ML20003H390
| ML20003H390 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vallecitos File:GEH Hitachi icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/01/1981 |
| From: | Martore J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003H372 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SC, NUDOCS 8105050716 | |
| Download: ML20003H390 (5) | |
Text
..
VIIITED STATES OF A!1 ERICA flVCLEAR REGULATORY C0f t11SS10!i B_EFORE THE ATO!11C SAFETY Af;D LICEilSli4G BOARD In the 11atter of
)
)
GE!4ERAL ELECTRIC C0!1PA4Y
)
Docket rio. 50-70
)
(Show Cause)
(Vallecitos fluclear Center -
)
General Electric Test Reactor,
)
Operating License flo. TR-1)
)
TESTIliOfiY OF JOSEPH A. IIARTORE Q.1.
Please state your name, your present position with the fluclear Regulatory Coumission and immediately prior position.
A.1.
fly name is Joseph A. flartore.
I an a Project 11anager respt 1sible for the overall safety and environmental project nanagement for power reactor license applications.
Prior to holding this position I was a Structural Engineer in the Division of Operating Reactors, Office of fiuclear Reactor Regulations, U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, responsible for the engineering analysis and review of safety issues and design criteria related to nuclear facilities licensed for operation; including the review and evaluation of structural, seisaic, and mechanical analysis and design of safety related structures and components.
Q.2.
Please describe your educational background and previous positions held.
A.2.
I received I1.S. and B.S. degrees in Civil Engineering froa I-lassachusetts Institute of Technology in 1976 and 1975, respectively. l-tajor 819505071 6
' fields of study and research included engineering nechanics, structural dynanics, and structural analysis and design. Currently, I an a nenber of both Earthquake Engineering Research Institute and American Society of Civil Engineers.
I aa also a registered Professional Engineer.
Fron April 1974 to February 1976, I was employed by North East Post-tensioning Consultants Inc. oas a field engineer and civil engineer. My dutte's included construction field supervision and inspection, and analysis-2 and design of prestressed concrete structures.
Fron March 1976 to March 1979, I was employed by Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation as a Structural Engineer in the Engineering Mechanics Division. Py responsibilities included the seismic, static, and accident analysis and design of nuclear power plant tafety related structures.
I was also engaged in missile impact and cask drop analyses, and in developing structural design criteria and specifications. Between the years 1977 and 1979, I was in charge of the soil-structure interaction and seismic engineer-ing aspects of a nuclear power plant.
In this capacity I had lead responsi-bility for the seismic analysis of all safety related structures, including the assessment of structural behavior and the determination of seismic induced stresses and displacements for use in design of the structures. -In addition, I was involved in expanding the company's state-of-the art soil structure interaction nodelirg and analysis capabilities.
In March 1979, I joined the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I have parti-cipated in the review and evaluatior
(* vperating license anendaents involving seismic 'and structural issues. ;ts as ant of seismic design criteria and
-analysis methodology, and eva:,atic.,.! cochanical and structural aspects of
. spent fuel pool expansions.
I have also participated in the NRC spcnsored confirmatory research activities related to seisnic analyses and method-ologies, and have established and managed technica? assistance contracts involving seismic issues; including a recent study in which I co-authored a report entitled, " Equipment Response at the El Centro Steam Plant During the October 15, 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake," NUREG/CR-1665.
Q.3.
Please describe your participation in the NRC Staff review of the General Electric Test Reactor for this proceeding.
A.3.
In conjunction with Dr. W. J. Hall, I prepared section C of the Staff's May 23, 1980 portion of the Safety Evaluation Report, entitled
" Engineering Seismic Design Parameters" and section C of the Staff's October 27, 1980 portion of the Safety Evaluation Report, entitled "Seisnic Design of GETR Structures Systems and Components Important to Safety", with the exception of the first paragraph on p.C-8 and the material relating to
" Review of Represntative Time Histories for Seismic Scram Analysis at GETR" on p.C-12.
Q.4.
Please summarize the extent of your review and your conclusions.
A.4.
Our review of this facility is based upon the following general criteria.
In the case of nuclear facilities, safety for seismic excitation implies that certain elements and components of the system must continue to remain functional.
Structures, piping, and equipment may deform into the inelastic range, and some elements and components may even be permitted to suffer damage, provided that the entire system can continue to achieve and maintain a safe shutdown condition.
~ _ _
i 4_
1 Given the seisnic design parareters, only the following structural and mechanical requirements must be satisfied:
1.
The structural integrity of the massive concrete structure which supports other systens and components important to safety must be maintained.
2.
The structural integrity of the reactor vessel and canal fuel storage tanks must be assured.
3.
A source of water, including the associated piping system, nust be available after the seismic event to provide water to the spent fuel canal storage tanks and the reactor pressure vessel to replenish that lost through boil off and evaporation in the process of cooling the fuel.
The GETR facility, with proposed modifications, has been reanalyzed by General Electric, and reviewed by the NRC Staff and its consultants, to detemine whether adequate assurance is provided that the GETR can safely withstand t..e effects of the seismic design events.
Detailed reviews have been carried out on safety related structures, systems and components required to withstand the loadings representing the hazard defined by our seismic design criteria, including possible effects of shaking and faulting.
The seismic review analyses and design of the GETR essential struc-tures, systems and components are in confomance with accepted codes and criteria.
In the case of structures and structural components, based on the infomation reviewed, we find that the analyses perfomed are consistent with the state-of-the-art that would be used for existing nuclear facilities.
It was demonstrated that allowable strengths are adequate to accommodate the
. effects of the seismic design criteria.
Results.of analyses and qualifi-cation testing ~of equipnent.and values similar to those in service denon-strate their ability to function during and after the' design basis _ events.
Each of the three seismic-design input parameters connonly associated
- n design or review analysis, namely earthquake magnitude, expected ground nation, and the response spectra, include reasonably high levels of conser--
vatism which in turn are compounded one upon another as loading input in the-final forn of the response spectra that are to be employed in the seisnic design.
Rational seismic design is based on both reasonably conservative loading and reasonably conservative physical resistance..The physical resistance is provided to acconnodate the design loadings, 'seisaic as well as those arising fron other effects, and normally includes a significant nargin of safety in terus of strength and/or ductility to acconnodate unexpected over-loading or expected deformation.
On the basis of our evaluation of the seismic design criteria, analyses methods and criteria enployed, and the results obtained, we conclude that the GETR structures, systems and components important to safety, modified as proposed, will remain functional considering the seismic design bases determined proper by the Staff.
.