ML20151W976

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests Listed Svc for Commission Per Conditions of Contract AT(49-5)2667 Re Proposed Const of PWR by PG&E at Diablo Canyon Site,Including Rept on Analyses of Engineering Factors by 670415
ML20151W976
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon, 05000000
Issue date: 02/14/1967
From: Case E
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To: Newmark N
ILLINOIS, UNIV. OF, URBANA, IL
Shared Package
ML20151W779 List:
References
FOIA-88-156 NUDOCS 8808250186
Download: ML20151W976 (1)
v • d • e


Text

Distribution: b, Suppl. W DRL Rdg.

R&PRSB Rdg.

qg i 4 ggg Orig: HSteele (2) sockat No. 50-275 E. G. Case (2)

R. S. Boyd K. Woodard H. Shapar, OGC Dr. Nathan M. Beimnark R. Hart, DC 111 Talbot Laboratory J. F. Newell Waivarsity of Illinois S. A. Teets, REG Brhana, Illinois 61803 R. Leith, OC Dear Dr. Neimmark 1st Contract No. AT(49-5)2667 Nathan M. Neianark Censulting Engineering Services is hereby requested, pursuant to the conditions of Contract AT(49-5)2667, to provide the following services for the Casumission concerning the proposed construction of a pressurised water reactor by Pacific Cas and Electric Company at its Diablo Canyon site in San Luis Obispo County, Californist

1. Analyses of the engineering factors included in the proposed design to minimise desmage from saf smically-induced ground motions.
2. Preparation of a report en (1) above.
5. Serving as en expert witness in the public hearing on this facility.

The maximum enount payable to your firm for this project is $5,000.

P.nclosed for your review are Voltanes 1 and 11 of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the Diable Canyon site nuclear plant.

Do the basis of our tentative schedule for this project, it would be desirable to have your report available for our use by April 15, 1967.

Sincerely yours, Original signed by 8800250106 000721 h[ . Case, Deputy Director '

IL -156 PDR ,

Division of teacter Licensing omet tincieewtee g.. . .... ... DRL ... . OGC ..D W

.) LSB d As stated ab.ee 46 11 , 0 sumsat > . . . . . .. .. HSt.amlezdi L . (fr......10C.4.9.9.. ..

2/3/67 2/ V /67 2/ 7 /67 2/T /67

4 X NEa " ei 8- l 111 Talbot l a tm r a t o r v , Urbana, Illinois )

}ATHAN .

.ons ul t ina Lnuineer ina Ser < ices 39 March 1967 Cr. Deter I. Morris, Director Disision of Reactor Licensing U. S . A t amic Energy Commi s s i on Washington, 0.0. 20545 Re- Contract No. AT (49-5)-2667 Nuclear Plant--Diablo Canyon Site Pacific Gas and Electric Company i

Docket No.53-275 p*u.cr,, Cupnl Filo Cy,,

Dear Dr. Morris:

The f olloaing conments and questions are based on the review by Dr. W. J. Hall and ry self of the meterial presented in "Preliminary Safety Analys i s Repor t .' Vo l ume s 1 a nd ! ! , f or the Diablo Canyon S i te Nuc lear Plant, submitted by the Facific Gas and Electric Company.

The reactor will consist of a four-loco oressurized water reactor, similar to indian Point No. 2 encept that the steam generat or s a re sli ghtly larger. The plant is to have a power output of 3250 MWt (1060 MW (e) net ) .

The primary containment consists of a steel lined, reinforced concrete cylinder with t he hemi sche r ic a l roof supoorted on a substantial foundation base which in turn is supported on rocs. The olant is located in San Luis Obispo County, Californ;a, 12 miles LSW of San Luis Obispo on the Pacific Ocean, and adjacent to Diablo Canyon Creex.

1. As a result of the study of four sources of earthquakes, the reoort recommends the use of two ear thcya<es f or des ign purposes, namely.

Earthquake B, patterned after the Taft 1952 N69'k earthquake, and Earth-Quake 0, oatterned after the Golden Gate 1957 $60*E earthquake. These two earthquakes are characterized by the applicant as corresponding to nesimum ground acceleration values ot 0.129 and 0.209 at the sites, respectively.

H ow e v e r , t ' .. response spectra associated with the time histories of these two earthquakes are quite different. In the region of probable design interest for the c onta inment structure and for other items of equipment.

