ML20198D581
| ML20198D581 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1986 |
| From: | Jerrica Johnson NTS (NATIONAL TECHNICAL SYSTEMS) |
| To: | Hermann R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198D542 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8605230329 | |
| Download: ML20198D581 (5) | |
Text
.--.-
r Negonal NTS Engineering Technieel Two Annabel Lane, Suite 101 systeme San Ramon, CA 94583 (415) 88617e8 i
l April 28, 1986 l
Mr. Robert Hermann i
Division of Boiling Water Reactor Licensing
)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation US Nuclear Regulatory Comenission Phillips Building 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814
Subject:
Questions on CEI Submittals and Previous CEI/NRC j
Meetings - Revision 17
\\
1 y
I noticed during our conversation the inadvertent deletion in the l
final typed version of several questions.
I am sending this to
)
you so you may consider them before Wednesday.
See you then.
l Sincerely, I
(.
M Jam J. Johnson JJJ/ja Encls.
i, I
cc:
R. C. Murray (LLNL) l p
i 1
i O
e l
.,.....---*-y
- -. f l_,,
- e
.----_,.--,..,-,..--v,.
-c.---n.--, - - -
---.,--_.,,,,,,,-,e.-.,,-,,-.~--.-.-,,,,-.,,--n-.
...,,,-w.,--
Questions on CEI Submittals and Previous CEI/NRC Meetings Msst of Questions on the listed references follow.
these questions and comments have been expressed verbally to CEI This and MRC in previous meetings and telephone conversations.
list serves to document them.
General Any arguments and conclusions based on comparisons of SRSS 1.
values, where SRSS means the vector-sum of three components of response in three orthogonal directions, should be re-evaluated based on the individual components.
In all comparisons of response spectra (qualification, 2.
design, measured, extrpolations of the measured spectra, If a consistent value of damping should be used.
etc.),
response spectral ordinates at damping value "z" are estimated from response spectral ordinates at damping value "y", the procedure to do so should be. documented in detail including the frequency range over which it is applied.
Reference 4 Attachment 3 7 7 Sections II and IV state that the recordings in the Reactor Building at elevations 639 f t. and 686 f t. may be biased by 1.
secondary effects of adjacent equipment on the building Present evidence to demonstrate that the response.
is containment vesse1' recording at~ elevation 686 ft.
Discuss each biased.
Discuss the mechanism for this bias.
direction separately.
1 Instrument'Nos. D51-R189 and D51-R196 compare well for 2.
north-south motion but exhibit some differences for east-7 f
Discuss reasons for these differences.
west motions.
y Figures 1, 2, and 3 Refer to General Comment 2 above.
compare 34 damped response spectra where the 3% d 3.
O values, document the procedure used.
Figures 4 and 6 should compare response spectra at consistent damping values.
~
k With reference to Fig. 5, the procedure used to estimate 5%
2 I
damped spectra from 24 damped recorded spectra should be 4.
Also, the procedure used to amplify the floor documented.
response spectra to in-rack locations should be documented.
l When response spectra comparisons are shown for one direction only, are they representative of all directions, a 5.
worst case, or a best case?
i j
For the pumps and motors re-analyzed by GE; what is their fI 6.
l 1
k J
j w-c
j
~
1 NO yo location?
If not on the Auxiliary Building foundation, how l
was the input motion obtained? What damping factor was used in the analysis? Were the measured response spectra smoothed and peak broadened? Were these representative samples?
4e 7.
Section IV.
2.
Which analyzed pump and motor?
Quantification of this assertion should be presented
3.
based on the Auxiliary Building foundation recorded response spectra.
6.
Does " seismic response spectra" mean required response l
spectra?
Hence, the average margin between the qualification response spectrum and the required response spectrum is approximately 2.57 For what
)
damping factor?
l 8.
Section v.
The procedure used to estimate response spectra l
at higher elevations in the Auxiliary Building, control complex, and the Intermediate Building should be documented.
i Reference 5 Attachment B 77 1
1.
Compare calculated base shear force (or stress) due to the i
January 31, 1986 Chio earthquake with the design values.for i
the containment vessel.
Reference 7 1.
Refer to General Comment 2.
Document how floor response spectra at higher elevations in the structures will be l
obtained for the evaluation.
i SAPIV Reactor Building Model (Refs. 2 and 6) l l
}
1.
The SAPIV reactor building model obtained from CEI (Ref. 2) contains truss elements connecting the.drywell structure to l
the reactor vessel.
These truss elements connect two slaved l
nodes which is not permitted in standard SAPIV.
Confirm l
that these elements are acting as desired.
i h
i 2.
Reference 6 does not provide comparisons of response, such j
as response spectra, frequencies -- old model vs.. new model.
It assumed these comparisons were made and they
)
1 compared well.
Is this the case?
s Other Comments I
a 1.
For the diesel generator building and the off-gas building l
f which are founded on fill rather than rock, the applicant agreed to assess the effect of the January 31, 1986
- i i
1 1
~,
s' l
Provide the results.
1 earthquake on their rssponse.
For the reactor building,'the applicant agreed to assess the effect of the January 31, 1986 aarthquake on calculated 2.
structural loads.
Provide the-results.
N1
)
t~
s y
w j
7 7
4 s
3 e
b o
S L
t
. I
!j
.l
.i t
e!I -
s
,.,.,---~y
.,-c-
,e--
9 References 1.
The' Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., " Seismic Event Evaluation Report, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Docket Noa.
50-449;59-441," February 1986.
2.
Gilbert / Commonwealth, " SAP IV Input and Output Listing -
Perry Reactor Building Updated Seismic Analysis," Received i
February 17, 1986.
3.
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., " Seismic Event Evaluation, Technical Presentation, February 11, 1986,"
presented at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, February 11, 198.6.
4.
Letter M.
Edelman to H. Denton, " Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket Nos. 50-449; 50-441 Seismic Event Evaluation Report" Supplemental Information, February 28, 1986.
Attachments 1-5. Equipment Seismic Qualification s
Evaluation, PY-CEI/NRR-8438L.
5.
Letter M. Edelman to H. Denton, " Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket Nos.59-448; 58-441 Seismic Event Evaluation Report" Supplemental Information, Mpech 3, 1986, PY-CEI/NRR-844GL.
6.
Transmittal, C. Chen to J. J. Johnson, "IDI Package and Original Response Spectra," March 18, 1986.
7.
Letter M. Edelman to H. Denton, " Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket Nos.59-449; 59-441 Seismic Event Evaluation Report Supplemental Information, March 11, 1986, PY-CEI/NRR-0442L.
i A
?.
1 0
il
_ _, _ _ -. _ - -.. - -. - - _ _. - _ -. - _ _.. - _ -.. - - - _ _, - - -. _,. -.