ML20128C387
| ML20128C387 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1969 |
| From: | Dromerick A US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Boyd R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212040381 | |
| Download: ML20128C387 (6) | |
Text
.-
L.
NAP 2 713G R, 8. Reyd, Aseistant Mreeter for teneter Protests. M1, Tates
- s. invine, Assistant Meseter for Rooster Teeheeleap, DEL 50RIn1RW STATES POWER CONFANT - MRT!Catt.0 NWCLEAR GestRATIDO PLatt. DOCKET 50. M-263, SPERATERS LICEWB1 STRUCTURAL REVIEW We boom soviewed the ensueterst tafossettaa pensented is the;,
PSAt for the Meetteelle plant, and have fewed it defielent for the purrese of evaluattag the adequary of the preposed destga to protect the public safety.
Ties additieaal infernation needed to permit me to tree *ed with our review is given in the sectoeere.
A. W. Droserick, Oslef Ceepenents and Contafssent RT-203A Techoslogy Branch Dr.L C&CTE EGA t Af' Division of Reacter Licensinr.
Enc,les ure 4 As stated above cc.
D. !! aller. DEL, v/ enc 1.
D. Vnesallo, URL, v/ enc 1.
A. Cluckmana D1L, w/ enc 1.
E. Davisen, tRL, w/ enc 1.
bec:
R. DeYoung E. G. Arndt
('
.A. Dromerick
+-c Distribution I'+('l Suppl 4
7'y e
DRL Reading C&CTB Reading AD/RT Reading 3
I 9212040381 690327 PDR ADOCK 05000263 4
A PDR v.
(I,{C&CTB:DRL C&CTB:DRL DADRT:DRL DRL omct > j 3,g.
3g77 j$g7
){
7,,
o2etine A.Dromerick
.De ung EG
$URNAME>
.A'....
3/#5/69 DATt>
3/t..t.f /69 3/,t(, /69 3/21/6
- ~ - " - ~ -
Form AEC-stb (Rev.9-53 AECM 0240 e a so.neemisi.eistm. eenca t e.se.-se.-eiv
J
(
)
MO:iTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT a
j 1.0 General Structural Desien 1.1 Describe what provisions have been made to limit the gradual 1
increase of the leakage rate of the Secondary Containment -
reactor building - due to gradual deterioration of the structure, such as increased cracking, aging of coulked joints and gaskets, etc.
1.2 It appears that only the part of the main steam lines from the reactor to the isolation valves outside of the drywell is considered to be Class I.
Explain how the effect of a seismic disturbance j
on the Class II part of the lines has been taken care of in the design of Class I part, especially' for the anchors and the valves.
1.3 It is stated that parts of Class II structures covering or supporting Class I equipment have been designed as Class I structures. Explain how this has been achieved.
a 1.4 Evaluate the plant capability to withstand a tornado with 300 mph rotational velocity, 60 mph translational velocity, and a 3 psi pressure drop in 3 seconds.
1.5 Show how the temperature stresses in the walls of the spent fuci pool were evaluated and what provisions have been made to limit cracking and prevent leakage.
l.6 State how the gap bececen the drywell' and the shielding concrete outside of the drywell is drained and vented.
It appears that strips of polyurethane foam.have been lef t in the gap. Will they prevent adequato drainage and ventilation?
1.7 Explain how the recirculation pumps are supported. Please indicate
. _..-~,
design criteria, materials us'ed and. design methods used for these supports. Can the pumps.become missiles?
1.8 It is stated that' Class I structures and equipment are designed in I
such a way that for a ground acceleration of 0.12g a safe shutdown f
can be achieved.
Please indicate in detail'Ohat are the criteria, for functional adequacy in this case for structures, equipment,
~
piping, instrumentation and controls.
' y'~
F 1.9 It is stated that Class I structures and equipment are designed in such a way that for the combination of normal loads plus design earthquake the stresses are within code allowable. Please list the c codes used for structures, equipment, piping, instru=cntation and controls and state whether for some elements, a stress increase i
has been used, as permitted by the codes..
1.10 Show the adequacy of the seismic design of the battery racks.
e e
sg
-+ w== -egoemee e t -.
m m
r s.
(.
1 1
I 1.11 Describe the mathematical models used for the seismic design of J
Class I structures, equipment, piping and instrumentation and co,ntrols and explainbow the clasticity of the structures, and the damping have been evaluated.
j l
1.12 Explain what method has been' used for seismic. design: _ The response spectrum method or the time history method.
If modal analysis a,.
has been used, indicate for every important structure, piping system, or equipment how many modes have been considered and 1
describe how the damping was evaluated for each mode. By how much does the use of smooth response spectra underestimate the true response of Class I structures and equipment?
