ML20235D020

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Comments on Vols 1,2,3 & 4 of Facility Psar.Info in PSAR Insufficient in Certain Instances to Enable Author to Assess Adequacy of Util Analysis of Earthquake Design Levels
ML20235D020
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Shoreham
Issue date: 09/26/1968
From: Newmark N
NATHAN M. NEWMARK CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES
To: Morris P
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20235B311 List: ... further results
References
CON-AT(49-5)-2667, FOIA-87-111 NUDOCS 8709250085
Download: ML20235D020 (10)
v • d • e


Text

_-_ _ _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

o

  • w a s '

~,- - s . . . .

NATHAN M. NEWMARK CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES 1114 CIVIL ENGINEERING BUILDING

] URBANA, tLL!NOIS 61801

= 26 Septerrbe r 1968 Dr. Peter A. Morris, Director h

Division of Reactor Licensing g

E U. S. Atomic Energy Comiss ion washington, D.C. 20545 Re: Contract No. AT(49-5)-2667 Shoreham Nuclear Power Stat ion AEC Docket No. 50-322 Demlatory Suppl W@

Cear Cr. Morris:

Drs. W. H. Walker, W. J. Hall, A. J. Hendron, and I have reviewed Vols. I, 2, 3 and 4 of the Preliminary Safety Analys is Report (ASAR) for the Shoreham Nuclear Fower Stat ion.

The Shoreham Station is described in the PSAR as a s ingle cycle, forced circulat ion, boiling water reactor to be des igr:.2d for about 1593 MWt (514 MWe ne t ) . The nuclear system is to be supplied by the Ceneral Electric Company and the des ign and cons truction will be handled by the Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation. The site is located on the north shore of Long Island in the town of Brookhaven, Suf folk County, New York, about 60 miles ENE of Manhat tan anj 20 miles S of the Connect icut shore.

The soll underlying the site is noted to be interbedded sands and gravels with deeper lying soiU being reconsolidated by ice during the Ple is tocene Era. Comments concerning the foundation condit ions have been transmitted to you in a letter dated 18 September but as a result of inf ormat ion t ransmi t ted s ince September 18, some add i t ional ques t ions on the foundat ion condit ions have arisen and these are presented in the first question below.

8709250085 870921 PDR F3IA MENZ87-111 PDR

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ._]

.. o 2

. The earthquake design levels recommended by the applicant are l noted to be based upon an Operat ing Bas is Earthquake of 0.079 maximum, horizontal ground acceleration and a Design Basis Earthcuake of 0.15g maximum borizontal ground acceleration. .The earthquake hazard at this site has been cons idered in detall by representatives of the U. 5. Coast and Geodetic Survey, U. S. Geological Survey, membe rs of your s taf f and ourselves, and it was our recommendat ion that the design be based on an Operat ing Basis Earthquake of 0.10g maximum horizontal ground acceleration and a Des ign Bas is Earthquake of 0.20g maximum horizontal ground acceleration.

We trust that this recommendation will be transmitted to the aoolicant at the appropriate time and we shall be pleased to enter into such further discussion as to the seismic design levels as may be appropriate.

The inf ormation presented in the DSAR is insuf ficient in certain instances to enable us to assess the adequacy of the analys is and des ign.

The purpose of the questions asked herein is primarily to obtain a more complete descript ion of certain features of the proposed des ign and ana,1 ysis in such detail as to permit us to make a j udgment as to the erobable margin of safety inherent in the design. Our ques t ions follow.

1. Ref erence should be made to the comments transmitted earlier, dated September 18, 1968, to Dr. Peter A. Morris, conce ning the foundation conditions at the Shoreham s ite. As a result of the boring data which has

. Just been received, the following additional information is reques ted f rom the applicant with regard to the f oundat ion s ituat ion.

(a) The applicant is requested to provide the details as to the basis of selection of the solid line represent ing the median relative dens ity versus depth as shown in Fig. II-5-3 More specifically, which bor ing

- - - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ________ .. 1

3 Informat ion was used in arriving' at this line and was nere weight possibly 9 I ven to the borings near the reactor?

(b) Were the Raymond' and Giles N values giver equal weight in determining the " median" and " lower quart ile" lines in Fig. 11-5-3?

2. The containment is of the drywell and suppression chan6er type cons tructed of steel-lined, ordinary reinforced concrete. The cont a i nme nt structure is in the shape of the f ustrum of a cone with the upper portion serving as the drywell, separated by a reinforced concrete slab from the lower portion which serves as the suppression chamber. This design geometry raises several ques t ions :

(a) The intersection between the cone containment structure and the net foundation for the containment has been designed to permit radial movement and rotation by means of a compress ible pad placed under the cone wall, bearing on the not, and by using sleeves around all reinforcing bars pass ing through the joint. We would like further Informat ion concerning the computat ions of the deflect ions and rotat ions which mus t be acconnodated at the joint and the structural consequences if the deformation limits of the joint are exceeded.

