ML20202F048
| ML20202F048 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1986 |
| From: | Devincentis J PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| To: | Noonan V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| SBN-995, NUDOCS 8604140094 | |
| Download: ML20202F048 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _
~
t n
g SEABROOK STATION Engineering Office L
Pubic Service of New Hampshko April 7, 1986 Now Hampsh!re Yankee Division SBN-995 T.F. B4.2.7 G1.2.99 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:
Mr. Vincent S. Noonan, Project Director
(
PWR Project Directorate No. 5 i
References:
(a) Construction Permits CPPR-135 and CPPR-136, Docket Nos. 50-443 and 50-444 (b) PSNH Letter (SBN-913), J. DeVincentis to V. S. Noonan,
" Response to Integrated Design Inspection; 50-443/82-23,"
dated December 26, 1985
Subject:
Integrated Design Inspection (IDI)
Dear Sir:
A review of our resolution of IDI Items F4-2 and F4-16 (Reference (b))
was held with NRC reviewers at Seabrook Station on March 18, 1986. These findings address the issue that live loads (i.e., movable loads during plant operation) were not included in structural design equations which include seismic loading. The resolution of this issue involves adding a pre-established live load value (2 kip concentrated load) to the seismic design review of Seismic Category 1 floor slabs and beams.
The NRC reviewers presented additional questions and requests for us to respond to.
Our responses are provided herewith as Attachment 1.
Very truly ours, CA John DeVincentis, Director Engineering and Licensing Attachments cc: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Service List ts60914 coy 4 860407 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G
PDR P.O. Box 300 Sootyook.NH 03874. Totophone (603)474 9521 g
I(l
4 Dicn3 Cure:n P:tcr J. Mathewa, Mayce Harmon & Weiss City Hall 20001 S. Street, N.W.
Newburyport, MA 01950 Suite 430 Washington, D.C.
20009 Calvin A. Canney City Manager Sherwin E.. Turk Esq.
City Hall Officeo'f The Executive Legal Director 126 Daniel Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555 Stephen E. Merrill Robert A. Backus, Esquire Attorney General 116 Lowell Street Dana Bisbee, Esquire P.O. Box 516 Assistant Attorney General Manchester, NH 03105 Office of the Attorney General 25 Capitol Street Philip Ahrens, Esquire Concord, NH 03301-6397 Assistant Attorney General Department of The Attorney General Mr. J. P. Nadeau Statehouse Station #6 Selectmen's Office Augusta, ME 04333 10 Central Road Eye, NH 03870 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Designated Represent ative of Mr. Angie Machiros the Town of Kensingten Chairman of the Board of Selectmen RFD 1 Town of Newbury East Kingston, NH 03827 Newbury, MA 01950 Jo Ann Shotwell, Esquire Mr. William S. Lord Assistant Attorney GeneJal Board of Selectmen Environmental Protectica Bureau Town Hall - Friend Street Department of the Attorney General Amesbury, MA 01913 One Ashburton Place,19th Floor Boston, MA 02103 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey 1 Pillsbury Street Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Concord, NH 03301 U.S. Senate (ATTN: Herb Boynton)
Washington, DC 20510 (ATTN: Tom Burack)
H. Joseph Flynn office of General Counsel Diana P. Randall Federal Emergency Management Agency 70 Collins Street 500 C Street, SW Seabrook, NH 03874 Washington, DC '20472 Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
Matthew T. Brock, Esq.
Hampe and McNicholas Shaines, Madrigan & McEachern 35 Pleasant Street 25 Maplewood Avenue Concord, NH 03301 P.O. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Donald E. Chick Town Manager Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
Town of Exeter Holmes & Elis 10 Front Street 47 Winnacunnet Road Exeter, NH 03833 Hampton, NH 03841 Brentwood Board of Selectmen Ed Thomas RFD Dalton Road FEMA Region I Brentwood, NH 03833 John W. McCormack PO & Courthouse Boston, MA 02109 l
1 ATTACHMENT 1 1.
Do we review other load combinations which include live loads but exclude seismic loading (e.g., dead load and live load and wind)?
