ML18114A724
| ML18114A724 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 05/11/1979 |
| From: | Neighbors J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906250194 | |
| Download: ML18114A724 (9) | |
Text
- \\
. :4.:
MAY 1 1 1979 50-280 LICENSEE!
Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO)
FACILITY:
Surry Unit l
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD ON MAY.3, 1979 WITH VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY TO DISCUSS THE SURRY l.* PIPE STRESS ORDER The subject meeting was held on May 3, 1979 at the NRC Phillips.
Building. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss VEPCO's proposal to startup Surry Unit 1 while remaining pipe stress analyses are be *i ng comp 1 eted
- A list of attendees is attached.
VEPCO presented two letters dated Nay 2, 1979.
One letter was a response to NRC letter dated April 13, 1979 which approved the use of soil structure interaction for the reanalyses. The other May 2, 1979 letter was a request that the staff recommend to the Commissioners that Surry 1 be returned to service immediately~
The basis for this.
request was that the original Sorry design was conservative as.
demonstrated by reanalyses perf0t"'IT!ed to this time.
Stone and ~iebster presented the for-lowing during the meeting *.
(a} *A.summary of all.analysfa and comparisons concerned with SSI which have been requested by the staff to dab~.
The first cor:1parison was made for the horizontal response**
spectra derived for the containment building at mat, operating
- floor and spring line elevations using the methods of elastic half-space (with REFUND/FRIDAY CODE) and finitie element (with PLAXLY code).. It indicated *that except at the mat elevation the elastic half-space code consistently predicted more conservative results than the finitee element code and was thus adopted for the subsequent analyses.
Omos>-
- 1--*. *-. **-*** -.. t.... *. -*. ----** -l-----------1---------------1------------1--- -------- --
"u"'""'""" ~.
DATE,io-NRC FORM 318 (9*76) NRCM 0240 U. S~ GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE1 197'5 -
626.. 624
e
-.2 -
The second comparison was made for the response spectra
- obtained first.with the or*iginal set of FSAR design spectra and damping values and then.with a set of input parameters based on single horizontal and uncoupled vertical response
.* spectra in conformance w*ith-Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61.
(b) A summary of suhgrade material properties and damping values which were calculated by the Sha.ke Program for use in the SSI analyses as presented in (a).
As contrast to NRC's {DSS) previous recommendation of using first iteration properties~ Stone and Webst~r has used the properties obtained at the third iteration of SHAKE analyses *.
(c) A summary of sample pipe stress analyses for three systems in the containment building.
The results ind"lcated that the stresses obtained per SSI with FSAR ARS are close to but consis.tent1y 1ess than the stresses per ssr us"ing Regulatory Guides l.60 and 1.61 ARS.
The latter, in turn, are less than the stresses per ord,ginal **ARS and thus indicated the potential -relief of design overstress*~,rith the aid of SSI cons'ideratfo)1.
The staff informed VEPCO that since all of its questions regarding soil structure interactions were not yet answered, no.decision could.
be made as to the adequacy of the soil structure interaction analyses.
It was agreed that VEPCO \\<Jould provide a report in about a week
.answering the staff's questions. The areas to be discussed in the report include:
?...
3.*
Justification for. the use of high and low strain soil properties (shear module and -damping values) and the variation of the pi-:-operties as a function of strain level.
Justification of the use of soil properties obtained from the higher iterations of-SHAKE analysis instead of the first iteration.
Effects of the USE of Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61 as versus to FSAR design input pararnc~ters on the piping stress results
- I I
I I
I
. '":::::: 1-- : :******.*. :*
- ......**.**... ::*.**.. ::c:c::: :*** -
DATE~
NRC FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240
- u. 9. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; 19711 -
1128*fSU
e 3 -
- 4.
Validation of the computer codes used in *SSI analyses.
- 5.
Verification that mat level response spectra will not be used in piping analyses.
- 6.
Discussion of torsional effects. in 2-D SSI analyses~
VEPCO is also responding to the NRC April 2, 1979 letter requesting.
information on computer codes.
Enclosure:
Attendance List Original Signed By Don Neighbors, Project Manager
- Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors DISTRIBUTION:
Docket NRC PDR Local PDR ORB-1 Rea,ding NRR Reading
\\
. OFFICE;.;,.
/) I
%/ ~... _URJ'-IAMF. ~
DATE;,,,,.
NRC FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240 U. s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1976-628-e2.4
.......... ~:-~-
e ATTENDANCE LIST
-MEETING HITH VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
'7" MAY 3~ 1979 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND PQt~ER COMPANY
- c. M. Stallings E. A. Baum t1. C. Spencer C. M. Robinson T. Pebbles STONE AND kJEBSTER R. A. Condon l:J. C. Drotleff C. F. Reeves p; A~ \\rJild A. L. Van Sickel J. T. Christian NRC -
D_. Neighbors K, Parczewski P. Riehm A., Lee o-I\\. LaGrange K. Wichman D. Burke H. Russell M. Cutchin L. Brenner J. Martore B. D. Liaw
- v. Noonan H. v!ong J. Lane H. Polk
- s. Chan F. Schauer J. Knight J. Greeves
...... ~ I
-- I I
I I
I
'"""'"" ~ _--------------------------------- --------------------------------------------*--:*--------------------------------------. --------------------------
DOE.
