ML17053D968

Forwards Request for Addl Info Needed for NRC Assessment of Reactor Bldg Crack.Meeting on 830725 Would Be Most Expeditious Method of Providing Info & Discussing Problem

ML17053D968
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	07/08/1983
From:	Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Rhode G NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP.
References
NUDOCS 8307290210
Download: ML17053D968 (8)

Text

Docket No. 50-220 Mrt G.

K. Rhode Senior Vice President Niagara lhhawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard Hest

Syracuse, New York 13202

Dear Mr. Rhode:

1983 DISTRIBUTION:

, Docket file NRC PDR L

PDR ORB¹2 reading DEisenhut OELD EJordan RHermann SNorris NSIC JTaylor

ACRS, 10 t

~

e GLear PTKuo JPearing CTam

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION -. ASSESSMENT OF REACTOR BUILDING CRACK RE:

NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO.

1 Reference is made to your submittal dated March 255 1983 which provided information on your analysis and review of the crack in the Reactor Building.

The information was reviewed by our staff and we find that the items identified in the'enclosure are required to complete our review.

In order to support our review schedule for this activity, we have discussed this matter with your licensing staff and agreed that a

meeting on July R6, 1983 would be the most expeditious method for providing the requested information and discussing this problem.

The reporting and/or'ecordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.

Sincerely, Orlmi 9 'B, VassaHe 8307290210 830708 PDR ADOCX 0S000220 P

PDR

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/enclosure:

See next page Domenic B. Vassallo, Chief Operating Reactors Branch ¹2 Division of Licensing

..Qmz:.a....

RHermann/dn

~ e ~ ~ ~ ee ~ e ~ ettoo ~ theodore 7//i /83

~ ~ toeoottotooooooooo

~ oe ~

OFFICEI SURNAMEP DATEQ

~0 o2etoQLtoooot DVassallo

~too ~ e ~ oooo ~ e ~ eeeeeeeeee 7/ It /83

~ e ~ e ~ e ~ ~ o ~ eee ~ e ~ e ~ettoot

~ ~ ~ eteee ~ o

~ ~ ~ ootttettt SfQ~

~ooooooooootoot toooo oo

~

~ ~ e poett ~

~ e ~tt)/% A D

~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ e ~ e ~ ~otto ~ e ~ e ~ e ~ o ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ e ~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ tootsie ~

J

~ ee ~ e toeeeee

~

NRC FORM 318 u040) NRCM 0240 OFF IClAL R ECO R D,CO P Y USGPO: 1081~35.960 J'

sg O'W I

l

'1

Mr. G. K. Rhode Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No.

1 CC:

Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.

Conner E Wetterhahn Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania Ave.," NW Washington, O.C.

20006

Director, Technological Development Programs State of New York Energy Office Swan Street Building CORE 1 - Second Floor Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223 Hr. Robert P. Jones, Supervisor Town of Scriba R.

D.

T;4

Oswego, New York 13126 Nia gara Mohawk Power Co r porati on ATTN:

Mr. Thomas Perkins Plant Superintendent Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station P.O.

Box 32

Lycoming, New York 13093 John W. Keib, Esquire Niagara Mohhwk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West

Syracuse, New York 13202 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coranission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Division of Policy Analysis and Planning New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2, Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II Office Regional Radiation Representative 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 Resident Inspector c/o U.S.

NRC P. 0.

Box 126

Lycoming, New York 13093

~E

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DOCKET HO. 50-220 N'INK MILE POINT HPP UNIT HO.

1

Reference:

Hiagra Mohawk letter dated March 25, 1983 to D. B. Vassallo with enclosure "Analysis of Reactor Building Wall".

1.

Provide a discussion of the procedures used to evaluate the dynamic lateral earth pressures, the dynamic components of groundwater

loads, and the dynamic component of surcharge load acting on the reactor building wall under seismic conditions.

Specifically, include information related to the method used in estimating the dynamic lateral earthpressure, the soil parameters assigned to the backfill materials adjacent to the wall (i.e., angle of friction of soil, unit weight of soil, coefficient of earth pressure at rest, etc.), height of backfill material, depth of water table, and horizontal and vertical ground acceleration components used to estimate dynamic lateral earth pressure.

2.

The conservativeness of the assumptions made regarding the use of a non-rigid wall condition active earth pressure loading should be addressed.

3.

4.

6.

The conservatism of neglecting dynamic components of groundwater and surcharge should also be addressed as appropriate.

Provide a sketch showing the finite element model of the reactor building wall analyzed by Structural Analysis Program (SAP).

Indicate how the load of 585 kips imposed by the screenhouse wall on the re'actor building wall is obtained.

It is stated that groundwater would tend to reduce the assumed 20'F temperature rise of the wall and therefore the load is considered to be conservative.

This may not be true in view of the fact that water tends to lubricate the interface between the screenhouse wall and rock and therefore decreases the friction force.

Furthermore, concrete in contact with water tends to expand

and, as a result, wi 11 increase the force.

In view of these considerations the load of 585 kips as calculated by you may not be conservative after all.

A relative deflection of 0.034" has been mentioned in your analysis (Case 3).

Indicate the contributions from the screenhouse and the reactor building respectively..In Item (b) of Case 3, your reasons for conservati sm are described; however, it appears that if you allow rotation around the perimeter, larger deflection should result and thus the relative deflection will be increased.

Therefore, by constraining the finite element model perimeter, it may not be conservastive.

A clarification of your reasoning is required.

4 V

7.

In your discussion on the structural integrity of the reactor building wall you implied in Item II B that cracking of the wall is due to formation of a very localized plastic hinge and does not constitute a structure failure.

However, in Item III you. rely on a

compression block of 3.6 inches deep to maintain the reactor building boundary.

Specify clearly what the criteria of failure for the reactor building are.

Indicate how 3.6 inches deep compression block is estsblished together with your assumption of the shape of the block.

Please describe how you are assured that the crack is not a through crack.

8.

The rationale of your proposed modification to enhance reactor building integrity is not clear.

Provide an analysis and design of the compression strut and the crushable grout.

In crushing the

grout, a force will be transmitted to the floor slab, which may be damaged as a consequence.

Provide an analysis to indicate the possibility that such occurrence has.been considered in your design.

~ ~

4 ~