Eerthquake B controls the response f or frequencies between about 0.5 to 4 or 5 cycles per second, whereas in the higher frequency range above about 5 cycles per second, Ea r thqua'se O con t rols the response. Comparison of the spectra as just indicated indicates that the containment design is probably to be made f or a 0.129 earthquake, which seems entirely too low f or t he region under consideration. A more reasonable value for the design earthquake would correspond to a maximum ground acceleration of 0,20 9 , with the spectrum amplified over the (7 tire frequency range. Such e properly ampilfied spectrum in the l ow f reQuency range would be significantly greater (by a f actor of ocarly two) than the values now obtained using Earthquake B.

l On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented, we I are agreeable to the use of a value of 0.209 ground acceleration as describing the design earthquake, and a value twice as great as describing the maximum L. - -

m , , mm

- 10x 9ff

-- ? v " v w < rJ

e credible earthava e. Hawever, the response socctra presented by the acclicant are riot acceptable to us. We request that new spec t r a :e prepared which are

,cpresentative of the proper ve loc i t ies and accelera t i >6s over the entire range oi frecuencies of interest so that we can be assured of a reasonable nargin of safety for design throughout the entire f requency range.

2. It is our understanding that two types of analyses ney be carried out, one involving a modal analysis in which the spectra arc employed, modal exci tat ion handled through the use of participa tion f actors, and the combinat.Jn of modes handled by the square root of the sums of the squares, which is acceptable if at least three modes are included in the analysis.

The alternative involves a time history of motion, employing carthquake records with the amplitude va lues sca led, used as the esc i tat ion f or the base motion of a lumped-mass spring-dashoot model of the sys tem. Both approaches are acceptable, crovided that they are encloyed in a consistent manner. By this we mean that the time history emnioyed for the model analysis must yield a response spectrum over the entire frequency range which falls on or above the response spectrum that is used in the spectral modal analysis, in the event that a t ime hi s tory analysis Is to be used, we would insist on a calculation being made by the applicant of the resporise spectra for various degrecs of damping corresponding to the time history inrut used.

3. It is our understanding, from examination of the ma terial presented in the PSAR, that an inactive shear zone may :e located near the containment vessel site. It is our recommendation that the reactor anc containment s tructure be reloca ted of f this 7one, to avoid any Question of possible relative motions occurring.

4 On page 1-25 and page 6-48, comment is mace concerning the containment isolation valves. It is our understanding, f rom discussions with the applicant and their consultants, that these valves will be designed to wi ths tand se i smi c l oadi ng. We should like to be advised of the nature of the design to insure that these valves will operate uncer seismic loading.

5. On page 2-29, and later in Appendix D. the statement in made to the effect tha t all modes having a period greater than 0.08 seconds shall be included in the analysis. We see no reason for this limit. We believe that a sufficient number of modes of excitation should :e included in the ana lys is of the containment structure, piping, or other items to insure that the analysis is meaningful. A better criterion, perhaps, would be to state the nunter of nodes that are to be included, in nany cases we can conceive of equipment items or piping which will have periods of much less than the limit cited. It is our belief that there can be no restrictive bound placed on the period as such, and that the oroper response spectra and frequency should be employed as appropriate.
6. The table of damping values is given on page 2-29, and the f ollowing two paragraphs thereaf ter indicate that the rocking of the structure No value for the damping on its foundation will be considered in the analysis.

to be employed with this rocking motion is presented. We should like to be advised of the value that is to be employed.

__. ___ _ ._ - _ . _ = -_ _ . _ - ._ ._

e

. l l

7. On sage 2-30, in the last paragraph, a statement is made,

"...(?) In pressure vessels and piping systems, there will be regions of local bending whe*e the stresses will be cooivolent to 120 percent of the y ield s t ress, based on an c las tic analys is; . . ." This statement is used in conj unc t ion wi th the cr i ter ia to satisfy the "no loss of f unc t ion' c r i ter ion ,

which we interpret to mean safe shutdown of the reactor and system under the maximum carthquase. Such a provision has littic or no rational interpretation in terms of limiting deformation. it is our belief that a more rational and acceptable criterion would be one that places a limit on the total deformation, such as, for e sample, a maximum of two or three times the yield point def orma-tion, to insure that no significant distortion or rupture is likely to occur in the system. 'n increased yield stress value may not provide the necessary constraint on t he amoun t of de f orma t ion tha t may occur , under certain condi-tions of dynamic loading, i

8, The base slab analysis, as described briefly on page 5-22, needs to be re-evaluated. S tatements are made therein that the base slab will be treated as a flat circular plate supported on a rigid, non-yiciding foundation. For the rigid, non y ielding si tuation noted, it is impossible to understand hov. the analysis will be carried out.

