ML20080J369
| ML20080J369 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 09/21/1983 |
| From: | Buckman F CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 25652, NUDOCS 8309260335 | |
| Download: ML20080J369 (28) | |
Text
f-Consumms hl%l[
Frederick W Buckman Executive Afanager Afilland Project Office oeneral Offices: 1945 West Parnall Road, Jackson, MI 49201 * (517) 788-1933 September 21,-1983 Harold R Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER MIDLAND DOCKET NOS 50-329, 50-330 NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE SEISMIC MARGIN REVIEW REPORT FILE:
B3.7.1 SERIAL: 25652
REFERENCE:
(1) LETTER FROM J W COOK TO H R DENTON DATED MARCH 30, 1983 (2) LETTER FROM E G ADENSAM (NRC) TO J W COOK DATED AUGUST 11, 1983 In reference (1), Consumers Power Company submitted Volume II of the Seismic Margin Review Report titled, " Reactor Containment Building," for the Staff's review. Subsequently, in reference (2) the NRC requested additional information on Volume II in question number 130.30. As an attachment to this letter, CPCo is submitting the response to question 130.30 for Staff review.
It is expected that this information will enable the NRC Staff to complete its review of Volume II of the Seismic Margin Review Report.
/ dm JWC/MFC/bjw CC RJCook, Midland Resident Inspector JGKeppler, Administrator, NRC Region III DSHood, US NRC FRinaldi, US NRC GHarstead, Harstead Engineering Company GBagchi, US NRC RBosnak, US NRC MAMiller, US NRC Licensing Branch No 4 8309260335 830921 i
PDR ADOCK 05000329 COi A
PDR oc0983-0624a100 l
r CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Midland Units 1 and 2 Docket No 50-329, 50-330 Letter Serial 25652 Dated September 21, 1983 At the request of the Commission and pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and the Energy Reorganization Act of.1974, as amended and the Commission's Rules and Regulations thereunder, Consumers Power Company submits additional information on the Seismic Margin Review Report Volume II titled,
" Reactor Containment Building."
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
'By su A w
F'W Buckman, ExecutivY Manager Midland Project Office
~-
Sworn and subscribed before me this ay of M /9f3.
I
$./Yhl L,
- ~
~ N5t g Public #[)
Jackson County, Michigan
,rif h, /9ff My Commission Expires t
oc0983-0624a100
SMA 13701.05M407 130.0 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH 130.30 With respect to Volume II, Seismic Margin Review:
Reactor Containment Building, forwarded by your letter of March 30, 1983, provide the following information:
Question 130.30.1 The response spectra in Figures II-5-3 through 6,
-10 through -22, -24, -27, -30, -33, -36 and -39 show the valleys. This does not seem consistent with the previously made statement that the peaks of three soil stiffnesses would be connected so as to eliminate valleys and, therefore, cover possible intermediate soil stiffnesses. Please discuss this inconsistency.
Response
The final Seismic Margin Earthquake (SME) in-structure response spectra were developed as an envelope of the broadened spectra for the different soil cases at each location as discussed in Section 8 of Volume I.
This developnent of the enveloped spectra considered possible shif ting of structure frequencies due to uncertainty in actual site soil conditions. The enveloped spectra were further snoothed to remove minor valleys.
The procedure used to develop the in-structure response spectra can be demonstrated by the example in the attached Figure Q&R 130.30.1-1.,This figure forms the basis for Figure II-5-4 for 2 percent of critical damping and is similar to all the questioned response spectra curves.
The three dashed lines in the figure correspond to the in-structure response spectra generated for the lower bound, intermediate, and upper bound soil cases. These 1
spectra already include a peak broadening of +1.10f j on structure mode j having frequency f. The solid line j
surrounding the dashed line spectra represents an envelope of the results for the three soil cases studied that accounts for possible variations in structure frequencies.
