ML19210A967

Notifies of Completed Review of Psar,Vols 1,2 & 3.Supplies Comments & Questions

ML19210A967
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	07/13/1967
From:	Newmark N NATHAN M. NEWMARK CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES
To:	Morris P US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 7911010676
Download: ML19210A967 (4)

Text

.

, m. ' __J t

,. r ..>.n .

- ~

~

~' NO.:

~

~~ ~~ '~~~~~~r

~

oait Or oOCuuENT:~'

caTE RECEivEo 744-67 @

bEhM T43-67 REPORT:

OTHER:

MEMO:

LTR.

$ X OTHER:

CC:

O RIG.:

2 a,yr;-l+ ei eq rec'd coNcu'85Nc5 O DATE ANSWERED-

% ACTCN NECESSARY O COMMENT O '^

NO ACTION NECESSARY Q FILE CODE:

POST OFFICE 1 DaTE REG. ho: I DATE RECElvED SY REFERRED TO (Most le unc6eis.fwo) i=hing their (Neumark & Hall's) k the PreliMnny Safety Analy- ge-11: 744 w/l cy. - FOR 16TiO3 d (Vols.1-3) for the Three ear Station Unit 1......

Info Copies to:

Skovholt Dr. T.wais H. Price to Utaff Im w/3 cys._

m. r ti m :.-=4. fn. g. t ,,in.

22O jp 1)[ICT PIM..n.\lp O <

u.s. Arouic cNenov couwissioN MAIL CONTROL FORM

s. ,u ronu Acc-szes.

18 609 WERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1946 - 235-119 1509 296 782201o (_;7 (;

- -i s,

.'NATHAN M. N E W ...' A R K CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES 1114 CIVIL ENGINEERING BUILDING URBANA. ILLJNOIS 61801 13 July 1967 Dr. Peter A. Horris, Director Division of Reactor Licensing U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 Re: Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1 Met ropolitan Edison Company Docket No. 50-289

Dear Dr. Horris:

Dr. W. J. Hall and I have reviewed the Pre liminary Safety Analys is Repo rt (Volumes 1, 2 and 3) for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1, and our comments and questions follow.

The Three Mlle Island Unit 1 is to be a pressurlzed water reactor, fabricated by the Babcock and Wilcox Company, of 2551 HWt capacity and 871 MWe capacity. The containment st ructure is to be a prest ressed ' post-tens ioned building similar to Turkey Point, Palisades, Point Beach, and Oconee. The s t ructu re is to be about 130 ft. Ins ide d iamete r, 187 ft. high, with cylindrical wall thickness of 3 1/2 f t. and dome thickness of about 3 ft. The base slab is to be about 9 ft. In thickness. We note that in this particular plant the steam generators are part ially shielded f rom the containment st ructure by concretg walls in contrast to some of the other plants of this type.

Our quest ions and comments follow.

1. The figures in Sections 1 and 5 Indicate that the reactor building floor is to be at about elevation 281 ft. The site summary on page 2-1 indicates that the containment structure foundat ion rests on normal sedimentary rock, namely the Gettysburg shale located at the site. A review of the geology summary beginning on page 2-14 and that presented in Appendices 2A and 2D leave some quest ion as to exactly where the st ructure will be founded, for it is dif ficult to locate the structure f rom the informat ion provided therein on the cross sect ions shown. It would be helpful to have a clear delineation of the location of the plant on one of the plans in order that a bctter evaluat ion of the local s ite geology can be made.

With regard to faulting, there is no Indication that there are faults in the immediate zone. However, the plots in Appendix 20 suggest that some faulting may be in existence, and we await evaluation by the Geological Survey on this point. ,,,

b l

) 0 v ']

w

. -s

2. The seismicity and response spectra are briefly summarized in Appendix 2A and in the main body of the report on page 2-14 and page 5-4 The first part of Appendix 2A indicates a value of 0.04g, whereas the report by Dr. R. V. Whitman recommends a value of 0.06g and an earthquake of ;w!ce this s ize for the maximum earthquake. The reasoning for the select ion of the s ize of the earthquake is not definite.

With regard to the spectra, we do not agree that the Golden Gate spect ra should be chosen for use at this particular plant. There are other more applicable spect ra, such as Helena or Taf t, which are on rather firm basement material.

