ML20114E836
| ML20114E836 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000214 |
| Issue date: | 11/09/1964 |
| From: | Woodard M US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML093631134 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9210120285 | |
| Download: ML20114E836 (4) | |
Text
o,.;.oy;.o
.o i.
(
UMTED STATES GO.RNMENT Memorandum To Files D ATE:
NOV s ss4 (Thru) Roger S. Boyd, Chief, Research & Power Reactor Safety Branch, Division of Reactor ensi FROM M. Keith Woodard, Research & Power Rea r
Safety Branch, Division of Reactor Lic senJrcT: MEETING WITH CITY OF LOS ANGELES (COLA) TO DISCUSS CONTAINMENT DESIGN FOR MALIBU PLANT, DOCKET NO. 50-214 l
l On November 2,1964, the Staf f met with representatives of COLA, Stone and Webster, and Westinghouse to discuss design features of the double containment planned for the Halibu Nuclear Plant.
The following persons rere present:
1.
E. Koffmann DWP 2.
M. Frankel DWP 3.
Gerald Luhman DWP 4.
Patrick P. Wong DWP 5.
E. U. Powell Westinghouse l
6.
T. Stern Westinghouse l
7.
Stanley N. Ehrenpreis Westinghouse 8.
J. C. Gray Westinghouse 9.
Charles T. Chave Stone & Webster 10.
J. J. Niland Stone & Webster 11.
K. W. Seiving Stone & Webster i
l 12.
D. Gans, Jr.
Stone & Webster 1
13.
W. F. Swiger Stone & Webster 14.
John D. Goodrich Stone & Webster 15.
M. J. Holley, Jr.
Stone & Webster l
16.
W. L. Klehm Stone & Webster 17.
T. C. Kavanagh Praeger-Kavahagh-Waterbury 18.
D. A. Rogers ACRS 19.
R. H. Wilcox ACRS Staff 20.
E. G. Case DRL 21.
R. S. Boyd DRL l
22.
D. F. Knuth DRL 23.
R. R. Maccary DSS 24.
M. K. Woodard DRL 25.
H. R. Denton CO 26.
P. Seigel OGC 27.
W. J. Hall N. H. Newsark 6 Assoc.
28.
R. A. Williamson Holmes and Narver, Inc.
Prior to the meeting with the applicant, E. Case and R. Williamson presented a brief summary of the status of COI>'s application.
At the last meeting, the Staff had been satisfied with essentially all design features with the exception of the containment. A contractural problem between COLA and S&W delayed progress on the 9210120285 920520 PDR ORG NRCHIST PDR
Memo to Files NOV 9 1964 design. The AEC structural consultants stated their reservations with the existing design.
Of greatest structural significance is the ability to n.aintain containment integrity under maximum credible accident conditions with a simultaneous 0.30 g earthquake loading. Of particular concern is the ability of the structure to effectively handle resulting shear stresses developed in the reinforced concrete.
It was stated that the design details per-taining tc methods and materials used in construction were not presented in enough detail to enable en adequate reivew. The gross behs.vior of such a structure is further complicated by the interruption of uniform stress distributions due to access doors and piping; penetrations.
Representttives of the applicant entered t'ae meeting, and S&W began a thorough presentation of its revised containmant design and structural criteria.
Mr. Neiland (the project manager) and Mr. Gans (project engineer) stated that the liners would be 3/8 inch, spaced 30 inches apart and filled with popcorn concrete.
Tne entire structure is to rest on an 11 ft. thick concrete mat.
The concrete side valls will be 4 feet 2 inches thicx and the dome 3 feet 2 inches thick.
S&W has recalculated the prescure decay curve af ter the HCA in the containment. The new curve indicates that in the first 30 seconds the pressure reaches about 37 psia. After a half hour a maximen of 40 psia is reached assuming that 3 fans operate. Another graph showed the temperature gradient thru the popcorn concrete.
Af ter 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> the temperature of the outer linear has increased only slightly indicating that one need not consider temperature effects in that particular liner..