9. The large openings receive brief mention on page 5-22. Much more detall on the method of analysis to be employed is recuired. The problem is one o' orovidino f or s tif f ening around the opening, and also providing f or a proper di s t r ibution of def orma t ions and f orces around the opening to insure that no distress will occur in the transition zone between the reinf orced esening and the vessel shell.
10. O' particular interest in the ocnetration design is the detailing of the reinforcement, Reference both radialto the ver tical, and diagonal, in the vicinity of the openings. reinforcing ssctch on Fig. 5-1 leaves some cuestion as to what happens to the diagonal oars in the vicinity of both the larce and the sma ll penet ra t ions .
11. Cnapter 2 is devoted to a discussion of plant i ns t r ume n t a t i on .

We should li ;c to be apprised of the steps taxon in designing the instrumen-tation with relation to the carthquake loadings that may be experlenced.

This discussion should include not only the ef f ect of the inertial forces arising f rom the ef fects of the carthquake, but also any ef fects of tilt or other motions that might have some influence on the critical instrumentation required for safe shutdown.

12. The compounding of the loading that is to be employed in arriving at the design is described in Chapter 5.

Ve find little discussion of the stress or def ormation levels that will be permitted in the design under the rap imum earthouake loading condi tion. Amplification on this aspect of the desiga is requested.

13. Although it is not stated in Chapter 2 explicitly, we assume the table of danping values given therein will be employed for both the that 15 this assumption correct?

design and maximum earthauake condi tions.

r~

a .

4 .

1* Little inf orca t ion appea rs to be available in the PSAR concerning the design of the oiping for earthqua'<e loading and the types of support and nothod of analysis that will be employed. Elaboration on these aspects is desired.

15. A description of the types and locations of the instrumen-tation to be employed in the proof test of this vessel is desired for further consideration and study.

Respectfully submitted,

  • Y.

N. M. Newmark bd cc: W. J. Hell O+

WI

Isis trit ut .cn :

-e j 'a,, UNITED STATES MP1.f WM v ' N ' 7 &, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Lhh E'lIN g

5

)b  ;

W ASHING 7oN. O C. 20545

(. ri g : h. 7. Eoyd ~

'd ,,% p #' APR 181567 bec: i. /.. :..rric

, C. Lovin.:

3. h:u .1 Mr. Dcnald H. Pack D. I:ul ter Acting Director R. Tecc:ue Air Resources Imboratory C. Lcng Environmental Science Services Administration R. Irelm.d 8060 13th Street Bilver Spring, Mr.ryland 20910 .- ,

Lear Mr. Pack Several applications' for reactor construction permits or operating licenses are currently teing reviewed by you. Tc aid you in scheduling work or these various projects and to help in assuring that we receive your reports in time to send to the ACRS for its review of particular applications we have compiled a list of enticipated deadlines for receiving consultant reports on the various projects. In each case ve would like to receive your report during the first week of the month before the project is considered by the ACES. Considering this, the contempleted schedule for your sending reports

o us is as follows
1. Duke Power Company (Oconee 1 & 2) - May 2 Vermont Yankee (Vermont Yankee) - May '

3 Public Service of Colorado (Ft. St. Vrain) - June L. PG&E (D ) - June 5 Philadelphie Electric (Peach Ecttom 2 & 3) - July

6. Virginia Electric (Surry 1 & 2) - August
7. Jersey Central (Oyster Creek) - August
8. Public Service of N.J. (Eurlingten) - October l

Some of these project deadlines will likely slip from time to time.

Tnerefore, I would expect to send you revised listings on a periodic basis.

Sincerely yours, Origsal(gird im Ragt S. 8:)d i Beger S. Eoyd, Assistent Director l for Reactor Projects Division of Reactor Licensing 1 G%

e

. . - . . . v-s a ~u

. rx , ~ . * . ** ' , ~ * * *~s *

  • p * - ' ;;: * -~ * -* *** * ?* g * *
  • s %~ ~ r  % ' * * ~ , , '

n Q l Alh n a n 2-0 I I

d.

- e n .v . :

UNITED STATES 4 1! b --tvl M [ ,,hj[$' ,'

4 6

4*,, .

. j l/ t ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

[f]d

/f W ASH INGToN. D.C. 20545 f

  • tee: P.3.MorrL; g , ;. ..,. m

%, %n e/ APR 181967 J. Lewu L. Mui.ler F. Tede:co Mr. Lecnard Murphy C. Long Chief, Seismolcgy Divioien E. Ireland Ccest & Geodetic Survey EESA - Washington Science Center ,_.

