha
^
- it; sp;;ific :;cctru.. g. c =. c....
5.amificoLivu w21 bg re4_g ;d.
3 i.
C ctaf" J11dtcrnin th: coght:n;;c c f the lict.
6.
No method was presented for placement of or procedure for lumping masses.
Also, it was not stated how masses of large equipment would be included.
t 7.
Justification for use of a particular analysis procedure was not given.
8.
Stresses up to 9,5% of yield is acceptable; however, stresses up to 95% of the calculated backling load may not be.
9.
It 5s not known whether or not all the computer codes mentioned have been verified.
- 10. Removing hanger effectiveness because of upward lift due to thermal and seismic. loading may not be conservative in critical localized areas of the system (i.e., near bends).
- 11. Relative support displacements should be considered in the analysis of piping supported at'different floors.
t'
~
- 12. Rod hangers may be too flexible to be considered rigid supports.
- 13. No criteria is proposed for structural integrity of electrical or mechanical equipment other than to check nozzle loads against allowables.
l e
o References 1.
" Seismic Re-evaluation Criteria for Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Rowe, Massachusetts," Earthquake Engireering Systems, Document 'No. DC-1, December 198D.
2.
Memo, Ralph Canjso to Docket 50-29, subject: Summary of May 22, 1981, meeting concerning the seis-ic capability of Yankee Rowe, June 5,1981.
\\
e e
I 4
5 6
o s
4 p
4