ML19258B549
| ML19258B549 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1982 |
| From: | GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053D680 | List:
|
| References | |
| 791E406TY, NUDOCS 8305020117 | |
| Download: ML19258B549 (1) | |
Text
Q Q
h?
F WAY 12 BS3 (O
HEMORA!DUM FOR: George Lear,
?cf Structural a.'d Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering THROUGH:
David Jeng, Section A Leader Structural Engineering Section Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineerirg FROM:
Romuald E. Lipinski, Section A Structural Engineer'.ng Section Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Enginetring
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT,
SUMMARY
FOR IIHMER MAIN STEAM PIPING AUDIT
Reference:
Mcmorandum from D. G. Eisenhut to R. F. Warnick, dated February 25, 1983
Background
This report surmarizes the evaluation findings of the SGEB with respect to its technical assistance to Region IV regarding the acceptability of the seismic analysis and design of the turbine building at Zimer Nuclear Station.
Through the re terence, NRR transmitted to R III the sumary of the audits conducted previously. As a result of those audits the staff requested additional information as described in the enclosure to the reference in order to complete the review.
On 11 arch 28 and 29,1983, the staf f (R III, R IV, SGEB and MEB) met aga'n with Sargent and Lundy at their offices to discuss their responses to the questions asked by the liRC staff during and as a result of the previous metings.
Enclosed is the surnary of the SGED review of the applicant's responses.
The item numbers identified in the enclosure refer to the list contained in the enclosure to the referenced memorandum.
CONTACT:
R. E. Lipinski, SGEB X28428 0305200117 030512 CF
/. DOCK G5000358 CF omer) sunuAue)
DATE)
NRC FORM r.18 (10 8D) NRCM C24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam wn -
George Lear Based on the infomation presented by the applicant, pending review of the confirmatory analyses described in 11.4, and 11.5 of the enclosure, the staff concluded that the turbine building structural elements have been adequately designed to resist the seismic loads (SSE) in combination with other loads such as live and dead loads which might occur simultaneously.
There are two items which remain open, namely, the final check of masonry walls and the additional analysis ot main steam pipe support.
Detailed recomendation regarding resolution of these items is contained in the enclosure.
Romuald E. Lipinski Structural Engineering Section A Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
R. Vollmer J. Knight R. Bosnak D. Jeng D. Tereo L. Kintner D. Hunter, RIII C. Hale, RIV P. Sears, RIV D. Chamberlain, RIV
- 7 DE:SGEB DE:SGE
/"
omer) EIpisi h..E".6TET"
" ~
' ~ "
" ' " ' ' " ~ " " "
"""^" "
suanwe >
..S.U...M. 8. 3.........
... 5. //,7. 4.. 8. 3......
oncy une ronu sia cia sa> uncu c24a OFFICIAL RECORD COPY umm u,,,
4 g "'Cg UNITED STATES
[5 '},s..- f "g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+
{, y n^smNGTow. o. c. :osss
.5
,,, :: ~,p PAY 121993 MEMORANDUM FOR:
George Lear, Chief Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering l
THROUGH:
David Jeng, Section A Leader h Structural Engineering Sectionv Structural and Geotechnical Engine. ring Branch Division of Engineering FROM:
Romuald E. Lipinski, Section A Structural Engineering Section Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT,
SUMMARY
FOR ZIMMER MAIN STE44 PIPING AUDIT
Reference:
Memorandum from D. G. Eisenhut to R. F. Warnick, dated February 25, 1983
===.
Background===
This report sunmarizes the evaluation findings of the SGEB with respect to its technical assistance to Region IV regarding the acceptability of the seismic analysis and design.of the turbine building at Zimmer Nuclear Station.
Through the reference, NRR transmitted to R 111 the summary of the audits conducted previously. As a result of those audits the staff requested additional information as described in the enclosure to the reference in order to complete the review.
On March 28 and 29,1983, the staff (R III, R IV, SGEB and MEB) met again with Sargent and Lundy at their offices to discuss their responses to the questions asked by the NRC staff during and as a result of the previous meetings.
Enclosed is the summary of the SGEB review of the applicant's responses.
The item numbers identified in the enclosure refer to the list contained in the enclosure to the referenced memorandum.