Rockville, Maryland 20850 Lear Mr. Marphy:

licenses Several applications for reactor construction permits or operatingTo aid are currently teing reviewed by you. i r reports in various projects and to help in assuring that we rece ve youlications we have time to send to the ACRS for its review of particular app ltent reports compiled a list of enticipated deadlines for receiving censuIn h each cas on the various projects.

during ACES.

the first week of the month before the projec to us is as follows:

Duke Power Company (Oconee 1 & 2) - May

, ) J ' 'l -

1.

., >' //

Vermont Yenkee (Vermont Yankee) - May 2 'T U . d< ' y St. Vrain) - June -

3 Public Service of Colorado (Ft. i-s . . ,

L. PG&E < (D'iablo Convenl_ June "" /

5 Philadelphie Electric (Peach Bottom 2 & 3) - July '

s--

6. Virginia Electric (Surry 1 & 2) - August

,- u - '# !

7. Jersey Central (Oyster Creek) - August ..

,'l L

8. Public Service of N.J. (Burlington) - October Some of these project deadlines will likely slip from time to time.

Therefore, I would expect to send you revised listings on a periodic tesis.

Sincerely yours, 0dginal signed by:

Roger S. Bad 4

Roger S. Boyd, Assistent Director for Reactor Projects Division of Reactor Licensing

. 4:th h/17/67 no.-.

' T 4 4 Wis W y/v y

hiatrit. LI' n:

  1. " * UNITED STATES

' "'"+ - M -- I:M

[S ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20545

__-

  • A b/ hi- 1;e uu !r.g g

g# #

Nnf APR 181967 Lee: P. a. k.rris D. Invine J. Hewell D. Nuller Tt . Tedeaco Dr. Nathan Newmark C. Lcr.g 111 Talbot Imboratory R. Ireland University of I:.linois Urbana, 1111no's 61803

~

D'd76

Dear Dr. Newmark:

Several applications for reactor construction permits or operating licenses are currently teing reviewed by you. To aid you in scheduling work on these various projects and to help in assuring that we receive your reports in time to send to the ACES for its review of particuler applications we have compiled a list of enticipated deadlines for receiving consultant reports on the various projects. In each cese we vould like to receive your report during the first week of the month before the project is considered by the ACBS. Censidering this, the conte =pleted schedule for your sending reports to us is es follows:

1. Duke Power Company (Oconee 1 & 2) - May 2 Vermont Yankee (Vermont Yankee) - May 3, Public Service of Colorado (Ft. St. Vrain) - June L. PGLE ( ) - June 5 Philadelphie Electric (Peach Bottom 2 & 3) - July -
6. Virginie Electric (Surry 1 & 2) - August
7. Jersey Central (Oyster Creek) - August
6. Public Service of N.J. (Burlington) - October

! Some of these project deadlines will likely slip,from time to time.

Therefore, I would expect to send you revised listin6s on e periodic tesis.

Sincerely yours, t

Orii.nl si;M Of.

f. ,

ko;er $. Boyd i Roger S. Boyd, Assistent Director for Reactor Projects i

Division of Reactor Licensing l

. n o

(/!SPh 97J2?n:3p q .... . .

a se .. L A ' '. : li i, L i r n:

x M 4 UNITED STATES - 1. 4 - M

[~'*e%- ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION '" ' ' b l:

6 *

. .* j- ' *L

  • W ASWNGTON. O C, 20 m e enc: "h.' [. .'cb ya, Lee: F. A. !: rci:
  • " * / . i' -)  :. ' : vin.

W. ,1 8,, LP / J. ILs:al:.

Mr. lic1 vin A. Mcuson / D. h.11er Branch of Permits li. Tedecec.

Division of River Besin Studies C. L ng Bureau of Sports Fisheries & Wildlife R. Ireland U. S. Department of the Interior Wechington, D. C. 20240 Q y[

Dcar Mr. Mcuson:

Several applications for reactor construction permits or operating licenses are currently being reviewed by you. To aid you in scheduling voA. on these various projects and to help in assuring that we receive your ryports in time to send to the ACRS for its review of particular applicati ns we have ecmpiled a list of anticipated deadlines for receiving consulte t reports on the various projects. In each case we vould like to receive your report during the first week of the month before the project is considered by the ACRS. Considering this, the contempleted schedule for your sending reports to us is as follows:

1. Duke Power Company (Oconee 1 & 2) - May V ..

2 Vermont Yankee (Verment Yankee) - May e J. '

3 Public Service of Colorado (Ft. St. Vrain) - June .l , , ib 7

1. . PG&E (Diablo Canycq) - June ,- /\

5 Philadelphie Electric (Peach Bottom 2 & 3) - July -

< - / ".2

c. Virginia Electric (Surry 1 & 2) - August 7 j g '<

Jersey Central (Oyster Creek) - August 7.

