ML20081L496: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
(No difference)
|
Latest revision as of 07:42, 14 December 2024
| ML20081L496 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 11/14/1983 |
| From: | Lear G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20079F427 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-35 NUDOCS 8311160283 | |
| Download: ML20081L496 (3) | |
Text
[seg'o UNITED STATES
[ '%'
[g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
t,
/., j WASHIN3 TON, D. C. 20555
%,o..../
UV14. E83 FEl.0RANDUM FOR:
George Knighton, Chie~f Licensing Branch #3 Division of Licensing FR0!':
George' Lear, Chief Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
~
SUBJECT:
N iRRIbR INPUT (REVISION) - STRUCTURAL ENG ttKir4G m
Reference:
Memorandum from G. Lear to G. Knighton, "Shearon Harris SER Input (Revision) - Structural Engineering",
Octot'er 28, 1983
'We have resolved our last structural engineering open item. Affected secti::ns of the SER are marked up and enclosed.
This supersedes our previous revision (reference) dated October 28, 1983.
Status of the confirrratory item has not changed.
Under the confirmatory item, the applicar.t agreed to submit a calculation of ultimate strength capacity of the concrete containment building under interna.1 pressure whose schedule and scope are to be determined later,
)
j
, g. -
George ear, Chief Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
J. Knight B. Bu:.kley J. Holonich i
G. Lear l
N. Romney SGEB File XA Copy ya, geen Sent to POg 73/nfo,,271 b
~
i
a; EUCLOSURE i-arected, contracted, tested and inspected to quality standards commensurate with its safety function to be perforra,1d by meeting the guidelines of RGs and industry standards indicated below.
(2)
The applicant has met the requirecents of GDC 2 by designing the seismic Category I foundation to withstand the most severe earthquake that has-been established for the site with sufficient margin and the combination of the effects of normal and accident conditions with the effects of.
environmental loadings such as earthquakes and other natural phenomena.
The api icant has me't the requirements of GDC 4 by assuring that the design il (3) of seismic Category I foundations are capable. of withstanding the dynamic effects associated with missiles, pipe whipping, and discharging fluids.
(4) ' The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 5 by demonstrating that structures, systems, and components are not shared between units or that sharing will not impair their ability to perform their intended safety function'.
The criteria used in the analysis, design, and construction of all the plant seismic Category I foundations to account for anticipated loadings and. postulated t
conditions that may be imposed upon each foundation during its service lifetime are in conformance with. established criteria, codes, standards, and specifica-tions acceptable to the Regulatory staff.
These include meeting the industry standards ACI-318 and AISC, " Specification for Design, Fabrication, and Erec--
tion of Structaral Steel for Building."
The use of these criteria as defined by applicable codes, standards, guides, and specifications; the loads and loading combinations; the design and analysis procedures; the structural acceptance criteria; the materials, quality control programs, and special construction techniques;' and the testing and inservice surveillance requirements, provide reasonable assurance that in the event of winds, tornadoes, earthquakes and various postulated events, seismic Category I foundations withstand the specified design conditions without impairment of structural integrity and stability or the performance of required safety
, functions.
3.8.6 Structural Audit Between March 7 and 11,1983, the staff conducted a structural audit of the Shearon Harris Plant at the New York Office of Eba'sco Co., applicant's AE firm.
As a result, ten issues were identified as open items to be resolved.at a later date.
They are discussed in the staff trip report, a memorandum from S. Kim to G. Lear of NRC dated May. 10, 1983.
SubsequentlyW%3the applicant submitted e letter reportSon the subject.
Eight issues have been resolved in
.a-satisfactory manner.
ALQ Thal fgl a/suppi ment /to,t e/SER.gsberstiTIAndergev#epthat wil)-bead #essedMy l
wijigAre he'two
[
~
'N 3-14.
F.
b j'h No physica an: hor,ex/ists bety(en the foujdation mat nd the bed rock.
/
s 7
Therefor;, only wnward co.,pression 1 a is trans:r'tted to the/Jed s ive lo,Xn upli of the fpd'ndation ma is a possi 111ty when the compres-rock.
ad is longer resent as i the case o# an earthquake when an exce(siveho/izontal1adis_d,evejl' ped.
Inde it was staded in the FSAR that 4 partial Lplif t is epected. "'
..w
..;, :p;tc' 3.-+ss lh'a sp ' g--and--a-ca r ful-verific s on;' of j
6 c - : ' r,:
r-fi s-.ne4dai
/
It s. duld be no that the d sign criter allows only
' marpfh against i f e worst c overturnf moment.
}f TII..ajo
- c. ode /used for,t'hef.szress a flysist ofAVcon*ainment hbfiding
/),and/interr/l y,tructUre/ s phe SHELL code /This f's i
an.in-houseldvelope-
\\
/. axi'sc. metric / code whi4h accounts # r colierete cracks in! ensjon! The f
' /'
/
~ t i
ctached model.may r duce / forces nd moqin's as' much/as 80".j rom uncr c 'ed I
f f
tc'oncr/ An,Thereiterati n pr,ocess w model
/
used tb obtlin a /inal. croc / size y/
e th are geveral omparJs,onsofthe!
e te.. r 1
SHELL cdde fu th o.thek av ilable /: odes /and closfd form s lut [n r eked Qe'/tr, the.tio.ns cross sec
' Hp;ked]) i is -
s ta was unable, o find any verifb'io r;: ult! '
t a crac
)
/
/
su y ^ f{ l'
/
/is qp
%\\
/
y fe Y-s /h*N
}
,, a,->
s,a;zd enf.r,.s f
<JM
&"" i..* 'VSYf
/
6O QJ n
w S&~
e f
e e
4 6
e.
g e
G D
9 g.
O e
O e
W e
o gjts
.