ML20154G553
| ML20154G553 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1986 |
| From: | Jun Lee Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154G530 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8603100037 | |
| Download: ML20154G553 (12) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC
)
Dochet Nos. 50-440 OL TLLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL. )
50-441 OL
)
(Perry Muclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF ARNOLD J. H. LEE I,
Arnold J.
H.
Lee, being duly sworn do depose and state as follows:
I am employed as a mechanical engineer in the Boiling Water Reactor Division, Engineering Branch, in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A statement of my professional qualifications is attached.
The purpose of my affidavit is to respond to assertions concerning the seismic design of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP) contained in a Motion to Reopen the Record filed on February 3,1986 by Ohio Citircus for Responsible Energy (OCRE).
1.
On the day following the Ohio earthquake on January 31, 1986, an inspection team consisting of members of NRC Staff went to the Perry plant to review preliminary scismic recordings and to conduct a walk-through inspection of buildings and equipment.
No damage of any
~
significanoc was observed at the plant.
Another inspection team consist-ing of myself and the staff consultant from EGaG, Idaho, who is the orig-inal SQRT (seismic qualification review team) member performing the 8603100037 860305 DR g
ADOCK 05000440 PDR
SQRT plant site audit in August, 1985, conducted another site audit on February 6, 1986 to investigate the effect of the earthquake on the safety-related equipment of the station.
During the above audit, the applicants and its architect engineers, indicated that some exceedance of the recorded response spectra over the Perry SSE and OBE had occurred at high frequencies (215 117).
2.
In view of the short duration (strong motion portion is less than one second), high frequency characteristics of the recorded notion, the initial view of applicants and Staff was that the impact of the high fre-quency exceedances on the plant would be insignificant.
This is because high frequency short duration accelerations do not contain significant energy.
However the Staff sought information about the effect of high frequency accelerations on equipment.
The Staff inspected some repre-sentative equipment which was subjected to a previous detailed audit in August, 1984.
Among the equipment inspected was 1113-680 Unit Control Console, Division 1 Battery and Rack, Motor Control Center, and RCIC Turbino and its related pipings and accessories. No apparent damage was observed on the equipment itself, the support, or the mounting configu-ration which could be attributed to the Ohio earthquake.
Neither was any apparent structural damage observed.
3.
Subsequently, a technical report was submitted by the applicants on February 12, 1986 which summarizes the earthquake event, the appli-cants' follow-up activities and the evaluation of safety impact.
The appli-
~
cants provided the Staff with information concerning qualification of i
equipment of three types located on Elevation 568 ft. of Auxiliary Build-ing, namely, instrument racks; pressure and flow transmitters; and i
pumps and motors.
This report, supplemented by additional information provided by the applicants on February 28, 1986 indicates that conserva-tism exists in the original seismic and dynamic qualification for thesc types of equipment which is more than adequate to accommodate the re-corded event.
For the instrument racks and transmitters which werc qualified to some generic load requirements, the test response spectra are an order of magnitude greater than the corresponding recorded response spectra.
For the pumps and motors which were qualified by analyses, although the resulting stresses and deflections at critical locations may slightly exceed the original calculated values, there remains a significant margin of safety compared to the allowables.
4.
The applicants provided additional information for the equipment I
located on elevation 686' of Reactor Building where high peak acceleration at around 20 liz was recorded.
The components selected were the purge and vacuum relief system and containment isolation valves and actuator assemblics.
Since the valves and motor operators are supported from the piping systems, the response at the valves is modifed by the piping sys-ten.
There is a short length of piping for the purge system (P114) erd the fundamental frequency of the system is 41.6 !!z.
At this high fre-quency, the accelerations are comparable between the recorded spectra and the design spectra.
Similarly, for the vacuum relief system (M17) the fundamental frequency is M liz.
In this case, the combined response spectrum value at this elevation envelops the recorded spectrum value.
5.
The applicants indicated that the acceleration at the valve assem-bly as determined by the piping analysis for both the M14 and M17 sys-tems bounds the recorded data at this fundamental frequency.
