ML19281A348
| ML19281A348 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000502 |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1979 |
| From: | Parr O Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Burstein S WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903120133 | |
| Download: ML19281A348 (13) | |
Text
.
- j UNITED STATES 3%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
e, %('
URO WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s, ~ p/
FEB 161979 Docket No. STN 50-502 Mr. Sol Burstein Executive Vice President Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Street Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
Dear Mr. Burstein:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE HAVEN NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 1 As a result of our review of the Haven 1 Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, we find that we need additional information to continue our evaluation.
The specific information requested is in the areas of materials engineering, structural engineering, and hyd alogy, and is listed in the Enclosure.
Two questions in structural engineering (130.25 and 130.26) are staff positions that are classified as Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Category IV matters, which should have been addressed in our Qualification Review letter to you, dated May 26, 1978.
These two matters will be evaluated in the same manner as Qualification Review Items D.8 through D.26.
Our review schedule is based on the assumption that the additional in-formation requested will be available for our review by April 2,1979.
If you cannot meet this date, please inform us within seven days after receipt of this letter so that we may consider the need to revise our review schedule.
Please contact us if you desire any discussion or clarification of the Enclosure.
Sincerely, ar ief s
Light Water Reactors Branch No. 3 Division of Project Management
Enclosure:
As Stated cc w/enclosare:
See next page 7903120133
Mr. Sol Burstein FEB 161979 cc:
Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Mr. William Charles Hanley Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trow 6 ridge President, Safe H4 yen Ltd.
i.,,
1800 M Street, N. W.
P. O. Box 40 Washington, D. C.
20036 Kohler, Wiscohs.in 53044 Robert H. Gorske, Esq.
Mr. Thomas Gala:en General Counsel fiorthern Thunder Wisconsin Electric Power Company Box 334 780 florth Water Street Turtle Lake, Wiscansin 5488 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 A. William Finke, Esq.
Senior Attorney Wisconsin Electric Power Company 331 West Michigan Street Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 Thomas A. Lockyear, Esq.
Assistant Chief Counsel Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Hill Farms State Office Building 4802 Sheboygan Avenue Madison, Wisconsin 53702 Mr. Richard L. Prosise Bureau of Legal Services Department of Natural Resources Box 7921 Madison, Wisconsin 53707 David Beckwith, Esq.
Foley & Lardner 777 East Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 e
}z Q QeL
&m W
\\
i,-
EflCLOSURE I RE0 VEST FOR ADDITIOlAL IrlFORMATIO1 PART I - WISC0?lSIlI UTILITIES PROJECT PSAR
12J.0 MATERIALS ENGINEERING BRANClk - MATERIALS INTEGRITY SECTION 121.12 In response to Question 121.7, you reference Topical Rep. ort (5.2)
WCAP-9292 (" Dynamic Fracture Toughness of ASME SA508 Class 2a and SA533 Grade A Class 2 Base and Heat Affected Zone Material and Applicable Weld Metals" - March 1978).
Review of this topical report has rot yet been completed by the staff.
It should be noted, that if this topical report is found to be acceptable, it will only satisfy the generic requirements of Appendix G of 10 CFR Part 50.
This is, the adequacy of the subject materials to be described by the KIR curve of Appendix G of the ASME Code will have been demonstrated; however, the specific materials to be used in the Haven Nuclear Plant must meet all the fracture toughness requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G.
Therefore, provide a commitment that this infor-mation will be supplied in the Haven FSAR.
e
130.0 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH 130.25 For the design of Seismic Category I concrete structures against (3.5.4) tornado missiles, it-is the staff's position that the wall and (RSP)."
roof thicknesses should be in accordance with those indicate'd' in Attachment 1 for the applicable tornado region.
(TornPo regions are described in Regulatory Guide 1.76.) Therefo.e, describe the extent to which.your design will meet this position.
The staff notes, that the minimum wall and roof thickness requirements are based on the missile spectrum specified in Table 3.5.2-1 of the WUP PSAR.
On other applications, the staff has accepted an alternate missile spectrum which results in decreased wall thicknesses, but possibly increased rein-forcing steel requirements.
170.26 The staff has developed criteria with respect to ductility of (3.5.4) reinforced concrete and steel structural elements subjected to (RSP) impactive or impulsive loads as shown in Attachment 2.
Your comitment to meet these criteria should be provided in addition to what is presented in Section 3.5.4 of the WUP PSAR.
130.27 It is noted that the soil-structure interaction for Seismic (3.7.1.6)
Category I structures founded on soil or soil backfill has been (3.7.2.5) evaluated by the finite element method.
It is the staff's (RSP) position, that the conventional method of lumped mass model, coupled by soil spring and dashpot, also be evaluated for these structures and that the floor response spectra used in the design, envelopes the response spectra obtai.ied by these two methods. Therefore, provide a commitment that your final design of these structures will incorporate this position.
130.28 In your description of the Seismic Systems Analysis, you do (3.7.2) not address the effects of the failure of Non-Category I structures on Category I structures.
Indicate, that all Non-Category I structures are designed such that:
(1) The collapse of a Non-Category I structure will not strike a Category I structure, or (2)
Collapse of a Non-Category I structure will not impair the integrity of the impacted Category I structure, or (3)
Non-Category I structures are designed and analyzed to Category I standards.
