ML17194A453
| ML17194A453 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1982 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Delgeorge L COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| TASK-02-02.A, TASK-03-02, TASK-2-2.A, TASK-3-2, TASK-RR LSO582-02-023, LSO582-2-23, NUDOCS 8202100390 | |
| Download: ML17194A453 (5) | |
Text
SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM TOPIC III-2*
Received wth ltr dtd 02/03/82.
N.OTICE -
THE ATTACHED FILES ARE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE DIVISION OF DOCUMENT CONTROL. TljEY HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO YOU FOR A LIMITED TIME PERIOD AND MUST BE RETURNED. TO THE RECORDS FACILITY BRANCH 016.
PLEASE DO NOT SEND DOCUMENTS CHARGED OUT THROUGH THE MAIL. REMOVAL OF ANY PAGE{S) FROM DOCUMENT. FOR REPRODUCTION MUST BE REFERRED TO FILE PERSONNEL.
Uew~f~t # S"O- '7-3 7. _
Gmrtn~l # e.-z... o-z..t o<:> :3'tD DEADLINE RETURN DATE Date Z..-0:?>-8-Z..'lf Docums.
R:EG~U1HlRY DOCKU HU RECORDS FACILITY BRANCH
SYSTEMATIC... EVALUATION PROGRAM TOPIC III-2 R. E. GINNA TOPIC:
III-2, WIND ANO TORNADO LOADINGS I.
INTRODUCTION The safety objective of this review is to assure that safety-related structures are adequate to resist wind and tornado lo~dings including tornado pressure drop loading.
II.
REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria governing this topic is General Design Criteria 2, Design bases for protection against natural phenomena.
III.
RELATED SAFETY TOPICS AND INTERFACES
- 1.
Tornado missiles are reviewed in SEP Topic III-4.A.
- 2.
Structures which are considered safety related are given in SEP Topic III-1.
- 3.
Wind and tornado parameters are given in SEP Topic II-2.A *
. 4.
Design Codes, Criteria arid Loading Combi'hations are reviewed in SEP Topic III-7, B, IV.
REVIEW GUIDELINES
- v.
The currently accepted design criteria for wind and tornado loadings ts outlined in Standard Review Plan, Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.8 and in Regalatory Guides l.76 and l. 117.
Codes and standards used for the review of structures at the Ginna plant are given in Section 5 of Enclosure l to this SER.
Stte specific windspeed and tornado parameters were developed in Topic II-2.A and the appropriate values were identified for use as input to the wi'nd and torando loading analyses. *Structures important to safety were analyzed in this topic to determine their capacity for withstanding tfiese values from Topic II-2.A.
For those structures which do not meet the acceptance criteria, stuctural capacities were determined and ltmiting components identified, These capacities are given in terms of strength and corresponding wi'ndspeed.
EVALUATION Enclqsure l is a report entitled, "Wind and Tornado *Loadings 1' presenting our contractor's findings concerning the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power
. Plant.
The report identifies limiting structural elements and their associated windspeed.
No analyses were performed for safety-related systems and components.
Systems and components important to safety not housed wtthin structures noted in this SER should be addressed by
I~
-2.-
the licensee.
The main conclusions of the report are that the structural items found to be limiting generally are:
1 ) the unreinforced masonry walls, 2) certain steel members of the auxiliary building having l.ong unbraced lerrgths and 3) the siding system.
The results are summarized in Table 1 (below).
Structure Control Building Diesel Generator Annex Intermediate Building Auxiliary Building Low Roof Section Table l Summary of Limitina Structural Element§ 1 Cause of Element Siding System Column F'l3 Col!JJlln F'l3 Door D East Concrete Wall Eas*t. Concrete. wall Rcof Steel North Concrete Wall South Concrete Wall Failure 2 2
2 l
2 2
l 2
2 2
Siding System 2
Facade Shadowall Panel l
~~MY~ll 2
Facade Ribwall Panel l
Cross Bracing, Facade Intact l
Cross Bracing, Facade Destroyed l
Columns Qlla,N'lla and Llla Winds peed (mph) 48 79 125 203 99 157 182 190 190 48 64 67 86 117 204 1), The limiting element for each.strue~ure is identified.
Additional elements which have been found to be inadequate are also listed.
Note.
that this table does not imply that all inadequate elements bave been identified or that entries are listed with respect to the most critical loading combination. Structural details not included in this review are' windows, doors, and roof decks.
- 2) l-dynamic pressiJre7 2-differential pressure.
Tangential windspeeds are listed for differential pressure failures.
)---*--*-*- - --*--* -**-* --
High Roof Siding system 2
48 Section Masonry Wall l
48 Roof Beams in Column Line Q3 l
89 Column Q7a 1
171 Siding Systelll"' 4 Panel Clips 2
48 Shadowall Panels 1
64 Ribwall Panels 1
86
- 3)
The roof deck is assumed to provide minimal bracing for these beams.
If this bracing is discounted, then the beams exceed code allowable slenderness ratios for compression members.
- 4)
Ratings for the siding system are not definitive but are estimates based on approximate modeling.
. e
- e. Current criteria for straight wind loading is given in Standard Review Plan 2.3.l which references ANSI A58.l.
Comparing the ANSI A58.l requirements for Gfnna to the original licensing basis results in comparable global wind forces; however, the ANSI A58.l code results in higher local wind forces.
Structural elements which do not meet these higher local forces were also found not to meet the original licensing basis.
The original design basis for the Ginna plant was the New York State Building Code, 1961 which is based on a 75 mph windspeed at elevation 30 feet.
Some structural elements have been identified which may not meet the original design basis. These items are the facade shadowall panels, ribwall panels and upper level masonry walls in the intermediate building, and lower level masonry wall and shadowall panels in the auxiliary buildin~. Also in the auxiliary building, under design dead load plus live load, code allowable limits were exceeded for columns Qlla, N'lla, and the theoretical strength was exceeded for*
column Llla.
Analyses of the roofs of the diesel generator building, intermediate building and auxiliary building were not performed due to lack of information on the construction of these roofs.
The intake structure
- .-1as not analyzed.
It is of similar construction as the auxiliary building which was found to have low allowable windspeeds.
.VI.
CONCLUSIONS The existing design and construction of structures important to safety to resist wind and tornado loadings does not meet current licensing criteria of remaining within stress limits specified in Standard Review Plan 3.8 for tornado winds of 250 mph and differential pressures of 1.5 psi. Several structures, including those identified in Table l should be modified to provide adequate design margins for wind and tornado loadings.
Some structures may not meet the original design basis for less severe wind loadings, 1.e., windspeeds less than 75 mph at elevation 30 feet as specified in the R. E. Ginna FSAR,