The
resultant acceleration at the valve associated with the recorded earth-quake data was extrapolated based on the ratios of recorded spectrum to design spectrum times the valve design acceleration values.
This shows that the estimated valve accelerations for M14 and M17 systems due to the recorded earthquake are well within the qualification levels of the valve and actuator.
Comparisons of the qualification spectra with estimated floor response spectra for other types of equipment in different buildings at different elevations were also performed by the applicants.
The re-sults reconfirmed the adequacy of the original qualification.
6.
Discussions were held between the staff and the applicants as to whether the recorded motion at the top of the foundation mat of the reac-tor building was suitable to use as a free-field input motion, even though structures usually reduce or amplify free-field motion.
The phenomenon which could lead to a different foundation motion compared to the free-field is soil-structure interaction (SSI).
All Category I structures except the diesel generator building and the off-gas building are con-structed on very stiff rock (shear wave velocity of 4900 ft/sec) or fill concrete of similar shear wave velocity.
These very stiff materials are generally thought to preclude significant SSI effects.
In addition, the reactor building was analyzed by the staff consultant as a fixed-base structure subjected to the recorded foundation motions (three transla-tions). Good correlation of calculated and measured in-structure respons-es was observed, explained below in f 8.
This good correlation implies that rocking of the foundation was not significant, whereas, rocking of the foundation is an important SSI phenomenon.
Hence, it is judged that the recorded foundation motions are similar to the free-field ground
motion in frequency content; both are characterized by a very short strong motion duration (less than 1 see) and significant frequency content at high frequencies (near 20 liz).
7.
The staff consultant performed an eigenvalue analysis for the model which included soil springs and found that the result checked with those of the original Perry analysis.
A fixed-base eigenvalue extraction was then performed in the model and the modes interrogated to determine t'hether a mode of frequency near 20 IIz. had high importance to re-sponse of the containment vessel at a location near the recording.
Such modes do exist in both the N-S and E-W directions and they are the sec-ond most important modes for the containment vessel's response.
8.
Further verification of the ability of the model to amplify the recorded motion was derived by performing a fixed-base time history analysis using the recorded foundation acceleration time histories as in-put.
The response spectra for the recorded foundation motions were compared with the calculated containment vessel response at approximately elevation 688'.
In addition, comparison was also made for response spec-tra of the recorded motions on the foundation and on the containment vessel at elevation 686',
Both comparisons show clearly the amplification of the 20 Hz. motion from the foundation to the point on the containment vessel.
The magnitude of the calculated amplification is less than that of the recorded motion.
Ilowever, this preliminary analysis simply assumed a design damping value of 4% of critical value.
In the case of this earth-quake, art analysis performed with a lower damping value may have pro-duced a result closer to that actually measured.
Also, peak spectral amplification is widely recognized to be uncertain.
9.
Low overall energy content, and thus low damage potential of earthquakes of short duration and high frequencies can be demonstrated by use of scale factors by which earthquake records must be scaled to Induce specified levels of nonlinear deformation.
A ductility level of about 1.85 was found to represent a best estimate of the inelastic defor-mations which would occur in a shear wall designed for static lateral loads to the ACI-349 Code capacity.
Two records of past earthquakes of short duration and somewhat higher frequency content (less than 10 I!z.) were considered in calculating the dynamic response.for a structure of funda-mental frequency of 3.20 Hz. (near that of the Perry reactor building).
It was found that the two recorded earthquake motions would need to be scaled by facters of 1.6 to 2.2 to achieve deformations corresponding to the design level forces.
Alternatively, a measure of the effective peak ground acceleration of these records would be the instrumental peak di-vided by these factors.
If a similar procedure were applied to the re-corded foundation motions et Perry, the scale factors are expected to be significantly higher than 2 and, consequently, a measure of the effective peal: ground acceleration of the Perry motions would be perhaps 1/3 of the instrumental peak acceleration or less.
