ML20214V781
| ML20214V781 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1987 |
| From: | Papanic G YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Mckenna E NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TASK-03-06, TASK-3-6, TASK-RR FYR-87-59, NUDOCS 8706120291 | |
| Download: ML20214V781 (7) | |
Text
_ _
1 V'
TsI:pnons (eti) 872 8100 TWX 710-380-7619 YANKEEATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY h
1671 Worcester Road, Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 w
e June 5, 1987 FYR 87-59 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Attention:
Ms. Eileen McKenna, Project Manager Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects I/II
References:
(a) License No. DPR-3 (Docket No. 50-29)
(b) Document No. DC-1, " Seismic Re-Evaluation and Retrofit Criteria," Revision 4 (c) Document No. HB-1, "ARS/ SAM Handbook for Seismic Analysis," Revision 1 (d) Letter, USNRC to YAEC (NYR 87-96), dated May 22, 1987
Subject:
SEP Topic III-6: Turbine Building Block Walls
Dear Ms. McKenna:
This letter responds to the NRC concern regarding the adequacy of the Turbine Building masonry block walls to withstand an NRC spectra seismic event. These walls are similar to those in the Primary Auxiliary Building (PAB). They were analyzed and reinforced in 1984 to withstand a Yankee Composite Spectra (YCS) seismic event in accordance with criteria set forth in Reference (b).
At our meeting in your Bethesda office on November 20, 1986, the staff stated that they would judge the acceptability of our Turbine Building (YCS) wall modification based on the results of the PAB confirmatory analyses. That is, if the PAB structure, including the recently modified north block wall, can withstand the NRC seismic loading, then the same conclusion can be drawn for the Turbine Building. This is reasonable, since the block wall modifications for the Turbine Building and PAB are based on the same criteria and essentially the same method of wall strengthening.
The PAB confirmatory analyses performed by both Cygna Energy Services and LLNL, we believe, demonstrate that the PAB block wall with modifications designed using YCS will remain functional under NRC spectra loads.
,0 I
0706120291 870605 A
PDR ADOCK 05000029 P
l United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission June 5, 1987 i
Attention:
Ms. Eileen McKenna Page 2 FYR 87-59 l
l A telephone conversation took place on June 2, 1987 involving your Mr. Thomas Cheng and our Mr. Bruce Holmgren with consultants which informally resolved staff concerns regarding the acceptability of Turbine Building block wall modifications. The information provided by phone is confirmed in the attachment to this letter.
The principal concern of your consultants was the effect of relative displacements on the Turbine Building masonry walls.
In the PAB confirmatory analysis, a large differential displacement of the steel frame occurs in the north / south direction at the roof level.
Column Line 7 displacement is significantly greater than adjacent Column Lines 6 and 8 displacements, due to the flexible horizontal roof bracing arrangement and metal roof deck in the PAB.
As evident in the attachment, this situation does not exist for safe shutdown system block walls in the Turbine Building for the following reasons. The Vertical Bracing System in the area of interest consists of rigid reinforced concrete shear walls. Also, the floor and roof systems at these wall locations are of rigid reinforced concrete.
We call your attention to a related issue. The last paragraph in Reference (d) quotes Yankee as stating that there are no unmodified Turbine Building masonry walls in the Safe Shutdown System scope. There are two small walls (T1121 and T3121) in the southwest stairwell which were analyzed by Charles T. Main to Reference (b) criteria and found to require no seismic upgrade.
We trust the above discussion is responsive to your needs and will permit resolution of the subject issue.
Very truly yours.
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY G. Pap
, Jr.
Senior Project Engineer Licensing GP/1jp Attachment cc: USNRC Region I USNRC Resident Inspector - YNPS
- 6
., =
ATTACHMENT A INTRODUCTION ~
This attachment formally documents the telephone discussion on June 2, 1987, regarding YCS relative displacements (n-s) in the Turbine Building at E1.1,052'-8" and - 1,070'-2" for comparison to PAB *; elative displacement (n-s) near roof E1. 1,056'-6", based on the NRC seismic event.
Participants in the discussion were:
YAEC (B. W. Holmgren, G. H. Philley, and '). R. LeFrancois)
Cygna (T. Y. Wang)
NRC (T. Cheng)
LLNL (L. Shieh)
NCT (T. Tsai) 1 DISCUSSION Turbine Building ARS (YCS) location plans for El. 1,052'-8" and 1,070'-2" are shown on the following two sketches. These plans are marked to indicate the third level stairwell masonry wall locations.
o At El. 1,052'-8":
Point 3 - Displacement (n-s) =.138" (Reference (c), Page DT-5)
Point 4 - Displacement (n-s) =.150" (Reference (c), Page DT-28)
Therefore, maximum relative displacement in-s) between Points 3 and 4 is 0.012" at time 9.08 seconds (scaled).
o At El. 1,070'-2":
Point 5 - Displacement (n-s) =.072' (Reference (c), Page DT-14)
Point 6 - Displacement (n-s) =.010' (Reference (c), Page DT-29) 1 Therefore, maximum relative displacement (n-s) between Points 5 and 6 is.062" at 6.10 seconds (scaled).