In the same manner it is shown that reinforcing bars in the outer concrete will not be subjected to a large temperature gradient.
S&W also presented a graph of expected outside temperatures for hottest and coldcat months and has esigned the steel bars in accordance with the most unfavorable temperature expected.
Mr. Seiving discussed the wind and earthquake effects. Natural period calculations were done for dif ferent sized containments.
Composition of the soil, accident pressures and temperatures were all considered for this calculation.
He compared S&W's design stresses to the limits in the vessel code. Tre code in general allows stresses up to 66% of yield and S&W's design reaches only 53%. The code leaves secondary stress limits up to the designer.
Evidently the design stress equals the allowable code stress of 66% even when secondary stresses are considered along with incident pressure and earthquake.
Hemo to Piles NGV g 134 Mr. Klehm presented the epecifications and controls which will apply to the materiale used.
The yield stresses, ASTM code requirements, type o'. steel and concrete, and sample tssting appeared to be satisfactory to our structural consultants.
Pro-cedures used during construction will follow the 601-318 code.
Welding is to conform to the D-12-1 specifications. Radiographs of each velders work will be taken at random.
Mr. Neiland presented an elementary analysis to justify the thermal stresses which exist in the design. The stress-strain curves for the particular steel to be used are flat in che inelastic region.
He claims that the expansion due to temperature variation can be accounted for by built-in deformations.
It was found that vertical and horizontal re-bars were not eufficient to meet the stress criteria. The new design incorporates diagonal re-bars in addition to vertical and horizontal bars. A chart was explained on which the primary and secondary stresses were shown for the important sections of the containment under accident and eartbquake condi-tions.
The earthquake was considered as 0.3g horizontal and 0.2g vertical, or the square voor of the sum of the squares of these values when the combined ac leretions are considered. The concrete is assumed to crack under postulated conditions and no credit was assumed for the concre, to resist shear.
S&W described the reinforcing which will be used around the access door and penetrations. Additional diagonal re-bars will insure that the stress limits are not exceeded.
Binders will be inserted to take torsional slear.
When S&W had finished their presentation, Dr. Cavanagh was intro-duced by Westinghouse who har retained his firm for structural consultation.
In his statement he reiterated the adequacy of reinforced concrete for large s tructures.
He indicated that the amount of steel used was conservative even considering the vibra-tion and abock the vessel could receive.
Dr. Holley who is consultant for S&W niso stated that the design was consdevative.
A brief question and answer period _ followed.
Mr. Case asked about assumptions for best removal during blowdown.
Mr. Gans said the inner linear barely rises' in temperature for the first 30 seconds.
Some heat is transferred out the air-recirculation system.
In other words the highest pressure even for instantaneous blow-down would not exceed the 40 psia maximum.
Staff consultants were worried about weld failure.
Number 18 S welded reinforcement bars were tested to failure with no weld 6
)
--~
~
Y 1
Memo to Files 'N0Y 9 1964
- i. -
failing prematurely. The liner will be fabricated of A-442 steel which is very ductile having less than 0.35% carbon. The ties will be spaced 24" on center allowing electrical penetra-i
.[
tions to be placed without interrupting reinfor ement.
{
Dr. Hall's -(AEC consultant) main reservation concerned the method
{
cf anchoring the liner piste to-the base of the containment.- He asked about shrinkage. in the popcorn concrete which would allow l
the inner liner-to strain perhaps beyond yield.
He was satisfied i
when informed that the structure will be tested at-115% dasign I
j pressure.
He wanted to know more about how thermal expansion would l
be accounted for by methods of construction, i
S&W was requested to submit as an application amendment portions of their design before we can schedule another ACRS meeting.-- In j
-all probability, this design will be reviewed durir4 the December l
ACRS meeting and the hearing should follow in late January.
l l
i i
i f
f, i
f i
i i
I I
I l
i' I
1 l
--- L.
.~>
p.,,4 9.
...y-