ML20236C086

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests Addl Info Re Util 670116 Application for Const Permit & Facility License Authorizing Const & Operation of Nuclear Power Reactor at Diablo Canyon Site,Per 670321 & 0420-21 Meetings
ML20236C086
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon, 05000000
Issue date: 05/05/1967
From: Morris P
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To: Peterson R
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
Shared Package
ML20236A877 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-87-214 NUDOCS 8707290334
Download: ML20236C086 (11)
v • d • e


Text

i

=,  :

synL&diUhl

. FILE COM 7 '

UNITED STATifS

/ ' %a ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION i

'l I* D

  • s, 9

%ne#

IN ftEPLY REFCft TO:

Docket No. 50-275 MAY 5 1967 l i

i Pacific Gas and Electric Company 245 Market Street San Francisco, California 94106 Attention: Mr. Richard H. Peterson Senior Vice President and I General Counsel Gentlemen:

e This refers to your application dated January 16, 1967, for a construction permit and facility license which would authorize construction and operation of a nuclear power reactor at the Diablo Canyon site located in San Luis Obispo County, California.

l During meetings held on March 21, 1967 and on April 20-21, 1967,  !

members of the regulatory staff met with representatives of your company to discuss the reactor site and various aspects of the i plant design. At these meetings we indicated that additional ]

information would be necessary to complete our review. We indicated that questions pertaining to the site and facility structural design would be submitted first to expedite the review l procedure. Accordingly, you are requested to provide the infor-mation listed in the enclosure. Questions related to the other design areas will be forwarded in subsequent correspondence.

In order to facilitate our technical review, we urge that you place particular emphasis on providing full and complete answers to each of the attached questions so that further questions covering the same material will not be required. The s ta f f, of course, will be available as may be required to discuss and amplify the meaning of the questions.

Your reply to these questions should be submitted as an amend-ment to your application. j

)

('

B707290334 870721 PDR FDIA pp3 p CONNOR87-214 .

6

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. M4Y 5 Jgg7 It was further indicated at the April 20'21, 1967 meeting that certain features of the plant design have been modified since your application was filed. In particular, we refer to the change in core design employing partial length control rods. As ,

discussed at the meeting, it was agreed that additional infor-  !

mation would be provided directly as an amendment for our l evaluation. Consequently, further evaluation related to this  !

area of design will be deferred pending' receipt of this addi- l tional information.

Sincerely yours, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Peter A. Morris i

Peter A. Morris, Directe Division of Reactor Licensing

Enclosure:

)

Request for Additional -

Information  ;

AIRMAIL Dis tribution: i ABC Pub. Doc. Rs. J Formal Suppl. M _g.g DEL Reading RP5 2 Reading Orig: KWoodard  !

R. S. Boyd C. Henderson R. Tedesco L. Kornblith (2)

N. Steele (3)

F. Schauer bec: W. B. Cottrell, ORNL W. McCool, Tokyo, Japan I

I DR lRP DRL/RT / DR{

7 DEL / Stevine

/dj RLTedesco 5/5/ 5/g/67 5/ i 67 5/S/6i 5/ /67

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION i

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CG(PANY' DIABLO CANYON REACT (R DOCKET NO. 50-275

1. Site A. The wind loading distribution stated on page 5-6 of the'PSAR which is to be used in designing the facility appears to be based upon inland loca-tions. Considering the site location, the distribution should be based upon coastal location data (e.g. , Table 1(b) of the ASCE Transactions, Paper No. 3269). Please provide a discussion of this matter.

B. It appears that some faulting has occurred. in the bedrock underlying a portion of the plant foundation. Please present a detailed discussion of the characteristics of such faulting, including its relationship, if any, to the faults visible on the sea cliff, which lead you to believe that movement would be highly improbable and that these faults will not significantly affect the foundation of the structures.

C. Provide a discussion in support of. your belief that the extent of exca-vation (trenching) already performed at the proposed site is adequate for assessing the related geologic characteristics.