The first peak in the final enveloped spectrum accot:nts for the possible variation in the fundamental reactor building frequency. These frequencies are presented in Table II-3-2 of Volume II and range from a low of 1.13 Hz for the lower bouno soil case to a high of 2.60 Hz for the upper bound soil case. The second peak in this spectrum accounts for possible variation in the second mode response of the structure. Frequencies for this mode range from 2.87 Hz for the lower bound soil case to 6.16 Hz for the upper bound soil case. The valley between the two peaks represents a region where amplified reactor building struc-tural response does not occur from either the fundamental or second mode for the range of soil conditions considered.
Enveloped spectra at all locations on the reactor building were developed in a similar fashion.
l l
I l
l l
l I
2 l
[
9 2;
...g Upper Bound Soil Second Mode, f = 6.16 Hz
--- Upper, Bound Soil o
Intermediate Soil o
Intermediate Soil Second Mode, f = 5.01 Hz
- gI Lower Bound Soil I
~
~
i Lower Bound Soil Second Mode, 7-f*
Envelope of Three g
f = 2.87 Hz g
i Soil Cases i
E Upper Bound Soil Fundamental, g
i gd-f = 2.60 Hz g
.y g
i C
Intermediate Soil Fundamental, l
- I q
E f = 1.98 Hz
- d I
ot g
(
o We I
W J.
I wo
,J y
{
a I
u cr Lower Bound Soil le Fundamental, f = 1.13 Hz
.l8 j,
W.
o i
l' y
f{ 7.,r,' /
i I
no 4
_a o
J.
',e L.5 E3 I
'. \\
a2 l.e g
f-
_\\.' a
./
o d' y
\\f '
\\,
q,,..,
l W
...-J i
in
-v I
o i
d io-'
i
- i. 4 4 6 i 6 4 )(f f
i 4 4 4 i 5 4 \\ 0' i
i 4 4 E iii 10' i
FREQUENCY,(HERTZ 1 FIGURE Q&R 130.30.1-1 ENVELOPED SRSS COMBINED RESPONSE SPECTRA REACTOR BUILDING, INTERNAL j
STRUCTURE, ELEVATION 626'-0", NORTH-SOUTH DIRECTION, 2% CRITICAL DAMPING
r Question 130.30.2 Section 5 of the report presents in-structure response spectra for internal structures.
However, none are provided for the steam generators and the reactor vessel. Please provide these missing spectra or justify their omission.
Response
Volume II was written to describe the analysis of the reactor containment buildings and their internal struc-tures.
In addition, Volume II presents the in-structure response spectra for use in evaluating equipment attached to the structure. Seismic input at the Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) interfaces in the reactor containment buildings was developed by Structural Mechanics Associates, Inc. (SMA) for the Seismic Margin Earthquake. This input was defined in terms of translational and rotational time histories and response spectra for each of the three soil cases studied. The requested seismic response spectra were generated by Babcock & Wilcox (B&W), the NSSS Vendor.
Since the B&W generated seismic response spectra are only an intermediate step in the Balance-of-Plant piping analysis, they were not included in Volume VIII. Figures Q&R 130.30.2-1 through Q&R 130.30.2-7 present the schematic of the reactor vessel model used by B&W and the seismic response spectra for 4 percent of critical damping. Similarly, Figuras Q&R 130.30.2-8 through Q&R 130.30.2-17 are presented for the steam generators.
4
S ~M A
l KEY i g.g -
i
, ',i !g s.
r, m!
h/
O M *amam N
l 6
1 l[W <r@
f C2 mmer -
i 6
i e.
W;: m r@
j a
-=
Ihl m
j-i e.
l L
I
~
- Locations where spectra T.
were generated
),qg,_g N i I
A
'l s\\dheca%
I W
(eg-I g=,td'i*
nm g% _***1:=:,
~
[-
6:
m, w-g! _.-. ~ @Q
- N,.)
h y
Q l
gl
=
m II waa*. W 7
g
,va. --,
f&A I
P I
i*
r*
g I
b I
a t/yD i
7,i 48R2q q,N--
l
=
.wr.
