ML20205A954

Forwards List of Comments & Questions from Review of Preliminary Sar,Vols 1,2 & 3

ML20205A954
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/09/1969
From:	Sharpe R JOHN A. BLUME & ASSOCIATES, ENGINEERS
To:	Morris P US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20205A535	List: IA-88-443, Final Response to FOIA Request.App a Documents Encl & Available in PDR ML20205A530 ML20205A537 ML20205A560 ML20205A569 ML20205A584 ML20205A596 ML20205A601 ML20205A616 ML20205A647 ML20205A670 ML20205A696 ML20205A713 ML20205A850 ML20205A858 ML20205A893 ML20205A912 ML20205A922 ML20205A934 ML20205A954
References
FOIA-88-443 NUDOCS 8810260150
Download: ML20205A954 (9)

Text

_-

i JOMN A. B L U M E & A S S 0 C I A T E S. E N G I N E E R S

.r . o.. v. ... .

! I September 9, 1969 ,

, i m g I l

2 Dr. Peter Morris, Director O Division of Reactor Licensing - - <

1 U.S. Atomi- Energy Commission p 9

[ $ '

j Washington D.C. 20343 v/..;..S s

%, , ,, r 1 ..

Contract No

AT(49 5).3011 N 4

Blume Project No: 2085510 @

Subject:

Seabrook Nuctear Station Unit No.1 = i

] Pub!!c Service Company of New ilampshire '

and The United Illuminating Company Preliminary Safety Analysis Report  !

4 Docket No. 50-340  ;

i

Dear Dr. Morris:

l q

l j In accordance with your request we have performed a general review of the  ;

, PSAR, Volume 1, 2, and 3 for the Seabrook Plant. We are enclosing here. l i with three copies of a list of questions and comments resulting from this  !

review. It is possible that additional questions will be generated after receipt of the information requested in the attached. l

?

j:. Very truly yours.

t l

\

I JOIN A. BLUME 4 ASSOCI ATES, ENGINEERS 1

f i

I I

/

Roland L. Sharpe l

Executive Vice President i j RLS/vdr i Enclosures 1

D j __

Q liAI 00102%1%00 PDR '

) hRIYC -443 2 ~ '4 3 i

. _ __ _ -- ~ ~ _ _ -

j l

i S..t . l.S.' ! !.C. .RIVilW SINih)OL NL)Cl f..\R S I A l inn 11.s I l' NO. I

.l'IlBl.lC $1 PV101. CO'!PANY Of NI N llYti vil : ANI

.T_Ill. UN I'l LI) I Lt.ll.'ll N \ l iNG COI'ANi l (!)ocket No. 50 310)

The attached is a list of co .ments resuling from a prelininary review of the reference documents (see attached list) for the Stabrook plant. The re-view was primarily directed toward seismic considerations, but a general re-vicw of the structural characteristics and design con.cpts was performed.

The questions and conents have been arranged in the fs!!owing categories:

1. Site and roundations II. Reactor 111. Reactor Coolant Systen , ,' i,D N g'

IV. reactor Building / ' .' . .

V. Class 1 Piping Systems h' E.l 6 ho.

&t .'., "$

g ' ,N .*

A *

- * *

• T/,i Dr

• d)Al6:;

N &

l n +

l l

i

• i l

I

(

l l l

l '

l l

I

, O -

i 1-1 JOHN A GLUVE & ASSOCI AT ES. ENGINE ERS i

r

.i

1. .S.1.'11.: .ANii l o_t tit _u_r l.o.Ns

[

1. tilli any Clasa I structures, pipinr,, or equip. tnt be located in or  ;

J on any soils that will be subject to liquefaction under carthqu.ike conditions? If so, what precaut ions will be taken to ensure that i the integrity of the item will be naintained during the carthquake?

Please describe in detail the in situ and laboratory geophysical i

2.

l tests that were performcd to measure the average seismic velocity  ;

j of 15,000 f t/see mentioned on page 2-48. Nere both compression  ;

, and shear wave velocitier, nessured? Please include the rceults j t of the tests in the discussion.  !

3 l 3. Do the wind velocities which occurred during hurricane Camille 1

i modify any of the hurricane studies of Chapttr 17 s

{

a

i i

1 I

1 i i  ;

i 1

! I j

l i  ?

i  !

i t

1 1

I 1

1 I

l

-2*

i JOHN A nLuut & Associates escistens ! ,

1 l

II . lyjil,04, l

1. In Svetion 3.2.3..t.1, page 3-10, it is stated that the lateral de-l l flections of the reactor vessel internals are limited to prevent ,

l excessive movetaents resulting from seismic disturbances. Please l l describe in detail how the stresses and deflections of the inter- I nals under seismic conditions will be determined. Provide in this discussion the mathematical models and an outline of the analytical  ;

procedures that will be used. (

2. Please describe the analytical and/or test procedures that will be used to ensure the functionn! integrity of the reactor (and inter- f nals, etc.) in the event of a loss of coolant accident. Please  !

