ML20215A722

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Trip Rept of 870407-09 Site Visit Re Part of Review of Seismic Design & Tornado Protection of Condensate Storage Tank.Requests Addl Info on Listed Issues Before Assessment of Tank Design Completed
ML20215A722
Person / Time
Site: Arkansas Nuclear Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 06/11/1987
From: Dick G
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Tison Campbell
ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO.
References
NUDOCS 8706170050
Download: ML20215A722 (5)


Text

. - - _-_

. . . June ll,I 1987 <

4 L

' Docket'No. 50'-313 Mr.-T. Gene Campbell. , i Vice President, Nuclear Operations P. O. Box 551' Little Rock,~ Arkansas. 72203

Dear Mr.- Campbell:

SUBJECT:

SEISMIC DESIGN AND-TORNADO PROTECTION OF

-THE CONDENSATE. STORAGE TANK,'ANO-1

')

On April 7 and 8, 1987, a site visit was conducted by the NRC staff and _. ,

consultants as part of the review of the subject design. In order to complete i t the review we will'need the information identified in the enclosed trip . .

report. Please provide your responses within 60 days of the date of this  !

letter.

The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, 0MB clearance is not required under P.' L.96-511.

Sincerely, i

l } Sf George F. Dick, Jr., Project Manager

' Project-Directorate - IV 4

Division of Reactor Projects - III,  !

IV, V and Special Projects.

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ enclosure: 3 See next page 1 I

j tDISTRIBUTIONiDockete '

NRC PDR File 4}

Local'PDR"" PD4 Reading D. Crutchfield F. Schroeder

J. Calvo P. Noonan G.-Dick B. Lee C. Tan 0GC-Bethesda E. Jordan J. Partlow ACRS (10) PD4 Plant File 04/LA P PM PD4/D [

PNoonan Ih k:sr JCalvo fri .

6/cl/87 6 -/87 6/ 11/87 gC B706170050 87061T PDR ADOCK 05000313 P PDR

q Mr'.' G. Campbell-Arkansas Power & Light' Company Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1- .j j

- CC: ..

Mr.-J. Ted Enos, Manager

Nuclear Engineering and Lice., sing L Arkansas Power & Light Company 1 P. O. Box 551 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 )

i

~Mr. James M. Levine, Director i

Site Nuclear Operations Arkansas Nuclear One l P. O. Box 608 Russellville, Arkansas .72801 Mr. Nicholas S. Reynolds  !

Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds  !

1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.  !

j Washington, D.C. 20036 l

Mr. Robert B. Borsum -

Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division Suite 220, 7910 Woodmont Avenue l Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 2090

.Russellville, Arkansas 72801-Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Executive Director for Operations 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Mr. Frank Wilson, Director Division of Environmental Health Protection Department of Health Arkansas Department of Health 4815 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Honorable William Abernathy County Judge of Pope County Pope County Courthouse Russellville, Arkansas 72801

.;. e i

" ' ENCLOSURE TRIP REPORT VISIT TO ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY I APRIL 7-9,1987 l

7-9, 1987. The BNL j A trip was made to Arkansas Power .and Light on April The engineering offices pat $icipants were C.J. Costantino and C.A. Miller. ,

were visited on April 7 and 8,1987 with a site visit made to ANO-1 on April I

(

9, 1987. The objective of the trip was to review the seismic design criteria l The following calculations were used for the Condensate Storage Tank (T-418). l

. reviewed during the visit: I 1, Calc #82-0-2086-08 was performed by NUTECH under contract to APL.

The FLUSH computer code was used to coqute the seismic response of I

the tank / caisson system. The results of this cogutation are design foundation response spectra for both the OBE and SSE earthquakes.

Calc #82-2086-60.was' performed by CBI to evaluate stresses k in the l 2.

tank caused by operational, seismic and tornado loading.. ]

l

3. SAR and related Geotechnical data (Arkansas Nuclear One - Foundation, by Bechtel, Oct.1968) describing the site rock and soil properties.

I i:

~

l

4. Calc #820-2086-16 by NUTECH describing the loadings used to design l

, the tank foundation and caissons.

i f

The fo11 ming questions were raised during the review of the above material  :

and need to be addressed by APL: l NUTECH used a soil shear wave velocity of 1100 fps for the FLUSH j

1.

runs. A review of the geophysical data indicate that this is perhaps closer to the conpression wave velocity, in general, it appears that l

there is a lack of good data for the clay upon which to base the f selection of an appropriate wave speed. f Q

j l

?

1

'g 84 > . e A

-2. Poisson's ratio of 0.2 'was used in'the FLUSH' runs for the clay.

review of th'e soil data indicate that the clay is saturated. One would expect the Poisson's. ratio fc,r a saturated clay to be larger than'O.2.

3. :The motion developed from the criteria design. spectra was assumed at the surface and. deconvolution methods were used to calculate a consistent bedrock motion.. This bedrock motion was then used as input to the FLUSH program. Since the primary support of the tank (especially'for. vertical and rocking motions) is the caissons which are founded on bedrock, a. more consistent' application'of NRC guidelines would be.to use the criteria motion as input to the base of- the caissons (at bedrock).
4. A 10-secohd duration pulse was used as input to the FLUSH model.

1 Response spectra developed from the FLUSH results were then used by.

CBI 'to calculate the effects of water sloshing. :The frequency of the -

sloshing mass was calculated to be about 0.25 cps.. It_ is . questioned  !

whether the input spectra, developed from a. ten-second duration pulse, is adequate to' evaluate the response of a 0.25 cps system.

5. Respons'e spectra were reported.at the foundation level. These spectra were then used by CBI to evaluate stresses in the tank. 'This ,

approach neglects any inertial that would occur as a result of

  • rocking of the' tank. Some rational for_ neglecting this effect is required.
6. The CBI calculations do not seem to account for an increase in fluid pressure as a result of the verf.ical seismic input. This increase'in pressure would result in higher hoop stresses in the tank walls.

CBI calculates a wave neight due to sloshing effects which is hip..e l 7.

l than the available f reeboard in the tank. No conc %dion.is given l as tc the potential inpact this may have on the tank design.

l

h,

,3

.Q '.

.{

.{

8.- he s'eismic loads used to design the foundaion and caissons are not consistent with the latest seismic analysis.

i I

9. The 'CBI report uses 'a Rayleigh-Ritz procedur'e to calculate tank l 1

frequencies. No detail on the asstsned shape function is given and should be provided.

' )

It is recommended that APL be requested to provide additional information on the above issues before an assessment of the tank design is conpleted.

l

)

l i

1 l

. .