D. Please descirbe in detail the program which till be carried out with regard to environmental monitoring; and in etrticular, how you will determine if reconcentration of radionuclides is occurring in aquatic biota. Describe how the environmental monitoring data could be used to set a liquid effluent limit taking into account possible reconcen-tration of radionuclides.

l

l II. Plant Layout and Design of Class I Equipment A. Provide a site plan (overlain in a topographical map) locating the switchyards, containment stri .ure, auxiliary buildings , intake structure, and excavation trenches. Significant geological character-istics should be identified and discussed with regard to their affects  ;

on the foundation of structures or operability of components. l B. Regarding the plant intake structure, provide the following:

l

1. The protection to assure operation of the circulating water pumps, 1 the salt water pomps, and the emergency fire water pumps in the structure considering the ef fects of water level (high and low),

debris at intake, wave runup against seawall and structure, etc.

2. A discussion of model tests which will be performed to demonstrate the operability of the pumps under the design wave conditions.
3. Your plans concerning plant operation upon a tsunami warning.
4. Diagrams and discussion of the design to preclude damage from earth and rock slides from the seawall or impingement of wave carried marine shingle.
5. A description of how the structure will be anchored.
6. Discussion of the ability of the three types of pumps to operate after submersion.

C. Describe the piping design under consideration for the salt water system and show its layout and Class I protection up to the component cooling heat exchangers.

D. If the foundation for any Class I equipment is not directly on bedrock, please describe the foundation design for each case.

E. Provide a plot plan for the facility which shows the location of all Class I equipment. Where Class I equipment is located in other than a Class I structure, discuss how required protection will be provided.

F. With regard to the stress limit criterion proposed for Class I equipment, provide the following:

1. A detailed definition of the limits and an evaluation to demonstrate the acceptability of these ihmits.
2. A discussion relating quantitatively the strain, deformation and relative motion between etructures and components associated with the stress criterion for the materials used in construction of the components (such as veseek, pipes and tanks).

i

1 1

i l

l

3. A discussion of the extent to which the effects of strain rate, i cyclic loading and strain ratchet have been considered in developing the proposed criterion. ,

(

G. Provide load combination criteria and stress intensity limits for each of the following Class I equipment:

I

1. Refueling water storage tank
2. Piping in the low pressure safety injection system including l the containment sump return and refueling water tank discharge. I
3. Component cooling system and salt water system piping
4. Condensate storage tank and feedwater piping.

For each of the above systems identify the construction material to be used.

I H. In our discussions on turbine failure, you indicated that the low pres- j sure turbine stage is essentially identical to that previously evaluated l by the staff on other projects. Please confirm that the most energetic l missile (previously postulated) which could be ejected from the turbine j housing would not damage reactor equipment inside the containment or cause damage to the control room or other equipment which would affect the " safe" shutdown capability.

I. Discuss how missile shielding wal be provided to . prevent damage to the primary, secondary, containment and safety equipment in the event of primary pump failure.

J. Show the proposed location of the steam lines and valves. Describe the steam line isolation valves and their design leakage characteristics.

Discuss possible degradation of leakage characteristics during operation and describe the provisions to be considered for leak testing. Discuss the consequences of a steam line break et any location along its run, both inside and outside containment. Ct.nsider damage to equipment necessary to cope with the steam lin; break accident, damage to equip-ment which could result in release of radioactivity, and the possibility of causing a further reactor incident (such as failure of an adjacent i steam line). Discuss the criterion with regard to containment leak l

' j tight integrity upon rupture of a steam line, K. Discuss the criteria concerning radiation protection in the auxiliary building following an accident. Describe in detail the radiation sources  ;

considered for establishing the design,and consider both direct and inhalation doses.  ;

I l

i

.i.

4 L. Describe, diagram, and present criteria for the ventilation systems proposed for the following areas:

1. Turbine building (if air ejector is not permanently connected to the veut).
2. Control room (discuss occupancy time and dose criteria during  !

a LOCA).

3. Auxiliary building (especially in the areas of containment penetrations and potentially contaminated areas of the recirculation loop).

]

M. Describe the engine driven emergency fire water pump sys tem including system capacity. Can this system be used to provide emergency feed-water?

N. Under what conditions would the purge duct isolation valves be open during reactor operation?

III. Design of the Containment Structure I

I A. Containment Design

1. Provide a more detailed discussion of the method to be used in translating the design' wind load it.to a static losd on the structure.
7. With regard to the design of large openings, please provide the following:

(a) The number and sizes of all openings that significantly perturb the reinforcing pattern.