include the loading functions and mathematical models that will be use/. in the analysis.

l i

[

i I

f I

F 3

JOHN A. OLUME & ASSOCI ATE tik ENGINEE RS

1

. i l

! 111. 141..\CI Olt OX)lANI' SY.'elll1 l' lease describe in detail the analysis and/or testirm proccdures that will be used to dehruine that the nuclear stcae. .upply system (reactor vessel, steam generators, reactor coolant punps, piping, etc.) will meet Scism.8c Class I criteria. Include in this discussion the following:

a. A detailed description and sketch of the proposed n,athematical model(s) of the system, including a discussion of the degrees of freedom and methods of lumping masses, deternining section prop-erties, etc.

b. A discussion of the analytical procedures to be used, including the methods of computing periods, mode shapes, rodal participation fac-tors, and the proc, dures for i:omputing design accelerations, dis-placements, shears, and noments.

c. A discussloa of the possibility and significance of dynamic coupling betwe.n the nuclear steam system arid the supporting structure (in-ternal structure within the c intainment building),

d. A listing of the damping values to be used.

l l

l

. .t .

sown A owvc & Assoo Atts. ENoiNEtns

d at IV. IWAC10lt litill.111.NG

1. Picase provide the tangential and translational tornado wind veloc-itics and pressure drop for which the shield building will'be de-sig,ned. Please jus tify. the choice of a relatively light (2 inch by 4 inch by 10 fcot long) missile for design. h'ouldn't a heavier missile such as a 4 x 12 or 12-inch diameter pole be more appro-priate? Is there a possibility of other missiles? hhat will be the velocity of the missiles? ,

2. Ilow will relative deficctions between adjacent buildings be accoun-ted for in the design of piping systems which run between buildings? l

3. h'nat provisions will bu <de to tre.nsfer scismic and wind shear forces across constructi en joints?

, 4. Ilow will stresses in the Shield Building and Containment Vessel *

.at discontinuities such as penetrations, access hatches, and i 5 junctures of walls and base slab be determined? Ifill any provi-sions be made in the testing program to ascertain that the actual i stresses correlate with the calculated stresses? ,

i

5. Picase expand the lists of structures, piping, and equipmeat i

, (mechanical and clectrical) in Appendix SE to include the loca- ,

tion of each item and the type of scismic analysis that will be  :

performed for cach item. Arc there any Class 1 items which will l be located within or adjacent to Class 2 structures? If so, what  ;

{ precautions will be taken to ensure that the failure of the Class  !

2 structure will not adversely affect the Class 1 item?  ;

6. On page 5-E-7, it is stated that equipment design will be based on static application of appropriate acceleration factors. Ifhich acceleration factors will be used and how will they be determined? l Please expand this discussion of the methods to be used for Class l

) I equipment? l

7. In the table of damping factors on page 5-E-9, it is stated that damping values of one percent will be used for welded steel plate  ;

i assenblics and two percent will be used for the steel containment i I

! 2

. JOHN A. BLUME & ASSOCIATES. ENGINEERS i

vessel, hha t justification is there for using these different values for welded steel const ruct ion? It seems that one percent would be iaore appropriate for both welded steel plate assenblics and the containment vessel.

8. Ilow will the internal concrete structure and containment vessel be anchored to the base slab to resist scismic shears and over-turning moments?

9. In Appendix S-F, it is stated that the total maximum acceleration will be estinated by computing the square root of the sum of the squares of the maximum accelerations of each mode, llow are the internal shears and moments then computed? hhat is meant by the term "conventional methods" on page 5-F-5?

10. hhat are the foundation material properties that will be used in the mathematical model of the containment structure? Ilow were these properties obtained?

l l

)

l l

)

- (i .

JOHN A. OLUME & ASSOCI ATES ENGINECRS i

l

V. Cl. ASS I P1l'1NG SL'iTi.MS Please describe in detail the analy. sis procedure > to be used to determine that the. Class I piping within the reactor building will meet scismic Class I criteria. Include in this discussion the following:

a. The methods to be utilized to determine the input for the piping analyses.

b. A discussion of the analtyical procedures to be used, including the methods of computing the stiffness and mass matrices, periods, mode shapes, and participation factors, and the procedures for computing design accelera' ions, disniacements, shears, moments, and stresses,

c. Typical mathematical models for several piping systems for the Seabrook plant.

l l

i i

7 JOHN A. ULUME & ASSOCI ATES. ENotNCCRS n

SlilS'11C lil: Villi RI:l:1.RENCl! 110CU:.11 NIS Seabrook Nuclear Station Unit No. 1 Public Service Company of New llampshire and The United 111uminating Company Docket No. 50-340 Construction Permit Preliminary Safety Analysi- Report , Vol . I Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Vol.11 Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Vol. III a

l l

l I

l l

- 3 JOHN A. UL.UME & ASSOCI ATES. ENGINEERS