_ ::= -.f.
- .:: __ m u,
%y f,/
FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-1.
Reactor Vessel Isolated Model 10
20 I~0 '
UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE 16-INTERMEDIATE SOIL CASE g,4 LOWER BOUND SOIL CASE O
v e
1.2 -
ZO E-.
30-m M
--I og_
M U
O
\\
4 06-s 0 4 --
s N.,'_.. ------------.........................
O 2. _
W W
W W
W W
W I
00 6.0 10.0 15 0 200 2$.0 30.0
- thD 40.0 FREQUENCV (CPS)
FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-2.
RVIS Point 58 X-DIR 4% Damping
I 0 50 4
4 1
1 045-UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE 1
0.40 -
INTERMEDIATE' SOIL CASE 1
J
'. N.
LOWER BOUND SOIL CASE i
0 15 -
s m
U)
'O i
v 0.10 -
}
Z 1
O b
02-M el M
a 1
o d, f
.g j
o.:go.
g
?
l O
I.
g 0 15 -
f i,N.l
.~~~~-
j l
I l
j OM-i i
0 00 -
l a0 50 10 0 15 0 20 6 45 0 300
- th.0 40 0 FREQUENCY (CPS) i FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-3.
RVIS Point 58 Y-DIR 4% Damping
i j
OM e
j 0.61 -
e e
UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE e
rs
]
O.72 -
s INTERMEDIATE' SOIL CASE 1
i i
I O.63 l
LOWER BOUND SOIL CASE
^
I
!O i
1 i
o v
0.54 -
Z f
O Q
045-j M
i I4
\\
a l '
Aga 0.J6 -
I,'
\\
o 4
o f j I,'i t
0.27 -
\\
h l
l
'~
l 0.1t) -
i i
l 0.09 -
0 00 -
3 5
g 3
y 3
y 00 50 10.0 15.0 20.0 25 0
- 10 0
- tfi.0 4a0 FREQUENCY (CPS)
FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-4.
RVIS Point 58 Z-DIR 4% Damping
30 1.0 -
UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE 1
INTERMEDIATE SOIL CASE 1.6 -
LOWER BOUND SOIL CASE l4-
/
m u.)
,o 0
l t
v I.
1.2 -
r g
I O
I 4
)
I.
b 1.0 -
M W
m d
00-U L
O 4
Ob-04-
.....--...........,,~~~--
~
~
~
~
D.a -
J 00 3
I I
W y
y g
0.0 50 10 0 15 0 20 0 25 0
- 10.0
- t'io 400 FREQUENCY (CPS)
FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-5.
RVIS Point 120 X-DIR 4% Damping i
I
l i
I 0 50 l
1 0.45 -
UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE 4
....g INTERMEDIATE SOIL CASE 0.40 -
. N LO'n'ER BOUND SOIL CASE 035-I s
mp o
- 0. 50 -
i z
\\
o
=
I H
aa5 -
l i.
Z w
g og.
(
r o
lC O
Q h
'V _:gl i
0 15 --
0.10 -
i 005 -
1 0.00 -
00 SD 10.0 15.0 2&S 25.0
- 10.0
- sft0 40D 1
FREQUENCY (CPS)
I i
FIGURE Q&R 130.30-2.6.
RVIS Point 120 Y-DIR 4% Damping i
1 20 t,
l In-UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE i
1.6 -
INTERMEDIATE SOIL CASE lok'ER BOUND SOIL CASE 1.4 -
5 o
<n y
t
~O t
V 1
e 13, Z
'.3 O
7 I
E-'
).O -
~
M N
1 s
a s
t W
og-m o
O 4
I 0.b -
's.,
s 0.4 -
-~..'
-_ i.---....-- ----
4 02-i i
ao-a0
$D d.o dD
$.0 NA
$.0 do 4ao FREQUENEY (CPS)
FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-7.
