ML19246B070
| ML19246B070 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 05/30/1979 |
| From: | Parr O Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Koester G KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907110625 | |
| Download: ML19246B070 (4) | |
Text
.
E(
'o, UNITED STATES 3'
cc ' j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
._'^
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\.... /
~
MAY 3 01979 Docket flo. STN 50-482 Mr. Glenn L. Koester Vice President - Operations Kansas Gas & Electric Company 201 North Market Street Wichita, Kansas 67201
Dear Mr. Koester:
SUBJECT-REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - CONCRETE STRENGTH OF WOLF CREEK BASE MAT As a result of our review of the information transmitted by your letter of Februa ry 28, 1979 to Mr. Karl Seyfrit and by your letters of April 2,1979, May 3, 1979 and May 10, 1979 to Mr. Roger Soyd, as well as the information presented at the May 15, 1979 meeting in Burlington, Kansas, we find that we need additional infomation to complete our evaluation of the matter of the concrete strength of the Wolf Creek base mat. The specific information required is listed in the Enclosure.
We would appreciate hearing from you, after you receive this letter, as to when we can expect the responses to the enclosed request.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please let us know.
Sincerely, Df
. Par'r,Dief an Light Water Reactors Branch No. 3 Division of Project Management
Enclosure:
As Stated cc w/ enclosure:
See next page 3\\
g g
007110625
W30M Mr. Glenn L. Koester cc: Mr. Nicholas A. Petrick John Hal zer, Esq.
hecutive Director, SNUPPS Law Offices of Ralph foster h Choke Cherry Road Kansas Gas & Electric Company Rockville, Maryland 20850 P. O. Box 208 Wichita, Kansas 67201 Gerald Charnof f, Esq.
Shaw, Pi ttman, Potts,
Wi lli am H. Wa rd, Es q.
Trowbridge & Madden MACEA 1800 M St reet, N. W.
5130 Mission Road Washington, D. C.
20036 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66205 Mr. Donald T. McPhee Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Vice President Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Kansas City Powr & Light Company U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission 1330 Baltimore Avenue Washington, D. C.
20555 Kansas City, Missouri 64141 Michael C. Farrar, Esq.
James T. Wiglesworth, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 9800 Metcal f U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Suite 400 Washington, D. C.
20555 General Square Center Overland Park, Kansas 66212 Dr. John H. Buc k Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Mr. Willi am H. Grif fin, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocnission Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C.
20555 State of kansas State House Ms. Treva Laska, Assistant General Counsel Topeka, Kansas 66612 Public Service Cocmission P. O. Box 360 Mr. John M. Wylie II Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Energy Reporter Kansas City Star 1729 Grand Kansas City, Missouri 641J8 ft. Gary Haden Wichita Eagle & Beacon Box A-20 Wichita, Kansas 67201 3)3 U '/ [L m ~
s
ENCLOSURE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WOLF CREEK BASE MAT 1.
Provide the basis for choosing the eleven samples of the cylinder remnants used for the determination of air content and for petrographic examination.
2.
The in-situ concrete tested by Windsor probe is highly reinforced with steel bars, and is under compression from the dead load of the partially completed cylinder portion of the containment.
In view of these factors, indicate the efficacy of the Windsor probe tests in determining the concrete cylinder strengths.
3.
The soil-structure interaction seismic analysis was performed by the finite element method using the computer code FLUSH.
However, recent developments have shown that markedly varying results may be cotained by various soil-structure interaction analyses. Therefore, it is our position, that the methods for implementing the soil-structure interaction analysis should include both the half space lumped parameter representation and the finite element approach. The structure should be designod to responses obtained by any one of the tollowing methods, (a) Envelope of the results of the two methods.
(b) Results of one method with conservative design consideration of the impact from use of the other method.
(c) Combination of (a) and (b) above with the provision of adequate conservatism in design.
Therefore, provide the responses obtained by the eiastic half space approach for the base mat and compare them to the presently calculated responses by the finite element method.
For the half space analysis, the low strain soil properties should be used.
Recognizing the fact that higher strains may result from earthquake motion, average soil properties may be used and no variation in soil properties is required.
If the results of the two approaches are different, assess the safety significance of the difference in response.
If you find that the results indicate that corrective measures are necessary to strengthen the baseimat, detailed justifications of the proposed measures should be provided.
4.
Indicate if the load carrying capacity of the base _ mat has been reduced by using the 4,460 psi as the design concrete strength instead of using the 5,000 psi as specified.
If it has, discuss the significance of the reduction in flexure, shear and the overall design section capacity of the mat at key locations.
313 075 W
. 5.
Indicate how much reduction of the seismic forces of the basei mat has restdted by using the site specific soil properties in the-soil-structure interaction analysis.
6.
Under the loading combination consisting of internal pressure, horizontal and vertical seismic forces, and othei applicable loads, the base mat may be uplifted partially.
Indicate how you have considered such uplift in your analysis.
7.
In the model for the analysis of non-axisymmetrical loading using the BSAP computer program, the heavy equipment anchored to the base mat is not shown.
Consideration of the heavy equipment merely as dead load may not be representative of the actual loading condition under earthquake and LOCA conditions.
Since the equipment is anchored to the base mat, moments are applied locally to the mat under earthquake and LOCA conditions.
Indicate if such consideration has'been given in BSAP analyses.
8.
The maximum stresses, as given in the Bechtel reanalysis report, in the radial and hoop direction are not really the maximum stresses in the foundation mat. The maximum stresses should be the principal stresses in some other directions.
Indicate how the maximum prir.cipal stresses are considered.
9.
Provide the thermal stresses resulting from the thermal loads for both service load conditions and the factored load conditions.
- 10. All computer codes used in the reanalysir will require verification unless they have been properly documented or referenced either in BC-TOP-5 or the Wolf Creek PSAR.
The verification information needed is as follows:
(a) Flow diagram of program.
(b) Technical bases for program, i.e., the theory used to develop program.
(c) Test problems - one of the following:
(i)
Results of test problems compared to similar programs independently written and recognized in the public domain.
(ii) Results of test problems compared to closed form solutions or from accepted experimental tests or to analytical results published in the literature.
Provide the above information.
313 07 6 M l@