ML20052D451
| ML20052D451 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1982 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Fiedler P JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052B582 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-03-07.B, TASK-3-7.B, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8205060493 | |
| Download: ML20052D451 (8) | |
Text
e i v
.t - s April 30,1982 N
(9 \\
g Docket No. 50-219 s
9 LS05-82 ngcfm 40 51982+ ko D
MY
' u r nmwn nna O Mr. P. B. Fiedler r'-
Ler cai u s
Vice President and Director - Oyster Creek Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station s
Post Office Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731
Dear Mr. Fiedler:
SUBJECT:
SYSTEMATIC EVALUATIO!! PROGRAM T M."
IGN CODES, DESIGN CRITERIA, AND LOADING COMBINATI0ris - OYSTER CREEK Enclosed is a copy of our draft evaluation of SEP Topic III-7.B and our contractor's reports which form the basis for our SER.
You are requested to examine the facts upon which the staff has based its evaluation and respond either by confirming that the facts are correct or by identifying errors and supplying the corrected information. The SER q
identifies areas of codes, load magnitudes, and load combinations where changes have occurred to decrease nargins of safety. You should review how these codes were applied in the design of Oyster Creek and assess the safety margins where code changes have been identified as potentially significant. We encourage you to supply any other material that might affect the staff's evaluation or be significant in the integrated assessment of your facility.
Y SEf Sincerely, II b54 k3Cf31 Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 jQDD',
Division of Licensing
- k. VG l
Enclosures:
l As stated cc w/ enclosures:
i See next page l
i l
8205060493 820430 l
PDR ADOCK 05000219
('
p PDR bl /
/\\
..SE,P,B,,:DLk,,, S,EP,B,,:DL,g, Ilh,I,h,,,,,
- DL omm suanue>...W.ar.sinko,dk..Rttermann......WRus.e1.1....... dim.h
. 0.0..y.t.c.h.f.i e.] 1,,,G.
.as.,,,
..41.81.82..........QJJ.M.82......./YlqlGB2...... b 1&lB.....
. 31....]B2..
.b ]g1B2....
omy unc ronu sia tio-sos nacu oua OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam mi--m..so
G 4
9 Mr. P. B. Fiedler
=
cc l
G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire Resident Inspector Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge c/o U. S. NRC 1800 M Street, N. W.
Post Office Box 445 Washington, D. C.
20036 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 J. B. Lieberman, Esquire Commissioner Berlack, Israels & Lieberman New Jersey Department of Energy 26 Broadway 101 Commerce Street New York, New York 10004 Newark, New Jersey 07102-
. Ronald C. Haynes, Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 J.. Knubel BWR Licensing Manager GPU Nuclear 100 Interplace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Deputy Attorney General State of New Jersey Department rf Law and Public Safety 36 West State Street - CN 112 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 1
Mayor Lacey Township 818 Lacey Road 4
Forked 3f ver, New Jersey 08731 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II Office ATTN:
Regional Radiation Representative 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 Licensing Supervisor
~
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Post Office Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 4
e nw, e.."w
~ * *.
-a
--s---
- w
~
SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM TOPIC III-7.8 0YSTER CREEK-i TOPIC:
III-7.B. DESIGN CODES, DESIGN CRITERIA, AND LOAD COMBINATIONS I.
INTRODUCTION SEP plants were generally designed and constructed during the time span from the late 1950's to late 1960's. They were designed according to criteria and codes which differ from those accepted by the NRC for new plants.
The purpose of this topic is to assess the safety margins existing in Category I structures as a result of changes in design codes and criteria.
II.
REVIEW GUIDELINES The current licensing criteria which governs the safety issue in this topic is 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, GDC 1, 2, and 4 as interpreted by j
Standard Review Plan 3.8.
III. RELATED SAFETY TOPICS The following SEP topics are related to III-7.B:
1.
II-3.B, Flooding Potential and Protection Requirements 2.
III-2, Wind and Tornado Loadings 3.
III-3. A, Effects of High Water Level on Structures 4.
III-4.A, Tornado Missiles 5.
III-5. A, Effects of Pipe Breaks Inside Containment 6.
III-5.B, Effects of Pipe Breaks Outside Containment 7.
III-6, Seismic Design Considerations 8.
VI-2.D, Mass and Energy Release for Postulated Pipe Break Inside Containment IV.
EVALUATION The evaluation is based on a Technical Evaluation Report (TER) prepered by the Franklin Research Center (FRC) in conjunction with the NRC staff through contract. The report is entitled " Design Codes, Design Criteria, and Loading Combinations" and is attached to this Safety Evaluation Report as Enclosure (1).
We have compared structural design codes employed in the design of Category I structures at Oyster Creek to present codes. This was done through generic code versus code comparison without investigating specifically how the original code was applied to the Oyster Creek
,o,
~*
e-
=-M
1 l design; however, after reviewing drawings of structures at Oyster Creek, we concluded that certain portions of the codes were not applicable because the types of structures to which the codes are referring were non-existent. We have compared the loads and loading combinations employed in the design of Oyster Creek as described in the FDSAR to those required today.
A result of these comparisons is that a number of code changes could potentially impact significantly margins of safety (denoted by scale A and Ax in Enclosure 1). This can be attributed to several factors such as:
1.
New codes have imposed stricter limitations than old.
2.
New codes have included sections governing design of certain types of structures which were not included in the older codes, 3.
Design loads required today were not included in the plant design, and 4.
Certain load combinations judged to be significant were not included in plant design.