RilSPoint120Z-DIR 4% Damping
'M s T'h$,0 t
,.D d,di Y
,==.
2 o
- Location where N
- 1
,' J spectra were 7
D, y,rw ;
w.g
,5B generated g(hy)k.
![
9 s
==
o N
[n1 i
s 73'TGT o
.. I G il., S
)
'isti ~'O*'d"ev c, n g.$E b 5$h t - - "
'*"E b._
l.~=s==O l }'ij TsiT "ET 8
g
8 51C'h'n}h
{i
@',S W.
]
n.
(D fiiD n a,.
[g,3 t.ig[iil Dn l
g='=
g3z=
tie-un oC9 GDo g_
(10 li@
~ ~;
WIU1)t N-i 23 e i
Ip
'W3
. L"M)l I
6m.
w GPA
-.-hsl N Q!9 GO 2
~
g 9
hk' D
m, %-
e l
l FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-8.
NSSS Loop Model I
1 17
l l
l l
l 1
I i
2.0 l
1.tl -
e UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE l
4 g
j l.6 -
a INTERMEDIATE SOIL CASE
.e i
e e
,e LO'n'ER BOUND SOIL CASE i
1.4 -
^
1 (n
e.
j c
v 1.2 -
Z O
l-1, b
go.
4 e
M
]
M 3
co 08-l y
L) s O
0.6 -
\\ '.'.'.
's 0.4 -
s 02-00-O.0 50 10.0 15.0 20.0 250
.10D
- tha 40.0 FREQUENCY (CPS)
FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-9.
OTSG Point 10 X-DIR 4% Damping
i d
0.00 -
I UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE r
]
0.54 -
l
~~~~~~~~~~~
INTERMEDIATE [0ILCASE i.
0.4 11 -
l LOWER BOUND SOIL CASE i
0.42 -
l m
W l
s s
o l
- 0. 16 -
8 l
l Z
e O
l g
b
- 0. 60 -
a
<s:
N
'.)*'
w M
\\
\\.,
g g
0 24 -
g o
I o
S o.
3
{
0.1 11 -
d.
}*
. ~~...-
j e
g i
N_
0.12 -
i Oth -
l f
OM-j 00 5.0 10.0 15.0 204 23 0
- 10D
.t'.D 400 FREQUENCY (CPS)
FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-10.
OTSG Point 10 Y-DIR 4% Damping
1 1
}
20-i I'II ~
UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE 4
1
,j j
16-INTERMEDIATE SOIL CASE l
i 1
l LOWER BOUND SOIL CASE
~~~~~
g4 q
n
[n 1
o l
1.2 -
e
- E, O
~
E-.
o.
4 l
I I4 t
A
%)
l (4
0.11 -
I E!
U i
O 1
06-O.4 -
,,,,,,,,_~~ - -----_....____,
~~
0.2 jf i
1 00-j 00 5.0 10.0 ISA 20.0 25D 10.0
- llo 400 FREQUENCY (CPS)
FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-11.
OTSG Point 10 Z-DIR 4% Damping i
l 1
h
1
- l.0 -
i 27~
UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE t
2.4 -
INTERMEDIATE OIL CASE
~~~~~'e LO'n'ER BOUND SOIL CASE
-1 e
n
- u. )
C) l ll -
'A o
O E-I~$
o s
/
a:
's M
i A
l
~
W g ~.>.
1 i
U O
0.9-1, 4~.
j 0.b-g.,.
i i
00-00 50 10.0 15.0 20-0 25.0
- 10.0
- 15.0 40D FREQUENCY (CPS)
FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-12.
OTSG Point 33 X-DIR 4% Damping
I i
-1 i
20 i
1.8 -
a l
UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE i
4 l.b -
INTERMEDIATE SOIL CASE a
a 1.4 -
l LO'n'ER BOUND SOIL CASE m(n a.
i O
i 12 -
l 1
z j
O l
1 i
E g0 i
4
}
~
M
's.