8. Public Service of N.J. (Earlington) - October Some of these project deadlines vill likely slip from time to time.

Tnerefore, I would expect to send you revised listings on a periodic tesis.

Sincerely yours, 4

\

\

Roger S. Boyd, Assistent Director for Reactor Projects Division of Reactor Licensing Dyr- >

2, kf1 .

4 .l .. . . . . . - . . . . . . . . .

,... ... , , , , , . t. ; .; 3..

rs ooone-n y 1, = w w %WWW

~ .

Dictr!Lution:

as s*d " Liunpl. ( - - 60 UNITED STATES '

' Y '.

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION d * '

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20545 .\^ kyd p ,. pg,g

%,[m *M APR 1 B PA7 ' '

J . w3we.t f.

D. Kuller R. TeJacco Mr. Dwi8ht W. Le=aen C. kng Assistant Chief Geologist R. Ireland U.S. Geological Survey U. 8. Department of the Interior Washington, D. C. 20242 ,

3'y. p 7j

Dear Mr. IAmment ,

Several applications # for reactor construction permits or operating licenses are currently being reviewed by you. To aid you in scheduling work on these various projects and to help in assuring that we receive your reports in time to send to the ACRS for its review of particuler applicetions we have compiled e list of anticipated deadlines for receiving consultent reports on the various projects. In each case up would like to receive your report during the first week of the month before the project is considered by the ACRS. Considering this, the contempleted schedule for your sending reports to us is as follows:

1. Duke Power Company (Oconee 1 & 2) - May
2. Vermont Yankee (Vermont Yankee) - May 3 Public Service of Colorado (Ft. St. Vrain) - June L. PG&E (Diablo Canyon) - June -

5 Philadelphia Electric (Peach Bottom 2 & 3) - July

6. Virginie nectric (Surry 1 & 2) - August
7. Jersey Central (Oyster Creek) - August
8. Putlic Service of N.J. (Burlington) - October

' Some of these project deadlines vill likely slip from time to time.

Tnerefore, I would expect to send you revised listings on a periodic basis.

Sincerely yours, A

Orignal sig (d hi;

,Ry,tf S. 003 "s \ Roger S. Boyd, Assistent Director

?.

for Reactor Projects Division of Reactor Licensing I th '

/

4/ /67

%d

w, , Li.t.dlbl

. t flLE C0P.Y UNITED STATGS p t, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION A.. '

%,,V$

~,,,,,

/

IN REPLY RLFOR TO gy5 19p Docket No. 50-275 Pacific Cas and Electric Company 245 Harket Street San Francisco, California 94106 Attention: Mr. Richard H. Peterson Senior Vice President and Ceneral Counsel Centlemen:

This refers to your application dated January 16, 1967, for a construction permit and facility license which would authorize construction and operation of a nuclear power reactor at the Diablo Canyon site located in San Luis Obispo County, California.

During meetings held on March 21, 1967 and on April 20-21, 1967, members of the regulatory staff met with representatives of your company to discuss the reactor site and various aspects of the plant design. At these meetings we indicated that additional We information would be necessary to complete our review.

indicated that questions pertaining to the site and facility structural design would be submitted first to expedite the review procedure. Accordingly, you are requested to provide the infor-mation listed in the enclosure. Questions related to the other design areas will be forwarded in subsequent correspondence.

In order to facilitate our technical review, we urge that you place particular emphasis on pre.:iding full and complete answers to each of the attached questions so that fur ther questiens The staff, of l

covering the same material will not be required.

courae, will be available as may be required to discuss and amplify the meaning of the questions.

Your reply to these questions should be submitted as an amend-ment to your application.

t i

Amaa d C A o 1 ;s OIWI%4 W e# 'd [ hf

9 M4Y 5 79g7 Pacific Gas and Electric Co.

It was further indicated at the April 20-21, 1967 meeting tha t certain features of the plant design have been modified since your application was filed. In particular, we refer to the As change in core design employing partial length control rods.

discussed at the meeting, it was agreed that additional infor-mation would be provided directly as an amendment for our evaluation. Consequently, further evaluation related to this area of design will be deferred pending receipt of this addi-tional information.

Sincerely yours, ORIG N AL 52NED BY Pete* A. Vorris Peter A. Morris , Direc tor Division of Reactor Licensing

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information AIRMAIL Dis tribution:

AEC Pub. Doc. Rs.