1.13 Discuss huu closely the mathematical models represent the actual conditions, especially the effect of the following: Non-linear behavior of the actual structures, piping and equipment; effect,
of appendages (small masses clastically attached to large masses) such
~
as vent pipes and header, equipment hatch and personnel lock; clearances (gaps) at equipment restraints and supports; and variable
- friction, 1.14 Demonstrate that at points wh'ere structures and/or equipment are interconnected, the dynamic deformae. ions are compatible: For' instance, (a) for horizontal restraints of reactor at elevation J
994'-2" and drywell and of shield at' clevation 992'-5-1/2", (b) tfor the drywell, at shear lugs between the drywell and the reactor f:
building at elevation 992'-4-13/16".
4 1.15 Justify the reliability of subdividing the Class I structures and equipment into the three categories: rigid, resonant ard flexible and explain their use in final design.
l.16 Explain how the interaction between soil and the reactor building has been provided for in the seismic analysis and the designef the building. Has nonlinear behavior of soils been considered?
1.17 List the amplification f actors, resulting from seismic analysis, as compared with tha ground motion for the following: reactor, recirculating pu=ps, Class I piping, spent fuel pool.
1.18 In order to determine whether an exhaustive survey should be made for post-carthquake damage prior to continuing operation, information should be available as to the leadings experienced by the structure and primary equipment.
Indicate whether and how accelerometers will,
be placed, and how determination will be made that the. response of 1
the structure and primary equipment is within allowable design limits.
s s
i
.s l
{ ',
)
[-
?
g..
~3-i u.
1.19 The vent stack appears to be designed for a maximum vind load of a
'110 mph gust.
Analyze the stack behavior under tornado wind loading and indicate whether stack failure can endanger any Class I systens or structures required for a safe shutdown.
1 l
1.20 Describe the protection afforded the fuel pool and its elements against the loss of the protective water from tornadic effects.
1.21 h'here Class I - tunnels, and underground piping and cables enter.or
, leave a structure, the seismic response within and outside the o
structure is quite different. Show how this has been accounted for in the designs of these systems.
4 I
l 1.22 Explain whether means are available to monitor possible settlements of Class I structures and equipment.
i i
J-v
}
l t
\\
4 4
t o
48 l
- W 4
e ae I
s 3
I 4
9
/.
+
e t.2 4
e
'i
'~~
(
y l'
2.0 containment Structural Design
,.-w.-
2.1 For the dryvell, please clarify the-following.:
(a)' Method of evaluating the jet forces and the area subjected to j
their effect.
(b) How the maximum metal temperature of 36d F vas established.for jet impacted steel plate and what the corresponding thernal stresses in the shell are.
~
(c) Why the temperature of the steel plates was reduced to 150 F when jet action is considered with design internal pressure, and what this pressure is.
g (d) Why local yielding has been permitted when the shell is
,.?*
backed up b,y concrete. This criterion is not a code critarion. How was it established that a rupture vill not' occur? Where the shell is not backed up by concrete the primary membrane stresses are permitted to go up to 0.9 of the yield point: This is not allowed by the code. Note all of the loads which were combined when this criteria was used.
2.2 For the design of the torus, please:
(a) Justify the value of 21 kips for' the jet force at each downcomer pipe in the torus.
/
(b) Describe what stress criteria and design methods have been used for the design of the torus for jet forces.
Can other jet forces exist in the torus in addition to downcomer pipe jet forces?
(c) State whether the flooding of the drywell and the torus has
c, been considered and combined with-seismic loads. Indicate the corresponding critical stresses.
n
^
2.3 ' Penetrations (a) Please present the design criteria for penetrations in the containment vessel, drywell and torus,' and list the load combinations 'used in the design.
(b)
Indicate the stress analysis methods used to evaluate the s tresses; 1.
in the shell i
i 2.
in the penetration sleeves, bellows and guard pipes e
_.. _.... _. - _ _. _ _ _.. _ _.. _. -. _ _.. ~. _ _ _ _. _ _. _ _
~ -
j;
(.
3 s
4 t
7 E '.' < '
.y 3.
in process piping at penetrations, their anchors and supports.
2.4 It is stated that the veasel was code stamped for the design pressure and design temperature.. Does this mean that it is not a code vessel-for other loads such as seismic loads, jet forces and equipment
~
c loads.
2.5 In the seismic analysis -of the containment the assumption has, a
been made that the drywell is completely fixed on-its foundation.
Justify this assumption.-
n 2.6 Present a detailed discussion of the seismic design of the torus ring header and its supports.
M 4
)
y.
n 4
s m
._tt e
f 9
.b
- \\
9_
- 7. q',. ' t 5 4
,s
+
l'
. /-
+
1
. u -
4 y
4 w
W W4'N$
MNW
-