Response
The designs of all Category 1 structures meet the load combination requirements gives in Table 3.8-16 of the FSAR. Table 3.8-16 lists the required loading equations which combine live loads with other appropriate design loads.
2.
Describe the processes used to select the " critical" floor areas and provide justification that these " critical" panels envelope other floor areas that are not reviewed. State how the review processes will be documented.
Response
The two structural verification programs, Concrete Verification Program and the Beam Verification Program, focus on reviewing " critical" structural _ components (e.g., walls, slabs, steel beams). A " critical" structural component (e.g., floor panel or beam) is more heavily loaded and is equal to or less in structural capacity than the other structural components being compared to.
The screening processes employed by the structural verification programs to select the " critical" floor panels or beams are presented below. The 2 kip concentrated live load is added to the design review of these " critical" floor panels or beams. The screening process and the evaluation of the " critical" floor panels are documented in the review calculations.
A.
Concrete Verification Program (CVP) - Selection of " Critical" Floor Panels 1.
Review general arrangement drawings and discipline layout drawings (e.g., equipment, piping, HVAC, etc.) to establish loading for floor areas.
2.
Perform field walkdowns to identify and confirm the heaviest loaded floor panels.
3.
Review existing design calculations for reserve structural
~
capac1ty.
4.
Compare the design features of each floor panel (e.g., span, panel thickness, etc.)
5.
Select the " critical" floor panels based on the applied loading and reserve structural capacity.
s
4 ATTACHMENT 1 (Continued)
B.
Beam Ve.pf.fication Program (BVP) - Selection of " Critical" Floor Beans 1.
Review the design stresses of all floor beams developed from Phase I of the'BVP.
2.
Identify highly stressed floor beams.
3.
Compare the design features of these beams (e.g., span, size,
connection details, etc.)
4.
Verify the above design information by means of field walkdowns.
5.
Select the " critical" floor beams based on stress levels and design features.
t 3.
Describe how the " critical" locations of the 2 kip live' loads on the i
floor slab beam are selected, s
i
Response
l When evaluating either the concrete floor slab or the steel floor beam, the highest stress locations are first determined. The 2 kip live load is then applied at locations on the floor alab or beam such that the resulting stresses will combine directly with the highest stresses.
4.
Will the representative live load be applied to the floor slab or beam as 3
an equivalent uniform load as stated in a previous response to the NRC7 i
Response
The 2 kip live load will only be applied to floor slab or beam as a concentrated load.
i 5.
Provide a list of movable live loais anticipated to be applied to Seismic Category 1 floors during plant operation.
l
Response
Refer to Table 1 (attached).
~i Note: During the servicing of any equipment, all parts will be placed on the floor slabs; no parts will be suspended from structural beams.
i 1.
i 4
. - ~. _ _ _
g_
TABLE 1 i
Movable Live Loads i,
'A.
Tools (all areas) 1.
Welding Machine 850 lbs i
2.
Gas Bottles 100 lbs 4
3.
Welding Leads 50 lbs j
4.
Tool Chests 250 lbs B.
Equipment (typical items in each area)
PAB 1.
Reactor Makeup Water Pumps 700 lbs 2
2.
Primary Drain Tank Recirculation Pump 625 lbs 3.
Boric Acid Drums 350 lbs I
j Tank Farm l
i j
1.
Limitorque Butterfly Valves Valve - 1,000 lbs Operator -
800 lbs I
Service Water Pump House i
j 1.
Circulating Pumps Pump -
528 lbs Motor -
600 lbs j
e
<J 1
J-1
?
1 1
1 t
l I
)
I i
1 1
d
,,\\
., - - -.., -, -.. -. -. - -. -,.. - - - - _. _ - -, -, -, -,,. - - - - -. - ~.. ~ _ - _ -
.,..,,. -. - -..,., - -,.,, -.