In Enclosure (1), some items have been judged to potentially impact margins of safety regarding the containment as a result of comparing the original containment design code (ASME BPV Section VIII,1962) to i
ASME BPV Section III Division 1,1980.
The code changes of concern from Enclosure (1) are:
LIST 0F STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS TO RE EXAMINED
\\
Structural Elements to be Code Change Affecting These Elements Ex amined New Code Old Code Compression Elements AISC 198o AISC 1963 With width-to-thickness 1.9.1.2 and 1.9.1 ratio higher than speci-Appendix C fled in 1.9.1.2 Tension Members AISC 198o AISC 1963 When load is transmitted 1.14.2.2 by bolts or rivets
- Double dash (--)
indicates that older code had no provisions.
l -
LIST OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS TO BE EXAMINED Structural Elements to be Code Change Affecting These Elements Examined New Code Old Code Connections AISC 1980 AISC 1963 a.
Beam ends with top flange 1.5.1.2.2 coped, if subject to shear b.
Connections carrying moment 1.15.5.2 or restrained member 1.15.5.3 connection 1.15.5.4 Members Designed to operate AISC 1980 AISC 1963 in an Inelastic Regime Spacing of lateral bracing 2.9 2.8 Short Brackets and Corbels ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 having a shear span-to-11.13 depth ratio of unity or less Shear Walls used as ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 primary load-carrying 11.16 members Precast Concrete Structural ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 Elements, where shear is not 11.15 a measure of diagonal tension Concrete Regions Subject to ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 High Temperatures Time-dependent and Appendix A position-dependent temperature variations Columns with Spliced ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 Reinforcement subject to stress reversals; 7.10.3 805 f in compression to y
172 f in tension y
Steel Embedments used to ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 transmit load to concrete Appendix B
- Double dash (--) indicates that older code had no provisions.
LIST OF STRUCTURAL ELDIENTS TO BE EXAMINED (Cont.)
Structural Elements to be Code Change Af fecting These Elements Examined New Code Old Code Containment Vessels t
1.
Containment vessels of ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, materials no longer listed NE-3112.4 UG-23 as code acceptable 2.
Containment vessels ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, containing telltale holes 1962 UG-25(d) 3.
Containment vessels ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, designed by formula and NE-3131 subject to substantial loads 4.
Stiffening rings for ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, cylindrical shells subject NE-3133. 5 (a)
UG-29 to external pressure 5.
Different materials used ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, for the shell and NE-3133. 5 (b) stiffening rings 6.
Vessels with reducer ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, section with " reversed" Fig. 3324.11 Fig. UG-36 (d) curvature when RL/t < 23 (a) (6)-1 7.
Vessels with positive ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, locking devices - Quick NE-3327.1 actuating closures 8.
Pressure indicating devices ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, for vessels having quick NE-3327.4 actuating closures Shell Openings and Attachments 1.
Openings and reinforcements ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, Provisions for fatigue NE-3331(b)
UG-36 analysis 2.
Reinforcement for openings ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec..VIII, NE-3334.1 UG-4 0 (b)
NE-3334.2 UG-4 0 (c) 3.
Bellows expansion joints, ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, over 6 inches in diameter NE-3365 (f) 4.
Bellows - New design ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, t
requirements NE-3365.2 g.
s
-+
w
.s we e--
-m
- mew e
-oem*w e-o~
on"o*
m w-me -*
- mm ww w = "'
-+-
w
.________ _ - LIST OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS TO BE EXAMINED (Cont.)
All elements whose failure ACI 349-76 ACI 318-71 under impulsive and impactive Appendix C loaca must be precluded Section 10 of Enclosure (1) address load and load combination efianges with occurred as a result of criteria changes and identifies specific plant structures for which various loads and load combinations may be significant. Based upon a lack of detailed information on the stress results for loads and load combinations used during design of struc-tures at Oyster Creek, these loads and load combinations may be potent-f ally significant.
Enclosure (2) provides details of an analysis of the primary containment (dry well only) for combined seismic and LOCA loadings which was per-formed by our contractor, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. This analysis indicates that the primary containment may be stressed beyond code allowables in a localized region.
V.
CONCLUSIONS We conclude that after comparing design codes, criteria, loads, and I
load combinations, a number of changes have occurred which could poten-tially impact margins of safety. These changes are identified above.
These differences between plant design' and current licensing criteria should be resolved as follows:
y..
1.
Review Seismic Category 1 Structures at Oyster Creek to determine if any of the structural elements for which a concern exists are a part of the facility design of Oyster Creek.
For those that are, assess the impact of the code changes on margins of safety on a plant specific basis, and 2
Examine on a sampling basis the margins of safety of Seismic Category 1 structures for loads and load combination = not covered by another SEP tcpic and denoted by Ax in Enclosure (1).
(The load tables should be reviewed to assure their technical accuracy concerning applicability of the loads for each of the structures and their significance. The list of Category 1 structures should be reviewed to assure completeness. Note that individual loads such as snow have increased beyond your original design, are not covered by l
another SEP topic, and therefore, must be addressed in this topic.)
l l
..... + -...
-......s...:-.
- Regarding the ability of the Oyster Creek primary containment to resist the seismic and LOCA loads described in Enclosure (2), we conclude that the containment may be stressed beyond code allowables in a localized
- region.
8 5
i o
3 i
1 4.
t l
i 1
4 r
i t
t
-.A
.E,_'..',,,.w...
+-
e,w.,
_