These analyses demonstrate the low energy content of the January 31 earthquake. Excitations of this type have limited energy and. hence, little damage potential.
10.
To further demonstrate the insignificance of high frequency acceleration on the structural design, the applicants noted that the con-ventional Iseismic stress analysis epplies the inertial load as equivalent static load which ignores the effects of small relative displacements.
A comparison was made between the design stresses for the containment
. building as calculated using the inertia load and the dynamic stresses obtained directly from a time history analysis using the time history re-corded at the top of reactor building foundation mat as input.
For the three elevations investigated, i.e. 5 92 '-3 ", 6 4 4 '-6 ", and 688'-6", it was found that the design was controlled by the maximum stress at elevation 5 92 '-3".
At this elevation, the design stress of 1.32 Ksi is 2.6 times higher than the dynamic stress of 0.51 Ksi.
The applicants pointed out that the containment material, ASME SA516 Grade 70, has a yield stress cf 38 Ksi which is more then 74 times higher than the dynamic stress of 0.51 Ksi.
The staff concluderl that the dynamic stresses due to the re-corded earthquake are substantially lower than the corresponding design stresses and, therefore are not of any safety significance.
11.
For the diesel generator building and the off-gas building which are founded on soil, the fundamental frequencies are very low compared to the high frequency content of the Ohio earthquake.
Therefore, their seismic designs are governed by the broadband design basis earthquakes, not the Ohio earthquake.
12.
In summary, based on the detailed inspections and investiga-tions conducted by the staff and its consultants which resulted in no finding of equipment or structural damage that could be attributed to the Ohio earthquake, and on the reassessment of the seismic capability of some sample equipment types and the containment building as previously discussed, it is my opinion that the carthquake does not raise a signifi-cant safeiy question concerning the operation of the Perry plant or its safety-related equipment.
Although the design basis earthquakes for the plant may have been exceeded at some high, narrow frequency region,
the plant seismic design is not affected.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the previous SER conclusion regarding the adequacy of the appli-cants' seismic qualification program and the seismic design of Category I structure remains valid, and continues to support operation of the plant.
However, as an added precaution the applicant has been requested to provide additional confirmatorv information concerning equipment qualifi-cation and structures.
13.
Finally, I have read " Motion to Reopen the Record and to Sub-mit a New Contention," dated February 3, 1986 filed by OCRE and find nothing in the motion which raises a significant safety question concern-ing the Perry plant.
I attest that the foregoing is true end accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.
/
SS',...
i /.
k lY
.le: V
/
Arnold J. H. Lee Subscribed and sworn to before me this : 'i day of March,1980.
A
~
' ;< ~ p ll~ {!)
Notary Public
/
I My commission expires: g %,,J. ster. Empire N,1, W6 O
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF ARNOLD J. II. LEE EDUCATION B.S. - July 1964, Agricultural Engineering, National Taiwan University fil.S. - Jan.1967, Agricultural Engineering, Rutgers University Ph.D. - f.lar.1971, Engineering f*1echanics, Penn State University NUCLEAR EXPERIENCE December 1985 to present:
Engineering Branch, Division of BWR Licensing, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Position: flechanical Engrineer April 1980 to December 1985: Equipment Qualification Branch, Division of Engineering, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Position : ?.fechanical Engineer January 1979 to April 1980: Engineering Branch, Division of Operating Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Position: Senior flechanical Engineer January 1978 to January 1979: Plant Apparatus Division, Westinghouse Corporation Position: Senior Engineer Pfarch 1971 to January 1978:
Gilbert /Comrnonwealth Associates, Inc.
Position:
Senior Research Structural Engineer
- f. larch 1970 to hlarch 1971:
The Pennsylvania State University Position:
Instructor in Engineering Mechanics January 1967 to March 1971:
The Pennsylvania State University Position:
Research Assistant September 19(15 to January 1967:
Rutgers University Position:
Research Assistant
PUBLICATION A.J.H. Lee, W. Jaunzemis," A General Theory of Interaction of Discrete Elastic Defects," AFOSR-TR-71-Oh79, The Pennsylvania State University, February, 1971.