Formal Suppl.-( _;gg DRL Reading RPB 2 Reading Orig: KWoodard R. S. Boyd C. Henderson R. Tedesco L. Kornblith (2)

H. Steele (3)

F. Sebauer bcct W. B. Cottrell, ORNL W. McCool, Tokyo, Japan t

DRL/RP DRL/RT Dy/ DK/[

DRL/RP 5 4/dj RLTedesco SLevine 5 5/ T/67 h 5/ /67 5 5/f,/67 5/-[67 A_

I

l REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PACIFIC CAS AND ELECTRIC COMPAyY DIABLO CANYON REACTOR DOCKET NO. 50-275 I. Site A. The wind loadinF distribution stated on page 5-6 of the PSAR which is to be used in designing the facility appears to be based upon inland loca-tions. Considering the site location, the distribution should be based upon coastal location data (e.g. , Table 1(b) of the ASCE Transactions, Paper No. 3269). Please provide a discussion of this matter.

B. It appears that some faulting has occurred in the bedrock underlying a portion of the plant foundation. Please present a detailed discussion of the characteristics of such faulting, including its relationship, if any, to the faults visible on the sea cliff, which lead you to believe that movement would be highly improbable and that these faults will not significantly affect the foundation of the structures.

C. Provide a discussion in support of your belief that the extent of exca-vation (trenching) already performed at the proposed site is adequate for assessing the related geologic characteristics.

D. Please descirbe in detail the program which will be carried out with regard to environmental monitoring; and in particular, how you will determine if reconcentration of radionuclides is occurring in aquatic biota. Describe how the environmental moni', ring data could be used to set a liquid effluent limit taking int. eccount possible reconcen-tration of radionuclides.

i

II, Plant Layout and Design of Class I Equipment A. Provide a site plan (overlain on a topographical map) locating the switchyards , containment s tructure , auxiliary buildings , intake structure, and excavation trenches. Significant geological character-istics should be identified and discussed with regard to their affects on the foundation of structures or operability of components.

B. Regarding the plant intake structurg provide the following:

1. The protection to assure operation of the circulating water pumps, the salt water pumps, and the emergency fire water pumps in the structure considering the ef fects of water level (high and low),

debris at intake, wave runup against seawall and structure, etc.

2. A discussion of model tests which will be performed to demons trate the operability of the pumps under the design wave conditions.
3. Your plans concerning plant operation upon a tsunami warning.
4. Diagrams and discussion of the design to preclude damage from earth and rock slides from the seawall or impingement of wave carried marine shingle.
5. A description of how the structure will be anchored.
6. Discussion of the ability of the three types of pumps to operate after submersion.

C. Describe the piping design under consideration for the salt water system and show its layout and Class I protection up to the component cooling heat exchangers.

D. If the foundation for any Class I equipment is not directly on bedrock, please describe the foundation design for each case.

E. Provide a plot plan for the facility which shows the location of all Class I equipment. Where Class I equipment is located in other than a Class I structure, discuss how required protection will be provided.

F. With regard to the stress limit criterion proposed for Class I equipment, provide the following:

1. A detailed definition of the limits and an evaluation to demonstrate the acceptability of these limits.
2. A discussion relating quantitatively the strain, deformation and relative motion between structures and components associated with the stress criterion for the materials used in construction l of the components (such as vesseh, pipes and tanks).

l

l

3. A discussion of the extent to which the ef fects of strain rate, cyclic loading and strain ratchet have been considered in developing the proposed criterion.

G. Provide load combination criteria and stress intensity limits for each of the following Class I equipment:

1. Refueling water storage tank
2. Piping in the low pressure safety injection system including the containment sump return and refueling water tank discharge.
3. Component cooling system and salt water system piping
4. Condensate storage tank and feedwater piping.

For each of the above systems identify the construction material to be used.

H. In our discussions on turbine failure, you indicated that the low pres-sure turbine stage is essentially identical to that previously evaluated by the staff on other projects. Please confirm that the most energetic missile (previously postulated) which could be ejected from the turbine housing would not damage reactor equipment inside the containment or cause damage to the control room or other equipment which would affect the "safe" shutdown capability.

I.

Discuss how missile shielding sdu be provided to . prevent damage to the primary, secondary, containment and safety equipment in the event of primary pump failure.

J. Show the proposed location of the steam lines and valves. Describe the steam line isolation valves and their design' leakage characteristics.

Discuss possible degradation of leakage characteristics during operation and describe the provisions to be considered for leak testing. Discuss the consequences of a steam line break at any location along its run, both inside and outside containment. Consider damage to equipment necessary to cope with the steam line break accident, damage to equip-ment which could result in release of radioactivity, and the possibility of causing a further reactor incident (such as failure of an adjecent steam line). Discuss the criterion with regard to containment leak tight integrity upon rupture of a steam line.