For the PAB upper level north wall near the roof level El. 1,056'-6", the 1
maximum relative displacement (n-s) was calculated to be 0.243" at 5.58 seconds based on time-history analysis for the NRC seismic event. This displacement occurred between Node 314 (located approximately 6' west of Column Line 6) and Node No. 319 (located 4' east of Column Line 7).
Distance between the nodes is 10'-8".
A comparison of Turbine Building and PAB relative interstory displacements was previously forwarded to the staff and is provided on the last page of this attachment.
I Sh. 1/2 I
4
ATTACHMENT A (Continued)
CONCLUSION It can be concluded that the Turbine Building relative displacements (n-s) are acceptable based on the following:
Since the NRC spectra are roughly equivalent to 2 x YCS, the maximum relative NRC displacement (n-s) in the Turbine Building would be approximately 2 x.062 =.124" occurring over a distance of 60'.
The PAB upper level north wall relative displacement (n-s), based on NRC spectra, is.243" occurring over a distance of 10'-8".
The maximum length of stairwell wall T3H4 is 21'-2".
Therefore, by proportioning, the relative deflections anticipated at the third level Stairwell Wall T3H4 are considered to be of acceptable magnitude.
The above estimated Turbine Building relative displacements (n-s) are acceptable. The top of the wall, T3H4, will displace in a straight line, unlike the PAB north wall " bowing" effect which was evidenced by the confirmatory analysis. The Turbine Building roof and floors are of rigid concrete construction, whereas the PAB steel roof framing and metal deck roof are flexible by comparison.
i Sh. 2/2 w
~
1 t
w wo -
wo -
o_ _-
- - we,
(*]
}
0 0
('h (7 9"w "afrod i
n u-a, u
a o
p j
w r-oint 4 i
cint 3 controt Room m
'~
as's-
- 1. nowc-
,y
,n v
(
t.
g y
MM) cycNA
' 80 88 83033 TURDINE BUILDING
"" ' * * ' s 8'"
'as' aa' T-2 ARS LOCATION PLAN E b*^3 POINTS 3 and 4, EL. 1052'8"
'"' J o si
""""' 1 Yhhg evaNa O
h' YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY ys.
,,. _, _.........,,,o,,,,
m
i I.L' o" qq'o" 44'o "
-=
=
gyg.
o e
17 ' o *'
14'4*
g 15'o L
3rd gg( gQg((\\
I (6elow)
I 3
/
I QP[N
'y f
t......
a=s= ec.n N
ei.
6.o
\\
cez:r ei.i. e,..
,,......, NA l#1 b,
CycNA f.90.81 83033
,,i,.
TURBINE BUILDING
..i, t.J o.n p.p.. T-3 ARS LOCATION PLAN a..i.
e sj6 hecus, cycNA t
POINTS 5 and 6, EL. 1070'2"
'" "' O
- '"' T y dt.y-c y c N a **" v.s o.si h
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY vs
,e,,
..,,,0,,0, I
'.YANKEh ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY cucuuTON NO PAGE OF
. ouwec, Comparison of Tarb. Eld, A Pn6 RelaKve Inferstary m1placemeds (YcS) t
$s7
@(
o,1, SF W/V97 ney,cwto oy wonx onocn No o,1, eneganeo oy _
Cable Tr*
ffSeRoof 1078 2.
L Coudrotem Ecop toro' 2.-
F4 'S P+ '(<
to6S'3 Tufa 120oF - ufe g
h s,.0 Lot,.,
dus a, o ( 9-6 4 W '. 019 0
dus-
. i ta t.
46ul: O N G ',',
6 ace
.0 6+ 4,,
a veer r.0011 4 deti *, o ut I s Je,LT s,0030,,
t o $6' G
y-go,p. py;g
- 5^
Confrol Em fle, iost e" Ju_. Jes. 0 03 57
. / Sill,.
R,3 R.~4-A Nss,(17 0 t
, oIS" A dW s. 014-2. t, cot t =
h Qia T :. 0010 +.000 Z L =
NN5 * 'd055,.
das a,063 t Ans, yt $ 2" O CLU s,0 tLL" E
Avar 00t0" avse.r.ouso" 1o 59 0,"
Upper Level Fir:
1 Metz. l.evel
/03716" pp', i Pt.
- l gj' u 7 bus :
,00 %1 "
Ans,,00241,.
Afjg
,00707" 4 gg,
,p o g,7 a
- t.ew ' C'35T 4 eu;.. o t 0 4 l" Auur :.000 L1" 4 vee 7 : + #0'l' A ggy,, go (15 "
Grou>td fir, 10ZLL8" tott g" f(,ya g,q,,
i SYl STrht;vliLL g
.QTTE):yfbom3
~ T il R O I N G G l. D G ~
COMPAetSoM Of fleumve DowCACEldENT l
i Scnce: l's Io.'
\\
- rdersfoNr displacemenis i
base d o Yc s,
!