(b) At the joint between the cone and the f oundat ion mat a compressible material has been used in the joint. What des ign criteria, displacements and forces were used in selecting the material for the Joint?

Are any provis ions contemplated to permit replacing this material if it appears that its behavior is not sat is f actory or if deterioration occurs?

(c) The slab dividing the containment structure into the drywell and suppression chamber sections is to be designed for 30 ps i dif ferential l

l pressure (p. V-2-20). Further details on the design of this slab and, in particular, on the provision for relative movenents due to temperature and l

m.

L loads ' 'is - reques t ed. Of particular concern is the design of the liner to be used as a nen6rane to bridge the gap between the slab floor-divider l and the wall of the cone contalnnent (See Fig. V-2-8, Cetall B. ).

(d) In regard to the slab design noted in (c) above,- a program of pressure testing; for the containment has been described in the PSAR on p. V-2-76. However, no mention is made of a dif f erent ial pressure tes t on the divider between the drywell and the suppression chanter. Is any such test contemplated to verif y the behav79r of the slab and liner details?

3. In describing the des ign of the liner in Sect ion.2.3.3.4 of the PSAR 'It is noted that Eg , the " Loads induced in the liner resulting from the distortions of the concrete structure due to a hypothetical earthquake" will be included with the des ign loads. Further informat ion is des ired on the procedure to be used to compute HE , particularly at points of s train concentration such'as joints or cracks in the concrete (if concrete cracking is assumed to occur).

4 Detalls are requested as to the proposed liner and' anchor stud des ign, with particular reference to des ign provls tons to preclude buckling or tearing of the liner.

5. The statement is made in the PSAR that "the containment construction proposed for this r tation will oe adequate. to accommodate all operating, design basis accident, and earthquake loads ass igned to it without using diagonal reinforcing steel to resist these loads," Further elaboration ls requested regarding the manner or mechanism by which the above loads will be transmitted to the foundation. In this regard, diagonal steel is shown at the Joint between the containment cone and the foundation mat ; what criteria will be used to dete;mine the cut-of f point for this steel--which is indicated in Fig. V-2-7 of the PiAR as "at base of well only".

1

Y a

.i Y

5

6. ' Are any particular corrosion problems anticipated in the joint i desails shown in Fig. V-2-7 and Fig. V- 2 -8 7 7 On page XII-2-22 of the PSAR the seismic design criteria for Class II structures are described in terms of horizontal base shear coef ficients as speelfled in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) or 0.079, whichever ' is the greater. However, no statement of the appropriate UBC zone nunber.Is given. Clarification is requested.
8. It is noted on page V-2-13 of the PSAR that at least two isolation valves,- in series, will be provided for all olpes and ducts which oenetrate the pr imary containment. and connect to the reactor primary system, or which are open to the space within the primary containment. The applicant is requested to describe the seismic design criterla that will be employed in designing and procuring these isolat ion valves.

Also, what provis ions are to be made over an extended period of t ime, for example, f ive or ten year intervals , to insure that these valves'  !

will remain operat ive and will f unct ion properly in an earthquake or other d

event.

9 On page V-2-20 and following there is a discuss ion of the load combinat ions that are to be employed in the design of the containment structure. For applicable stresses it is noted that the load. capacity of the tens ion menbers will be based on the guaranteed minimum yield strength.

It is not clear f rom this statement what the criterion will be in terns of allowable s tresses in f lexure, shear, etc. The applicant is requested to  ;

l clarif y the applicable stresses for various forms of resistance, i

10. On page XII-2-3 It is noted that for the design of all Class I s tructures other than primary and secondary containment, the allowable l

t . s tresses are to correspond to 85% of ultimate for concrete and 90 percent 1

-6 of yleid for reinforcing steel and yield strength for structural steel.

These criteria are not comparable in the sense that a value of 85 percent of ultimate for concrete corresponds generally to complete failure with no reserve of strength. On the other hand, the values for reinforcing steel-

~

L and structural. steel include some reserve margin of energy absorption y

capacity. Further comment on the basis for the selection of these cr.iteria and their proposed. implementation is requested.

11. On page XII-2-12 it is noted that the vertical shock spectrum will' be applied simultaneously with the horizontal forces. However, no statement -Is given _ to indicate that the stresses arising f rom vertical and horizontal earthquake loading
  • wil_1 be added directly and linearly, as appropriate, to the s tresses arising f rom operat ing conditions, dead load, etc. Clarification of this point is reques ted.
12. Only brief mention of the seismic design of piping is noted in the PSAR. The applicant is requested to provide additional information in terms of the methods of dynamic analysis that will be employed for the piping systems, and the s tress and deformat ion criteria that will be enployed in the des Ign process.