K. Discuss the criteria concerning radiation protection in the auxiliary building following an accident. Describe in detail the radiation sources considered for establishing the design,and consider both direct and inhalation doses.

L. Describe, diagram, and present criteria for the ventilation systems proposed for the following areas:

1. Turbine building (if air ejector is not permanently coraected to the vent) . ,
2. Control room (discuss occupancy time and dose criteria during a LOCA) .
3. Auxiliary building (especially in the areas of containment penetrations and potentially contaminated areas of the recirculation loop).

M. Describe the engine driven emergency fire water pump system including system capacity. Can this system be used to provide erergency feed-water?

N. Under what conditions rould the purge duct isolation valves be open during reactor operation?

III. Design of the Containment Structure A. Containment Design

1. Provide a more detailed discussion of the method to be used in translating the design wind load into a static load on the structure.
2. With regard to the design of large openings, please provide the following:

(a) The number and sizes of all openings that significantly perturb the reinforcing pattern.

(b) The primary, secondary'and thermal loads that will be considered for these openings, including design combinations.

(c) The analytical procedures to be used to establish the design for these openings, including the procedures used in checking for stif fening ef fects.

(d) The criteria governing need for additional reinforcement around the openings to resist local effects. Detail the radial, vertical and diagonal reinforcing in the vicinity of the openings.

(e) Tne conservatism used in the design of the openings and adjacent transition regions against failure.

3. Provide the criteria for determining the required radial bent shear reinforcing, and discuss the basis for termination of this radial

g reinforcement. Also, provide evidence to support the validity of the criterion selected.

4 In order that an appraisal may be made as to the relative influence of the individual loadings that form input for the design, provide load plots for the dead, pressure, liner thermal, concrete thermal, seismic, wind, and buoyant loads.

5. The compounding of the loading that is to be employed in arriving at the design is described in Chapter 5. Please provide further discussion of the stress or deformation levels that will be permitted in the design under the mar '. mum earthquake loading condition. >
6. Regarding conservatism in the liner design, please provide the following:

(a) The liner thickness and the anchorage type, size, pattern and spacing.

(b) An analysis of the capability of, and safety margin for, the liner to withs tand the imposed design 1cadings without buckling.

This analysis should include loadings due to accident pressure, temperature, liner plate out of roundness , variation in liner thickness and variation in material yield point.

c) The type, character, and magnitude of cyclic stresses (or strains) to which the liner will be subjected at represen-tative points during normal, proof test and accident conditions.

The margin to failure should be identified for these types of stresses.

(d) The accident and cyclic load carrying capabilities of the ,

anchorage selected and an analysis of the effect of failure of a single or multiple anchors on liner performance.

(e) Typical design details for transfor of loadings through the liner at the location of crane wall brackets and at equipment floor supports without damaging the leakage integrity of the liner.

( f) The stress magnitudes and analytical procedures around penetrations.

7. With regard to penetration design, provide:

(a) Typical design details that give assurance that piping loads will not be imposed on the liner or, if it is possible to transmit such loads through the piping systems, that piping failures cannot lead to violation of containment integrity.

l i

l

\

n 6-1 1

(b) Upper bound estimates on magnitude and frequency of vibrating loadings on piping penetrations and surrounding liner regions, j Evaluate the ef fect of such loadings and, if significant for particular t?ying systems, indicate how these loadings will be created aa the design of the liner.

(c) The effect that liner deformation will have on loading the penetration and the capability that will exist for the penetration to withstand such loading.

8. Please provide the following information regarding the lower cylinder insulation:

(a) The design requirements, performance specifications and design details.

(b) The specified and tolerable temperature rise in the liner and the design factor of conservatism to be provided.

(c) Consideration given to increased conductivity due to humidity transients, and precompression from proof testing.

1 (d) Compatibility of the insulating material with the backing liner.

(e) The means to be provided for fastening of the material to the backing liner and for precluding steam channeling in back of the insulation (from the top or througl. joints).

(f) An analysis of the consequences of insulation panel or panels being dispisced from the liner during or as a consequence of an accident situation.