(b) The primary, secondary 'and thermal loads that will be considered for these openings', including design combinations.

(c) The analytical procedures to be used to establish the design for these openings, including the procedures used in checking for stiffening effects.

1 (d) The criteria governing need for additional reinforcement around the openings to resist local effects. Detail the radial, l ,

vertical and diagonal reinforcing in the vicinity of the l t openings.

l  ?

(e) The conservatism used in the design of the openings and adjacent transition regions against failure.

3. Provide the criteria for determining the required radial bent abear reinforcing, and discuss the basis for termination of this radial 1

1 reinforcement. Also, provide evidence to support the validity of the criterion selected.

4. In order that an appraisal may be made as to the relative influence of the individual loadings that form input for the design, provide load plots for the dead, pressure, liner thermal, concrete thermal, seismic, wind, and buoyant loads.
5. The compounding of the loading that is to be employed in arriving at the design is described in Chapter 5. Please provide further discussion of the stress or deformation levels that will be permitted in the design under the maximum earthquake loading condition.
6. Regarding conservatism in the liner design, please provide the l following:

(a) The liner thickness and the anchorage type, size, pattern and spacing.

(b) An analysis of the capability of, and safety margin for, the '

liner to withstand the imposed design Icadings without buckling.

This analysis should include loadings due to accident pressure, temperature, liner plate out of roundness , variation in liner thickness and variation in material yield point.

(c) The type, character, and magnitude of cyclic stresses (or strains) to which the liner will be subjected at represen-tative points during normal, proof test and accident conditions.

The mzrgin to failure should be identified for these types of stresses.

(d) The accident and cyclic load carrying capabilities of the anchorage selected and an analysis of the effect of failure of a single or multiple anchors on liner performance.

(e) Typical design details for transfer of loadings through the liner at the location of crane wall brackets and at equipment floor supports without damaging the leakage integrity of the liner.

(f) The stress magnitudes and analytical procedures around penetrations.

7. With regard to penetration design, provide:  ;

I (a) Typical design details that give assurance that piping loads will not be imposed or. the liner or, if it is possible to transmit such loads throagh the piping systems, that piping i failures cannot lead to violation of containment integrity.

l I

, , ._ , I

(b) Upper bound estimates on magnitude and frequency of vibrating loadings on piping penetrations and surrounding liner regions.

Evaluate the effect of such loadings and, if significant for particular piping systems, indicate how these loadings will i be treated in the design of tha liner. l (c) The effect that liner deformation will have on loading the penetration and the capability that will exist for the penetration to withstand such loadin.g.

8. Please provide the following information regarding the lower cylinder insulation:

(a) The design requirements, performance specifications and design details. i l

(b) The specified and tolerable temperature rise in the liner and the design factor of conservatism to be provided. -j (c) Consideration given to increased conductivity due to humidity transients, and recompression from proof testing.

(d) Compatibility of the insulating material with the backing liner.

(e) The mes,ns to be provided for fastening of the material to the backing liner and for precluding steam channeling in back of the insulation (from the top or through joints). j (f) An analysis of the consequences of insulation panel or panels being displaced from the liner during or as a consequence of i an accident situation.

i

9. Provide the criteria and general location for cut-off of diagonal steel in the dome.
10. Provide the extent of, and the criteria for reinforcing against, vertical (uplift) shear in the base slab and provide typical reinforcing patterns to be used.
11. Provide additional information to clarify the extent to which thermal stress due to temperature gradients (both normal and accident) in l the containment shell are to be considered in the design.

I

12. We understand that you are reevaluating the earthquake response spectra.

Please provide and discuss the results including plots of acceleration, velocity and displacement as a function of period taking into account the possible uncertainties and identifying the margins in the calcu- I lation of the spectra.