....................................... *............................................. *.............................................................................................................. ~..
NRC FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240
- u. s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; 197e - e2e.e24
Me:::ting Summary For. VEPCO Distribution:
Docket Files (50-334)
NRC-PDR LOCAL PDR ORB#l Reading NRR Reading C. Karrrnerer J. Fouchard R. Fraley, ACRS(l6)
H *. R. Denton E. G. Case V. Stello R. Mattson R. Boyd R. DeYoung D. Ei senhut R. Vollmer B. Grjmes R. Denise J. P. Knight A. Schwencer
- 0. Zi err.ann T. Ippolito R. Reid P. Check G. Lai nas O. Davis V. Noonan F. Schauer R. Bosnak L. Heller K. Wichman
- 0. Brinkman MAY I : 19-r,,
F. Miraglia W. T. Russell S. Hosford J. Fair J. Giannelli P. Riehm M. Hartzman K. Desai A. Lee Receiptionist, Bethesd~
Program Support Staff J. Souder (LPDR Advance Copy)
Project Managers (4) (C. Nelson, J. D. Neighbors, P. Polk, 0. Wigginton)
OELD J. Scinto OI&E ( 3)
M. W. Peranich, I&E OS0(3)
S. Showe, I&E E. Jordan, I&E C. Parrish R. LaGrange D. K. Morton K. Herring
- \\
Docket No. 50~280 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 liiAY 1 1 1979 LICENSEE:
Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO)
FACILITY:
Surry Unit 1
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD ON MAY 3, 1979 WITH VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY TO DISCUSS THE SURRY 1 PIPE STRESS ORDER The subject meeting was held on May 3, 1979 at the NRC Phillips Building.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss VEPC0 1 s proposal to startup Surry Unit 1 while remaining pipe stress analyses are being completed.
A list of attendees is attached.
VEPCO presented two letters dated May 2, 1979.
One letter was a response to NRC letter dated April 13, 1979 which approved the use of soil structure interaction for the reanalyses.
The other May 2, 1979 letter was a request that the staff recommend to the Commissioners that Surry 1 be returned to service immediately.
The basis for this request was that the original Surry design was conservative as demonstrated by reanalyses performed to this time.
Stone and Webster presented the following during the meeting.
(a) A summary of all analysis and comparisons*concerned with SSI which have been requested by the staff to date.
The first comparison was made for the horizontal response spectra derived for the containment building at mat, operating floor and spring line elevations using the methods of elastic half-space (with REFUND/FRIDAY CODE) and finitie element (with PLAXLY code). It indicated that except at the mat elevation the elastic half-space code consistently predicted more conservative results than the finite element code and was thus adopted for the subsequent analyses.
..,~iA (
~ 1979 The second comparison was made for the response spectra obtained first with the original set of FSAR design spectra and damping values and then with a set of input parameters based on single horizontal and uncoupled vertical response spectra in conformance with Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61.
(b) A summary of subgrade material properties and damping values which were calculated by the Shake Program for use in the SSI analyses as presented in (a).
As contrast to NRC 1s (DSS) previous recommendation of using first iteration properties, Stone and Webster has used the properties obtained at the third iteration of SHAKE analyses.
(c) A summary of sample pipe stress analyses for three systems in the containment building.
The results indicated that the stresses obtained per SSI with FSAR ARS are close to but consistently less than the stresses per SSI using Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61 ARS.
The latter, in turn, are less than the stresses per original ARS and thus indicated the potential relief of design overstress with the aid of SSI consideration.
The staff informed VEPCO that since all of its questions regarding soil structure interactions were not yet answered, no decision could be made as to the adequacy of the soil structure interaction analyses.
It was agreed that VEPCO would provide a report in about a week answering the staff's questions.
The areas to be discussed in the report include:
- 1.
Justification for the use of high and low strain soil properties (shear module and damping values) and the variation of the properties as a function of strain level.
2o Justification of the use of soil properties obtained from the higher iterations of SHAKE analysis instead of the first iteration.
- 3.
Effects of the use of Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61 as versus to FSAR design input parameters on the piping stress results.
.. ' *. 197S
- 4.
Validation of the computer codes used in SSI analyseso
- 5.
Verification that mat level response spectra will not be used in piping analyses.
- 6.
Discussion of torsional effects in 2-0 SSI analyses.
VEPCO is also responding to the NRC April 2, 1979 letter requesting information on computer codes.
Enclosure:
Attendance List
' --';i.
\\
~
'oon Neighbors, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors
e ATTENDANCE LIST MEETING WITH VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY MAY 3, 1979 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY C
- M
- Sta 11 i n gs E. A. Baum W. C. Spencer C. M. Rabi nson T. Pebbles STONE AND WEBSTER R. A. Condon W. Co Drotl eff C. F. Reeves P. A. Wild A. L. Van Sickel J. T. Christian NRC D. Neighbors K; Parczewski P. Riehm A. Lee R. LaGrange K. Wichman D. Burke W. Russell M. Cutchin L. Brenner J. Martore Bo D. Liaw V. Noonan H. Wong J. Lane H. Po 1 k S. Chan F. Schauer J *. Knight J.* Greeves