._a
.y g
0.11 -
v u
l U
l 0.6 -
i I
s O.4 j
's I
0.2 -
~~~
1 I
l 00-l 00 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 254
- 20
- 15.0 40.0 i
l FREQUENCY (CPS)
FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-13.
OTSG Point 27 X-DIR 4% Damping
]
0 b0 -
J UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE
,"*~~~~~~~~~1 INTERMEDIATE SOIL CASE 0.54 -
0.4 tl -
l LO'JER BOUND SOIL CASE 0.42 -
,g g
l n
i m
g t
v 0.16 -
8 l
Z
\\.
I o
l i
\\
Q 0.;10 -
l
', /
N M
O d
Q24 -
\\.,
u 4
p,.;
o 0.18 -
s i
..,,~' -
i e 3
l
}
g 0.12 -
1 0.06 -
J 0 00 I
5 y
y g
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 204 25.0
- 10.0
- tic 40.0 j
FREQUENCY (CPS) i
{
FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-14.
OTSG Point 27 Y-DIR 4% Damping i
't
l l
l l
30-I II ~
UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE
~
T lb -
INTERMEDIATE SOIL CASE J.....
LO*w'ER BOUND SOIL CASE g.4 in o
v l.2 ~
,0 x
O l
E gg.
e e
Z m
d 0.11 -
y
~
o o
OL-
~.
~.
s' A 0.4 0.2 -
00-00 5.0 10.0 15.0 204 ESS
- 10.0
- tSD 40.0 FREQllENCY (CPS)
FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-15.
OTSG Point 27 Z-DIR 4% Damping
U
~
UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE O.54 -
,'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '.
INTERMEDIATE SOIL CASE f
LOWER BOUND SOIL CASE 048-l
,h l
0.42 -
m in
'i.
e C) l
=
~
0.:E -
3 Z
e 3
f/
\\
H Oa0 l
f.aa i
y d
024 -
f'
\\
g O
p-.l h
O 4
O.lin-
- s. ','
(
l f
\\ N-0.i2 0 06 0 00 -
0.0 50 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
- 10.0
- L.0 400 FREQUENCY (CPS)
FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-16.
OTSG Point 33 Y-DIR 4% Damping
20--
I i
I !! '
UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE i
34 -
INTERMEDIATE SOIL CASE e
e 1.4 -
,. i LOWER BOUND SOIL CASE m
M l
1 0
v e
12 --
e' I
- z O
,7 E-=
30 I
4 M
M l
ro
.-3 s/
m y
O tt -
U O
j I
4 06-04-
' ' W ~
~
02 i
i l
l 00-00 5.0 10.0 15.0 20 0 25.0
- 10.0
- t5 0 (no FREQUENCY (CPS)
FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-17.
OTSG Point 33 Z-DIR 4% Damping
Question 130.30.3 Table II-3-4 of the report provides comparison between the accelerations from the direct integration and modal superposition. Please provide a comparison of these values with the values of the peak modal accelerations calculated from the response spectrum method.
Response
Table Q&R 130.30.3-1 presents a comparison of the reactor building in-structure zero period accelerations determined by direct integration, modal superposition, and response spectrum techniques for the upper bound soil case.
l 5
~
,,,,.___,___.,m,,
,_.____y_ _,
7.