CONTACT:
R. E. Lipinski, SGEB X28428 e
i George Lear Based on the information presented by the applicant, pending review of the confirmatory analyses described in 11.4, and 11.5 of the enclosure, the stcff concluded that the turbir.e building structural elements have been adequately designed to resist the seismic loads (SSE) in combination with other loads such as live and dead loads which might occur simultaneously.
There are two items which remain open, namely, the final check of masonry walls and the coditional analysis of main steam pipe support.
Detailed recommendation regarding resolution of these items is contained in the enclosure.
MM s
e Romuald E. Lipinski Structural Engineering Section A Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Brcnch Division of Engineering
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
R. Vollmer J. Knight R. Bosnak D. Jeng D. Tereo L. Kintner D. Hunter, RIII C. Hale, RIV P. Sears, RIV D. Chamberlain, RIV
EHCLOSURE Evaluation of Open Items of the Audit for lurnine Building at Zimmer Nuclear Plant I.
1.
Floor Response Spectra Used for Analysis of Piping The response spectra at various floor elevations used fo-subsystem assessment were generated by Lie time history analysis. Torsional and trans'ati nal responses ware included through consideration of three degrees of freedom -
two horizontal translations and one rotation about the vertical axis for each slab.
In view of the fact that for design of structures the applicant used the fixed-base modeling approach, whereas, the design of piping was based on soil-structure interaction analysis with finite element method, the staff requested that the floor response spectra obtained by the finite eiement method be compared with those resulting from the elastic half space method, to ascertain that the appropriate ficor response spectra were used for analysis of.
piping.
The staff was informed that the me. 3dology used to develop the response soectra for structures and equipment located in the turbine building was the same as that for other Category I structures.
Since those methods have been reviewed end approved in the context of review of the FSAR, the response spectra. presented by the licensee have been found to be acceptable.
I.
2.
Calculations and Drawings for Shear Walls The staff reviewed the drawings pertinent to the subject shear walls.
The loads utilized in design of the walls included dynamic soil pressure, dynamic water pressure, static soil and water pressures and horizontal seismic loeds. The analysis incorporated a combination of shear and bending in two horizontal directions which have been combined by the square-root-of-the-sum-of-squares (SRSS).
The vertical component of the seismic load, has been found to be insignificant and has been neglected.
The shears and moments were compared to their allowable values and added absolutely. The interaction between in-plane and out of plane shears and moments have been calculated by the SRSS method. The staff found that the method of analysis and design of the shear walls is acceptable.
e
e
/
, I.
3.
The Effect of Accidental Torsion The applicant provided the additional analysis whereby the effect of an additional eccentricity of 5 percent times building dimension en shear wall forces was assessed. The staff reviewed the method used by the applicant and found that it is acceptable.
Results of the additional analysis indicated that the effects of accidental torsion can vary ranging from 1.7 percent for the east wall to 11 percent for the west wall. These additional increases in shear wall forces would have a minimal effect on the stresses obtained by combining the in-plane and out-of-plane stresses due to bending.
I.
4.
D_esien Calculations for a Beam, Slab and Column II.
2.
Typical calculations for the interior structures between the main floor and the foundation mat, (slab, beam and a column) have been reviewed by the staff.
The slab and the beam have been designed for the combined loading of dead load, cable trays, piping and SSE. The seismic accelerations have been -
obtained using a fixed base model analysis with 7 percent damping, which is in accordance with the requiremente of the Regulatory Guide 1.61.
The design moments have been calculated using coefficients from.the ACI-318 Code. The calculations indicate that there is an ample margin between the capacity of the slab and the design moments calculated from imposed loads.
The typical column which was reviewad by the staff, designated as T6, has been designeu ; sing computer code STRUDL which has been used also for ' sign of other Category I structures. The input into the e < cuter program consisted of the dead load, live load and seismi: load (SSE). The printout of the STRUDL program was used as an input for the TEMCO computer code and consisted of the axial load and bending moments about two orthogonal axes. The staff reviewed the results of the column analysis and concluded that the stresses in concrete (1210 psi vs.
allowable 3000 psi) and steel reinforcing (1.88 ksi vs. 60 ksi) are acceptably low.
On that basis the staff considers this item to be resolved.
W t
. I.
5.
f;fjecuentes of Failure of Crane Supports II.
1.