The cut-off in response at the lower f requency range for the anomalous Golden Gate spectra can be most significant with regard to the design of the structures.

We believe that this " cut-of f" should not be permitted unless there is a special just ificat ion for it . This just Ification has not been given. The anomalies of the Golden Gate earthquake may be partially explained by shock transmission across certain discontinuities, which may account for the cut-of f in the low frequency region. We see no evidence presented that similar conditions apply at this site; nor do we agree that they should be permitted to control the seismic design of so important a structure as a nuclear reactor.

As for the bas ic earthquake value itself, we shall await the evaluation by the U. S. Coast and Geodet ic Su rvey.

3. With regard to the tendons, we note on page 5-9 that there will be cathodic protection and that the tendons will be surrounded with neat cement grout to prevent ent ry of air and water. Further information on the grouting techniques to be employed and the inspection techniques that will be employed over the life of the plant are desired.

We have reviewed the ins t rumentat ion descri pt ion in Appendix SF and find very little there concerning long-term surveillance during the operation of the plant.

r 4 With regard to the dynamic analys is, we note that the response spectrum approach is to be employed, and a table of damping values is given in Appendix SA. These damping values look acceptable. We assume that these damping values will be used for both the design and maximum earthquake. If not, this point should be clarified by the applicant.

5. In Appendix SB we note that A-431 and A-432 reinforcing steel may be employed in the structure. In the event these steels are employed, it is our recommendat ion that no welding (tack or otherwise) be allowed with these steels in order to prevent the opportunity for brittle f racture.

6. In Appendix 5B the design st ress criteria are given. These appear s imilar to previous presentations and appear acceptable. Of interest, though, is the f act that ment ion is made of the tornado loads in Section 1.2 but no subsequent ment ion is made as to how the tornado loadings will be handled in the design. Elaborat ion on this point is des i rable.

r

)pOv) L'U

< ~

4 ~

On page 5-3 it is noted that the tangential wind velocity associated with the tornado will be 300 mph and that there is an external vacuum of 3 psig.

These criteria appear appropriate to the site. We t rust that these will be employed in the design in accordance with Appendix 58.

7. The York Haven Dam, located downstream, which we assume is crucial to the operat ion of the pond for the plant, is described briefly on pages 2-12 and 2-13. From the discussion presented it appears that certain parts of the York Haven Dam, particularly a new gated spillway section, will be designed and const ructed. With regard to the des ign conditions that must be satisfied, it is not clear whether the ent ire dam will meet the criteria noted or whether just the new section will meet the criteria. In any event, we should like to have details of the earthquake analysis for the entire dam system, and should like further information on provisions for ponding of water required for safe shut-down, in the event that leakage of the dam occurs.

We note that flooding and hydraulic buoyancy ef fects will be taken into account in the design of the containment s t ruct u re, and we assume that this holds as well for any of the auzillary service f acilities that arg required.

8. The discussion of the handling of the shear in Appendix SC requires cla ri f icat ion. It is noted on page SC-4 that " Membrane tension of 3 V ff will be allowed in checking the load capacity st rength of the structure.

When principal flexural tension exceeds 6 V ff due to thermal gradients through the wall, non-prestressed reinforcing shall be added to res ist the thermal st resses based on cracked sect ion theory s imilar to that contained in ACI 505-54." It is our recommendation that net principal tension not be permitted on a section which is required to carry shear: however we a re willing to permit a net principal tensile stress of 3 V fj excluding bending or flexural stress due to thermal loads, for the maximum credible earthquake.

9. We find little information on the piping design under seismic loading, and should like to have further informat ion on the criteria that will be employed for the critical piping systems . The sect ion on st ructural design bases in Appendix SA appears to include the piping systems; however, the subsequent Appendices 5B and SC do not appear to be directed to the piping; as a result, further discussion of the piping design is desired.

10. We see no ment ion of a stack for this plant and assune that a main stack is not part of the design of this plant. F Should like confi rmat ion of this fact.

11. We find little or no information on the design of the cranes that might be employed and should like information concerning how the des ign of these will be carried out with regard to seismic loading.

Respectfully submit,ted,

-)) ): . s

.t N. M. Newmark bj w p cc: W. J. Hall

} } g ') L/g e