- - - ___.____..____________________._______._____________m____

.j

4 7

13. It is our understanding that two types of analyses may be carried out: (a) a modal analysis in which the spectra are employed and I the combination of modes to handled by the square root of the sums i of the squares of the modal marina, and (b) a time history of motion, i employing earthquake records with the emp11tude values scaled, used i as the excitation for the base motion of the lumped-mass spring- i dashpot model of the system. We believe both approached are accept- j able, provided that they are employed in a consistent manner. By this we mean that the time history employed for the modal analysis must yield a response spectrum over the entire frequency range j which falls on or above the response spectrum that is used in the spectral modal analysis. In the event that a time history analysis is to be used, provide the results of your calculation of the response spectra generated (using this method) for various degrees )

of damping corresponding to the time history input used. I J

14. On page 1-25 and page 6-28 of the PSAR, comment is made concerning the containment isblation valves. Please discuss the design to i insure that these valves will operate under seismic loading.
15. We understand that the dynamic analyses, discussed on page 2-29 of l the PSAR and in Appendix D, will include modes with periods greater than 0.08 seconds. Please discuss the design methods which will be used in these analyses.
16. The table of damping values is given on page 2-29, and the following two paragraphs thereaf ter indicate that the rocking of the structure on its foundation will be considered in the analysis. Please j provide the damping values to be used for both the design and maximum '

earthquake in performing the dynamic analysis for the containment and other Class I components.

17. Please describe in detail the method which will be used to analyze the base slab.

B. , Materials of Cons truction

1. Justify the use of Type I cement in place of a cement with greater control of alkalinity and composition.
2. Discuss the splicing standard which will be used to provide a high degree of assurance that the structure will achieve the proper ductility.
3. Discuss the neces$ity and/or provisions for cathodic protection at this site.
4. Provide the cover provisions for reinforcing steel in the dome, cylinder and base slab. Discuss the acceptability of the cover requirements on the basis of code practice and field experience.

o i

1 C. Cona truc tion 1

( 1. Provide detailed information concerning the quality control standards and procedures for testing of cement, concrete, reinforcing steel, splices and liner plate.

2. Discuss the extent to which construction practice will meet or exceed the specification for construction outlined in ACI-301.
3. Discuss the extent to which lapped splicing will be used for main 4 load carrying elements and discuss the bases for such.
4. Indicate the extent of quality control for the liner plate anchorages.
5. Provide the construction procedures to assure bonding between lifts and discuss the pattern of construction joints that will be used, and the degree of joing stagger to be secomplished. Where joint stagger is not provided, justify its omission.

l 6. Provide more detail with regard to the extent to which welding of A432 reinforcing stsel will be avoided.

l D. Testina and Surveillance

1. With regard to containment pneumatic acceptance tes ting, provide:

(a) The extent to which the selected pneumatic test pressure will simulate design basis accident conditions. Compare the stressee under pneumatic test pressure with those in the structure under accident pressure, and accident pressure plus maximum earthquake (and other combinations, if governing) for l

, the following structural elements: (1) circumfere.ntial I reinforcing; (2) axial (longitudinal) reinforcing; (3) dome I

reinforcing; (4) base slab reinforcing; (5) large openings; and (6) critical areas of the liner. In the event significant differences exist between the stresses and strains the structural elements experience under test loading and those calculated to exist under desigs . basis accident loadings, provide a discussion in support of the selected test pressure. Include in this discussion the extent to which an increased test pressure or design modifications or both have been considered in an effort to obtain closer test verification of structural integrity.

(b) The sequence of procedures for pneumatic testing of the containment, acceptance criteria for the structural response, and stresses (or strains) and deformations calculated.

(c) The instrumentation program to be employed to verify the design. Identify the structural and liner areas that w111 l

1

.g . - - ,. . -, -

l

n

'O -

i i

l I

, 9 be instrumented, and the purpose, type, expected accuracy j

and redundancy of the instruments to be used. Discuss the i protective measures to be taken to assure performance over the required time interval between placement and use.

2. Describe the surveillance capabilities that would be provided in the containment design for periodic inspection of the steel liner and periodic pressure-testing of the containment system. If pneumatic tests are considered at reduced pressure, provide an evaluation of the minimum proof test pressure that would be required to verify structural integrity considering structural response and installed surveillance instrumentation requirements.
3. Provide an analysis of the crack size, spacing, and pattern expected during containment proof testing.
4. It is our understanding that a strong-motion seismograph will be installed at the site. Please describe the tentative location, foundation and general characteristics of this instrument.

l l

)

I

\

i w____-_____--_________--____________ - _ _A

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20236C086&oldid=3448263"