As indicated in the Reference, the applicant has been requests" to investigate the consequences of failure of supports of the turbine building crrne.
During the audit the applicant demonstrated that the crane supports are capable of supporting the trane together with the operating load of 24 tons during a SSE condition.
The applicant informed the staff that another analysis will be performed to determine the maximum load which can be lifted safely during an SSE event.
Stresses of the trane and of the crane supporting structure will not exceed those allowed in the Standard Review '/lan Section 3.8.4.
On the basis of the applicant's coanitment the staff concluded that this item has been resolved.
II.
3.
Desian of Foundation Mat Since the last meeting the applicant reanalyzed the foundation mat using the loads obtained by the methods employed for other Category I' structures. These loads consisted of a combirttion of dead load, live load end seismic load (SSE).
The SSE icad was obtained from the seismic analysis which was performed in connection with design of other Category I structures.
The mat was analyzed using the finite element.. method and the SLSAP computer program.
The calculations and the results presented by the applicant indicate that there is a sufficient margin between the design bending moments and the bending moment corresponding to the capacity of the mat. The staff, therefore, concluded that the design.of th foundation mat is acceptable and this item is resolved.
II.
4 Simplified Seismic Analysis of Turbine Foundation Since some of the main steam line supports are located so that one leg rests on a ficar slab and the other on turbine foundation the staff requested that the applicant analyze the turbine foundation for seismic loads in order to calculate the maximum displacement of the main steam line support resting on turbine foundation relative to the other leg resting on the floor sla.b. The analysis was performed using a simplified, single degree of freedom, fixed base mathematical model for the turbine foundation. This displacement was used to analyze the adequacy of the pipe
i
_4_
support under investigation.
The anelysis of the pipe support was performed taking into con,ideration the combined displacement of the floor slab and that of the turbine foundation and in accordance with the American' Institute of Steel Construction Specifications (AISC).
The analysis was perfromed using STRUDL Il computer code.
The staff reviewed the information received from the pplicant and requested that an additional analysir ha performed using different computer input to assure adequate conservatism of design of the pipe supports.
By letter of May 3,1983, the applicant committed to perform the additional analysis and submit it for review by the staff and provide any modifications as required by the analysis. This additional information is expected to be received by May 13, 1983.
In view of the commitment by the applicant the staff considers that this item has been resolved pending satisfactory review of the additional information described above.
II.
5.
Safety Related Masonry Walls The applicant identified seven masonry walls located in the.
vicinity of the main steam line and reassessed them in accordance with the provisions of the "SGEB Criteria for Safety Related Masonry Wall Evaluation", Revision 1, dated July 1981. The staff has been informed that the walls have adequate strength to prevent failure which could damage the main steam line.
Furthermore, the applicant will verify in the field the actual attachment loads and the final assessment _ of the structural acequacy cf the walls will be made in the context of response to IE Bulletin 80-11.
NRC staff will follow up this item with regard to the applicant's analytical evaluation of the walls and the QA/QC program which will be reviewed by Region III staff.
II.
6.
52e Trip Report by the MEB Staff, dated April 7, 1983 and 7 Conclusions Based on the information presented by the applicant the staff concluded. that, except for the design adequacy of masonry walls which will be addressed separately from this evaluation, the turbine building structural elements have been adequately designed to resist the seismic loads (SSE) in combination with other loads such as live and dead loads which might occur simultaneously. The turbine building is classified as a non-Category I structure and the reason for which it has been reassessed is to ascertain that its failure would not cause an unacceptable damage to the main steam liro.
S
W
, Although the loads and load ccmbinations used in the building design differ from those which have been used in Category I structures, since the turbine building is integrally connected to the auxiliary building ~(Category I),
the seismic model included also the turbine building. Thus the reassessment of the turbine building included seismic loads (S3E) obtained by the same methods as those which have been used for Category I structures.
Structural adequacy of masonry walls and that of the pipe supports remain open items.
The applicant has committed, in a letter from E. A Borgman to L. L. Kintner, dated March 31, 1983, to verify the actual attachments in the field and perform a final check to ensure the adequacy of the walls, with respect to the SGEB Criteria for Masonry Walls Evaluation.
As for pipe supports, as it has been pointed out, the applicant has committed to reanalyze the pipe supports with the modified computer input and provide any fixes that may be required.
We
- n e
O e