13 The discussion on page XII-2-22 notes that the combined earthquake and functional load stresses in most cases will not exceed yleid stress. However, where calculat ions indicate that a structure or plece of equipment will be s tressed beyond the yield point, an analysis will- be made to determine its energy absorption capacity. Additional inf ormat ion is reques ted f rom the appilcant as to the deformation limits or energy absorption limits that will be enployed in cases where this criterion is applicable.

> l.

4

_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________-____m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._______b

I- .

-; ~

,_b-L 7-14.- In view of the nature of 'the type of containent buildings employed in..this' des ign, addit ional Informat ion is required f rom the applicant as to the nature of the design of the penetrations in the containment and V,e method by eich reinforcing will be carried.out to insure that the penetrat ions will serve their intended function under the various loading condlt Ions employed. ' A more complete descrlpt ion of the large penetrat ion des igns is requested, l

15. For use in the dynamic analys is, values of danping for the a primary and secondary containment are noted in the PSAR. Camping values for piping, and other types of structures and equipment mount Ings that will' be included in the des ign ~ were not noted in the PSAR. The applicant ($

requested to indicate the values to be employed in t'ae des ign,

16. The method of seismic analysis presented in Appendix A is .not comple tely descr ibed. Details are requested concerning the method of combination of modal responses to obtain des ign values, the specific methods'of handling damping and foundation rotation and tipping, and presentation of typical results of calculations of modal deflections, shears , and moments , of important parts of the plant.
17. Although the matter of inspection and quality control received mention throughout the PSAR in numerous places , the applicant is requested to supply a master chart Indicating the lines of responsibility for s upe r v i s ion, inspection and quality control.

Respectf ully submitted,

. n Q N. M. Newmark bj w cc: W. J. Hall J. D. Hal t iwanger  !

,; A. J. He nd ron , Jr. I W. H. Walker

  • 9 4

_ y.kc f411.

MEMO ROUTE SLl? - L $a - - i ia -

'- anc ~-

'- Aaia-rorm _A rc na (it... x.T i<. i><7) ~6 Note sad retwen. For s catture. For information.

To m rn. .aa nio wriaa AtuaAc DOCiGO NO. 50-322 0.M 04TE (LONG ISIAIO LIGHTEIG CO'GANY)

To (Name and unsQ imif4AJ REMAAM8 A copy of Amendment No. 2 to the license

'.aughlin 0300 un application for the Shoreham BMelear Power Station, Unit 1 is enclosed for your information.

70 (Name and unlO 6mT4ALS REMAAE3 DATE FROM (Name and unst) AEMAAAS g

i X. D. Fason D3L PHONE MCL DATE y 743 /d // /a/

C41 ,-79968a4 6P4 4 5947

  • 4f M37

-.a - . USE OT.HEA 5401 FOA ADDIT 60NAL AEMAAK&

1 l

)

1 l

s

[.

(

T4EMO ROUTE SLIP L_ 5** **

  • cowt in a -

'* co^curm _

'w Aci or- i rormpe.os <ase. x.y u. tun ) s .t. . a , i.,,a. s.,itca.t.,i r., iare,,,a.o.a. l To p ... . . unit) . mTi4Ls At=AAns DOCKET NO. 50-322 Giambusso 3DT uAT:

(LONG ISIAND LIGHTING COMPANY) 1 ~,

TO (h ma and unit) W TIALS alm AAG Pressesky A con of A endment No. 2 to the license RDT OAT: Application for the Shorehan Nuclear ?over Station, Unit 1 is enclosed for your information.

70 (N.mo .ad unit) WTIALS ACMARKS Case DRS -

CAT:

i F AQM (N.me &Ad unst) AEMAAlta ,

N. D. Mason D3L 1

Fachs No. DATE l

703 /0l/ //o2 ~l l

USE OTMCA Slot FOA ADDITioaAL AEMAAAS g43.sg.petea.t 70 :5957

  • l77*&37 1

I l

i.

l-

. . i-r I.;E.Y.0 ROUTE St.!P -

f.__ Sa ** * *aw' ta'c- _

' or coac arr' rer act;*a.

, Form A EC.fb3 (1ter. hf ar 14.1247) { Note seg retura. For signaturt f or laformation, i 70 (Name one wa+0 thifiALS MMAa4s DOCiGT NO. 50-322 Forbes

!'  ?? uT (LONG ISUJiD LIGHTING CO:: PAID')

To (Neme and wa.y t#uriau AEMAAG

?/o copies of Amendment No. 2 to the licence oars application for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.

Unit 1 are enclosed for your information.

TO.(Name and uniQ LNITLALS AEMAAN.S B

DAT: ,

1 FROM (Name and Walt) REMAAx8 N. D. Mason DRL

/

r on a 7433 un

/s.n . ' ,9 y

_ ,, _ ,,, vu ofaga roa Acomo w nuAAns m_._,.. .,e . im -m-m.

J I

4 l

)

l f _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -

-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20235D020&oldid=3192273"