ML17309A214

Forwards Draft Safety Evaluation of SEP Topic III-2, Wind & Tornado Loadings

ML17309A214
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	12/29/1981
From:	Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Maier J ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
Shared Package
ML14093A117	List: ML17309A214
References
TASK-03-02, TASK-3-2, TASK-RR LSO5-81-12-094, LSO5-81-12-94, NUDOCS 8201060618
Download: ML17309A214 (13)

Text

l 4v!'ecember 29, 1981 Docket No. 50-244 LS05 12 O94 Mr, John E. Maier Vice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas 5 Electric Corp.

89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649

Dear Mr. Maier:

C S

ZECE~~E-:.

JP g 51982' 5-g @gg gg"3P&

g TIOC

SUBJECT:

SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM TOPIC III<<2 RWIND'AND TORNADO ~ LOADINGS" Enclosed is a copy of our draft SER on SEP Topic III-2.

The evaluation identifies the limiting windspeeds and tornado differential pressures for structures important to safety.

The structures do not meet current licensing criteria for tornado loadings.

In some cases, you may not meet the original design basis as given in the R.

E. Ginna FEAR.

You are reqeested to examine the facts upon which the staff has based its evaluation and r espond either by confirming that the facts are correct, or by identifying errors and supplying the correct information.

We encourage you to supply any other information that might effect the staff's evaluation or be significant in the integrated assessment of your facility.

Your respons'e concerning structures which may not meet your FSAR is request-ed within 30 days of receipt of this letter.

g~0 Sincerely yours.

c.-~)

AVD:

Dennis M. Crutehfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No.

5 Division of Licensing

Enclosures:

As stated cc v(/enclosures:

See n'ext page

~~ Pve~s 820i060618 8ii229 PDR ADOCK 05000244 P

PDR AM~M@

DFFICEI SURNAME/

DATE 0 SUPE:S.L.Q.

....SEPB...Q.....

....OP..er.c.ink.o.:.

12/,17/81 p RHermann 1.2/17/81

~ ~ ~

~

~'ing 't ~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

...S.KP.B;.ti.

WRussell

~

12J yl(81 ORB..., H.......

ARP85:,t'.........

J~LYo~

DCrutchfiel 12/a3/81 12/

/81

.BJ,.....

G as 12/94//81

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I0 ~

~

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

) NRG FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USOPO: 1991~9.960

J

J I

"'Ut f

I

~

Docket No. 50-244 LS05-Nr. John E. thier Vice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas 8 Electric Corp.:

89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649

SUBJECT:

SYSTEtQTIC EVALUATION PROGRAMl TOPIC III-2 "LlIHD AND TORNADO LOADINGS" Enclosed is a copy of our draft SER on SEP Topic III-2.

The evaluation identifiq8 the limiting windspeeds and tornado differential pressures for structures"important to safety.

The structures do not meet current licensing criteria for tornado loadings.

In some cases, you may not meet the original design basis as given the R. E. Ginna FSAR.

You are requested to examine the facts upon which the staff has based its evaluation and respond either by confirming that the facts are corrects or by identifying errors and supplying the correct information.

He encourage you to supply any other information that might affect the staff's evaluation or be significant in the integrated assessment of your facility.

Your response concerning structures which may not meet your FSAR is request-ed within 30 days oftthe letter.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosures:

As stated

'Dennis N. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No.

5 Division of Licensing cc w/enclosures:

See next page

1 e

it I',(

II

~'

Wf 4

I'

7 5

Docket No.60-244 LS05>>81-tlr. John E. Maier Vice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas 8 Electric Corp.

89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649

SUBJECT:

SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM TOPIC III-2 "IlIND AND-TORNADO LOADINGS" Enclosed is a copy of our draft SER on SEP Topic III-2.

The evaluation identifies the limiting windspeeds and tornado differential pressures for structures important to safety.

The structures do not meet current licensing criteria for tornado loadings.

In some cases, you may not meet the original design basis as given the R.

E. Ginna FSAR; You are r equested to examine the facts upon which the staff has based its evaluation and respond either by confirming that the facts are correct, or by identifying errors and supplying the correct information.

We encourage you to supply any other information that might affect the staff's evaluation or be significant in the integrated assessment of your facility.

Your response concerning structures which do not meet current licensing basis is requested within 30 days of the letter.

The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer thantten respondents; therefore, Ot)B clearance is noh required under P.L.96-511.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosures:

As stated Dennis t3. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch.No.