TABLE Q&R 130.30.3-1 COMPARISON OF IN-STRUCTURE ZERO PERIOD ACCELERATIONS DETERMINED BY DIRECT INTEGRATION, MODAL SUPERPOSITION, AND RESPONSE SPECTRUM TECHNIQUES UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE North-South Response East-West Response vertical Response Due to Due to Due to North-South Excitation l
East-West Escitation vertical Encitation Location Direct
%1a l
Response
l Integration Direct Modal
Response
Direct Modal
Response
- Integration Superposition Spectrum Superposi tion Spectrum Integration Superposition Spectrum cn Containment - Elev. 186 -0" O.385 0.386 0.360 b
I 0.389 0.392 0.36e 0.114 0.!!4 0.108 i
l' f0.166 0.106 0.109
! 0.096 Containment - Elev. 664 *-0*
t 0.170 0.167 0.164 0.177 0.131 i
Containment - Elev. 591'-6" 0.139 0.159 0.116 0.138 0.154 0.118 0.099 0.105 0.081 Reactor Internals - Elev. 685*-0" 0.270 O.284 0.263 0.277 0.292 0.287 0.099 0.107 0.087 Reactor Internals - Elev. 640'-0*
0.188 0.205 0.175 0.184 0.199 0.186 0.098 0.106 0.086 e
Question 130.30.4 For Equation 3-3 you have determined the capacity utilizing the load f actors as unity.
It may be reasonable to utilize a load factor greater than unity for the pressure and the equivalent operating basis earthquake. We would consider a factor of 1.25 for these two terms in Equation 3-3.
Please provide the results of this study and a comparison with current results from Equation 3-3.
Response
Code margins for the containment were determined using the load combination expressed in Equation 3-3.
This load combination, which utilizes load factors of unity for the Seismic Margin Earthquake (SME) and the design basis accident internal pressure and thermal gradient, is consistent with the Seismic Margin Review (SE) criteria described in Volume I of this report. The scope of the Seismic Margin Review (SE) was first presented to the staff in a meeting in Bethesda on June 30, 1981. After a follow-on telephone conference on July 17, 1981, the staff agreed to the applicants Sm.
In addition, the scope of l
the Sm has been presented to ACRS subcommittee and full committee meeting and has been accepted.
l l
l I
i l
l l
7 i
Question 130.30.5 Field reports have indicated cracks in the outside surfaces of the containment structures.
These cracks have been described as twu-cracks at buttresses locations. Please address the following concerns:
(a) State if your evaluation has considered these cracks in the determination of the seismic margins and provide a discussion on the subject.
(b)
If these cracks have not been considered in your evaluation, provide a discussion addressing the reasons for the omission of this condition or provide your proposed method of evaluating the effects of these reported cracks in the determination of the seismic margins to current code allowables, and if necessary, the seismic margins to failure.
Response
The structure response was conservatively based on uncracked structure stiffness properties. Utilization of uncracked stiffness properties leads to an increase in the structure-soil system frequencies. This, in turn, l
produces greater seismic loads compared with those resulting from the use of the cracked stiffness l
properties. Because the structure seismic loads were
(
developed from the uncracked properties, reported I
structure seismic loads,and code margins are conservative.
i 8
The cracks identified at the outer surfaces of the containment structures were not considered in the Seismic Margin Review (SMI). These cracks, located near the intersections of the buttresses and the base slabs, are small in width with random orientations. The cracks have been concluded to be due to volume change effects caused primarily by local restraint against concrete shrinkage strain (Reference 2). References 1, 2, and 3 have noted that this type of cracking is expected for containment structures and have also concluded that these cracks do not affect the containment integrity. Based oa the information available, it can be concluded that the cracks at the buttresses are not significant and should not be considered in the SMR.
s
References:
1.
Affidavit of Dr. Palanichamy Shunmagavel, before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in the Matter of Consumers Power Company, Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-329-0M, 50-330-0M, 50-329-OL, 50-330-0L, July 15, 1983.
2.
Affidavit of Dr. W. G. Corley, before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Nuclear Regulatory 1
Comission, in the Matter of Consumers Power Company, Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-329-0M, 50-330-0M, 50-329-0L, 50-330-0L, July 15, 1983.
3.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Memorandum and Order, dated August 17, 1983, in the Matter of Consumers Power Company, ASLBP 78-389-030L and j
80-429-02SP.
l l
l 9
__