A.J.H. Lee, " Buckling Criteria of Shells Under Various Types of Loadings," Gilbert Associates, April, 1971.
A.J.H. Lee, " Tornado Missiles and Spent Fuel Pool Protection,"
Gilbert Associates, GAI Report No.1772, October,1972.
A.J.H. Lee, " Dynamic Analyses of Missile Impact Protection for Reinforced Concrete Plates," Proceeding of the Symposium on Struc-tural Design of Nuclear Power Plant Facilities, Pittsburgh,PA.,
April, 1972.
A.J.H. Lee, "A General Study of Tornado-Generated Missiles,"
Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 30,No. 3, September, 1974, Y.Z. Lee, R. Shan, A.J.H. Lee, " Design Criteria of Crane Wall-Plate System of OHI Nuclear Power Station," Gilbert Associates, GAI Report No. 1843, July, 1974.
A.J.H. Lee, " Design Parameters of Tornado Missiles," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Topical Report, TR-102, Rev. 1, Jan.,1975 A.J.H. Lee, "A Case Study of Soil-Structure Interaction for Nu-clear Plant Structures," Presented at 3rd International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, London, England, September, 1975 A.J.H. Lee, "On the Interaction of Elastic Defects," Proceeding of 12th Annual Meeting of American Society of Engineering Science, Austin, Texas, October, 1975 I
A.J.H. Lee, " Trajectory of Tornado Missiles and the Design Para-meters," presented at Second Specialty Conference on Structural Design of Nuclear Plant Facilities, New Orleans, LA., December.1975 A.J.H. Lee, G. Eagchi, V. Noonan, "A Regulatory Overview of Equip-ment Seismic Qualification," presented at Annual IEEE/ASCE/ASME Joint Power Conference, Indiannapolis, Indianna, 1983 PAST AND PRESENT COMMITTEE ACTIVITY Member of task group of compressive allowables under ASME working group of -containment.
Member of IEEE working group 2 5, responsible for revision of IEEE Standard 344-1975, Recommended Practice for Seismic Qualifi-cation of Class IE Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations.
I LICENSE Registered professional structural engineer in Pennsylvania.
g.
ON; METED UNITED STATES OF Af! ERICA USHRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COB 1 MISSION T6 MR -6 P3 :31 DEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIMO APPEAL BOARD OFFICE OF Mp;.
00CMETihG a su m BRANCH In the Matter of
)
)
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC
)
Docket No.
50-440 OL ILLUf flNATING COMPANY, ET AL. )
50-441 OL
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO P10 TION TO REOPEN THE RECORD FILED BY 01110 CIT!ZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY" in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the IInited States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commiss!on's internal mail system, this 5th day of March, 198G:
- Dr. Jerry R. Kline
' James P. Gleason, Chairman Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 513 Gilmoure Drive U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Commission Silver Spring, MD 20901 Washington, DC 20555
- Mr. Glenn O. Bright Donald T. Ezzone, Esq.
Adminit;trative Judge Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 105 Main Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lake County Administration Center Washington, DC 20555 Painesville, Oli 44077 Jay Silberg, Esq.
Susan Illatt Shaw, Pittman, Potta and Trowbridge 8275 Munson Road 1800 P1 Street, NW Pfentor, Oli 44060 Washington, DC 2003G
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Doard Terry J. Lodge, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 618 N. Michigan Street, Suite 105 Washingten, DC 20555 Toledo, OII 43624 John G. Cardinal, Esq.
Janine Migden, Esq.
Prosecuting Attorney Ohio Office of Consumers Counsel Ashbabula County Courthouse 137 E. State Street Jefferson, Oli 44047 Columbus, O!! 43215
a
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
- Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 i
}
i Colleen P. Woodhead Counsel for NRC Staff l
p 4
I I
e
]
O 4
I f
... -. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _., _ _.., _. _. _