6 Division of Licensing OFFICE 0 SURNAME/

~

See next I

CATE P

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ I~ o ~ ~

aqe S

P

~ ~ &

~ ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

ppqt pinko:dp 12/ g /81 12/T7 /81 SEP:BC WRussell ORB¹5 PM JShea 1 2/

/81 1 2/

/81 ORB¹5 C

DCrutchfield AD:SA:DL GLainas 12/

/81 12/

/81 NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGPO: 1981~&960

Ih ll

'I P

r A

"I

Mr. J ohn E. Maier CC Harry H. Voigt, Esquire LeBoeuf Lamb Leiby and MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.

W.

Suite 1100 Washington D. C.

20036 Mr. Michael Slade 12 Trailwood Circle Rochester, New York 14618 Ezra Bialik Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau New York State Department of Law 2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 Resident Inspector R. E. Ginna Plant c/o U. S.

NRC 1503 Lake Road Ontario New York 14519 Director, Bureau of Nuclear Operations State of New York Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Rochester Public Library 115 South Avenue Rochester New York 14604 Supervisor of the Town of Ontario 107 Ridge Road West

Ontario, New York 14519 Dr.

Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II Office ATTN:

Regional Radiation Representative 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 Herbert Grossman, Esq.,

Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, D. C.

20555

SYSTBQTIC* EVALUATION PROGRAM TOPIC III-2 R.

E.

GINNA TOPIC:

III-2, WIND AND TORNADO LOADINGS INTRODUCTION The safety objective of this review is to assure that safety-related structures are adequate to resist wind and tornado loadings including tornado pressure drop loading.

REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria governing this topic is General Design Criteria 2, Design bases for protection against natural phenomena.

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-l.

3.

Wind and tornado parameters are given in SEP Topic II-2.A, 4.

Design Codes, Criteria and Loading Combinations are reviewed in SEP Topic III-7,8; IV, REVIEW GUIDELINES 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 Regulatory Guides 1.76 and 1,117.

Codes and standards used for the review of structures at the Ginna plant are given in Section 5

of Enclosure 1 to this SER.

V, and limiting components identified.

These'cap terms of strength and corresponding windspeed.

EVAL'UATION 08ggy so-gyp C0ntrsf SSz.e (c k c kI8 Ba BMUS.NGRY DOCKET FJLE 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 wind and torando loading analyses, Structures important to safety were analyzed in this topic to determine their capacity for withstanding these values from Topic II-2.A.

For those structures which do not

'eet the acceptance criteria, stuctural capacities were determin'ed Enclosure 1 is a report entitled, "Wind and Torna o-oa sngs presen IKSLUM7IJQRD HLf.MPf.

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 addresse'd by ing

N i

)in r

l<q y

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 long unbraced lengths and 3) the siding system.

The results are summarized in Table 1 (below).

Table 1 Summar of'imitin Structural Element 1

Structure Control Building Element Siding'ystem Column P'13 Column P'13 Door D

Cause of Pailure 2

2 2

1 2

Windspeed

~mh) 48 79 125 203 Diesel Generator Annex East Concrete Wall East Concrete Wall Roof Steel North Concrete Wall South Concrete Wall 2

1 2

2 2

99 157 182 190 190 Intermediate Building Siding System Facade Shadowall Panel Masonry Wall Facade Ribwall Panel Cross Bracing, Facade Intact Cross Bracing, Facade Destroyed 2

1 2

1 1

1 48 64 67 86 117 204 Auxiliary Building Low Roof Section Columns Qlla,N'lla and Llla 1)

The limiting element for each structure 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 have been identified or that entries are'isted with respect. to the most critical loading combination.

Structural details not included in this review are windows< doors, and roof decks.

2}

1-dynamic pressure; 2-differential pressure.

Tangential windspeeds are listed for differential pressure failures.

High Roof Section Siding System Masonry Wall Roof Beams in Column Line Q3 Column Q7a 2

1 1

1 48 48 89 171 Siding System' Panel Clips Shadowall Panels Ribwall Panels 2

1 1

48 64 86 3)

The roof deck is assumed to provide minimal bracing for these beams.

Zf 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.

Current criteria for straight wind loading is given in Standard Review Plan 2.3.1 which references ANSI A58.1.

Comparing the ANSI A58.1 requirements for Ginna to the original licensing basis results in comparable global wind forces;

however, the ANSI A58.1 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 building.

Also in the auxiliary building, under design dead load plus live load, code allowable limits were exceeded for columns gila, 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 was 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 1

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, i.e.,

windspeeds less than 75 mph at elevation 30 feet as specified in the R,

E, Ginna FSAR,