9. Provide the criteria and general location for cut-off of diagonal steel in the dome.
10. Provida the extt.nt of, and the criteria for reinforcing against, vertical (uplif t) shear in the base slab and provide typical reinforcies patterns to be used.

l Provide additional information to clarify the extent to which thermal 11.

stress due to temperature gradients (both normal and accident) in the containment shell are to be considered in the design.

l I

12. We understand that you are reevaluating the earthquake response spectra.

i Please provide and discuss the results including plots of acceleration, t

i velocity and diaplacement as a function of period taking into account I

the possible uncertainties and identifying the margins in the calcu-lation of the spectra.

l t-

7

13. It is our understanding that two types of analyses may be carried out: (a) a modal analysis in which the spectra are employed and the combination of modes ir handled by the square root of the sums of the squares of the moda: maxima, and (b) a time his tory of motion, employing earthquake records with the amplitude values scaled, used as the excitation for the base motion of the lumped-mass spring-We believe both approached are accept-dashpot mod 31 of the system. By able, provided that they are employed in a consistent manner.

this we mean that the time history employed for the modal analysis must yield a response spectrum over the entire frequancy range which falls on or above the response spectrum that is used in the '

spectral modal analysis. In the event that a time history analysis is to be used, provide the results of your calculation of the response spectra generated (using this method) for various degrees of damping corresponding to the time history input used.

14. On page 1-25 and page 6-28 of the PSAR, comment is made concerning Please discuss the design to the containment isolation valves.

insure that these valves will operate under seismic loading.

15. We understand that the dynamic analyses, discussed on page 2-29 of the PSAR and in Appendix D, will include modes with periods greater than 0.08 seconds. Please discuss the design methods which will be used in these analyses.
16. The table of damping values is given on page 2-29, and the following two paragraphs thereaf ter indicate that the rocking of Please the structure on its foundation will be considered in the analysis.

provide the damping values to be used for both the design and maximum earthquake in performing the dynamic analysis for the containment and other Class I components.

17. Pleese describe in detail the method which will be used to analyze the case slab.

B. , Katerials of Cons truc tion

1. Justify the use of Type I cement in place of a cement with greater control of alkalinity and composition.
2. Discuss the splicing standard which will be used to providi a high degree of assurance that the structure will achieve the proper ductility.
3. Discuss the necessity and/or provisions for cathodic protection at this site.
4. Provide the cover provisions for reinforcing steel in the done,  ;

cylinder and base slab. Discuss the acceptability of the cover 5 requirements on the basis of cede practice and field experience.

i

C. Con 6truction

1. Provide detailed information concerning the quality control standards and procedures for testing of cement, concrete, reinforcing steel, splices and liner plate.
2. Discuss the extent to which construction practice will meet or exceed the specification for construction outlined in ACI-301.
3. Discuss the extent to which lapped splicing will be used for main load carrying elements and discuss the bases for such.
4. Indicate the extent of quality control for the liner plate anchorager.
5. Provide the construction procedures to assure bonding between lifts and discuss the pattern of construction joints that will be used, and the degree of joing stagger to be accomplished. Wnere joint stagger is not provided, justify its omission.
6. Provide more detail with regard to the extent to which welding of A432 reinforcing steel will be avoided.

D. Tes ting and Surveillance

1. With regard to containment pneumatic acceptance testing, provide:

(a) The extent to which the selected pneumatic test pressure will simulate design basis accident conditions. Compare the stresses under pneumatic test pressure with those in the structure under accident pressure, and accident pressure plus maximum earthquake (and other combinations, if governing) for the following structural elements: (1) circumferential reinforcing; (2) axial (longitudinal) reinforcing; (3) dome reinforcing; (4) base slab reinforcing; (5) large openings; and (6) critical areas of the liner. In the event significant dif ferences exist between the stresses and strains the structural elenents experience under test loading and those calculated to exist under desig6 basis accident loadings, provide a discussion in support of the selected test pressure. Include in this discussion the extent to which an increased test pressure or design modifications or both have been considered in an effort to obtain closer test verification of structural integrity.

(b) The sequence of procedures for pneumatic testing of the containment, acceptance criteria for the structural response, and stresses (or strains) and deformations calculated.

(c) The instrumentation program to be employed to verify the design. Identify the structural and liner areas that will

. 9 be instrumented, and the purpose, type, expected accuracy and redundancy of the instruments to be used. Discuss the protective measures to be taken to assure performance over the required time interval between placement and use.

2. Describe the surveillance capabilities that would be provided in the containment design for periodic inspection of the steel liner and periodic pressure-testing of the containment system. If pneumatic tests are considered at reduced pressure, provide an evaluation of the minimum proof test pressure that would be required to verify structural integrity considering structural response and installed surveillance instrumentation requirements.
3. Provide an analysis of the crack size, spacing, and pattern expected during containment proof testing.
4. It is our understanding that a strong-motion seismograph will be installed at the site. Please describe the tentative location, foundation and general characteristics of this instrument.

e t

1 w e a - -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20151W976&oldid=2962358"