130.29 In response to Qualification Review item D.29, you indicate (3.8.3) that ACI-349-76 is the appropriate industry standard to use in (3.8.4) the design and construction of concrete structures other than (RSP) the concrete containment.
Through Regulatory Guide 1.142, the staff has endorsed the use of ACI-349-76 with a number of exceptions.
Therefore, it is the staff's position, that ACI-
~349-76 may be used if the regulatory position delineated in Regulatory Guide 1.142 is complied with.
\\
\\
12J.0 MATERIALS ENGINEERING BRANCH - MATERIALS INTEGRITY SECTION 121.12 In response to Question 121.7, you reference Topical Rep. ort (5.2)
WCAP-9292 (" Dynamic Fracture Toughness of ASME SA508 Class 2a and SA533 Grade A Class 2 Base and Heat Affected Zone Material and Applicable Weld Metals" - March 1978).
Review of this topical report has rot yet been completed by the staff.
It should be noted, that if this topical report is found to be acceptable, it will only satisfy the generic requirements of Appendix G of 10 CFR Part 50.
This is, the adequacy of the curve af Appendix subject materials to be described by the KIR G of the ASME Code will have been demonstrated; however, the specific materials to be used in the Haven Nuclear Plant must meet all the fracture toughness requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G.
Therefore, provide a commitment that this infor-mation will be supplied in the Haven FSAR.
e
130.30 In your response to Qualification Review item D.41, you indicate (3.8.4) that asymmetric loads on components within containment subcompart-ments are under investigation.
Indicate if these loads are considered in the structural design of subcompartments.
Specifically, describe the analytical and design techniques" -
utilized to determine the effect of such loads on the shjeld wall surrounding the reactor vessel and indicate how these pressurizatior 'oads are combined with other coincident loads including tha seismic loads.
GM9 9
\\
ATTACHMENT 1 STRUCTURAL ENGIMEERINr. BDANCH POSITION REOUIREMENTS FOR TORNADO MISSILE PROTECTION As an interim rea:h:re the miniaw concrete val'1 and roof thicknesses for torncdo missile protection will be as follcus:
Usli Thickness Rcof Thickness Concrete Strength (psi)
(frches)
(irches) 3000 27 24 Region I 4000 24 21 5000 21 13 6
2000 24 21 Region II 4000 21 18 5000 19 16 3000 21 18 Region III 4000 18 16 5000 16 14 These thicknesses are for protection against local effcc s only.
Designers r..ust establish independently the thickness reo.uircrents for overall structt.ral response.
Reinforcing steel should satisfy the provisions of Appendix C, ACI 349 (that is,.2'; mininum, El:EF).
2.
e
'k.
ATTACHMENT 2 DUCTILITY OF REINFORCE 0 CONCRETI AND STEEL STRUCTURAL Et.EMENTS SUBJECTED TO IMPACTIVE OR IMPULSIVE L0A05 i
INTRODUCTION In the evaluation of overall response of reinforced concrete structural elements (e.g., missile barriers, columns, slabs, etc.) subjected to impactive or impulsive loads, such as impacts due to missiles, assumption on non-linear re2ponse (i.e., ductility ratios greater than unity) of the structural elements is generally acceptable cravided that the safety functions of the structural elements and those of safety-related systems and ccmoonents supoorted or pro'tected by the elements are mainained.
The following surmiari:es specific SEB interin positions for review and acceptance of ductility ratios for reinforced concrete and steel structural elements subjected to impactive and impulsive loads.
SPECIFIC POSITIONS 1.
REINFORCED CONCRETE MEMBERS 1.1 For beams, slabs, and walls where flexure controls design, the pemissible ductility ratio ( u ) under impactive and impulsive loads should be taken as 0.05 for o-o'
>_.005
=
u o
o' 10 for o-o'
<_.005 u
=
where p and o'are the ratios of tensile and compressive reinforcing as defined in ACI-318-71 Code.
1.2 If use of a ductility ratio greater than 10 (i.e.,
u> 10,0 )
is recuired to demonstrate design adequacy of structural elements against impactive or impuisive loads, e.g., missile impact, such a usage should be identified in the plant SAR.
Information justifying the use of this relatively high dacti~ity value shall be provided for SEB staff review.
6
2-
.r
'I.3 For beam-columns, walls, and slabs carrying axial compression
~
loads and subject to impulsive or impactive loads oroducing flexure, the permissible ductility ratio in flexure should be as follows:
(a)
When compression controls the design, as defined by an interaction diagram, the permissible ductility ratio shall be 1.3.
(b)
When the compression loads does not exceed.0.l fc Ag or =. e-third of that which.would produce balanced conditions, which-ever is smaller, the permissible ductility ratio can be as given in Section 1.1.
(c) The pennissible dutility ratic shall vary linearly frcm 1.3 to that given in Section 1.1 for conditions between those specified in (a) and (b).
(See Fig 1.)
1.4 For structural elements resisting axial compressive impulsive or imoactive loads only, without flexure, the pennissible axial ductility ratio shall be 1.3.
1.5 For shear carried by concrete only u = 1.0 For shear carried by concrete and stirrups or bent bars
= 1.3 u
For shear carried entirely by stirrups u
= 3.0 2.0 STRUCTURAL STEELFEFBERS 2.1 For flexure compression and shear u
= 10. 0 2.2 For colunns with slenderness ratio (1/r) equal or less than 20 u
- 1.3 e
'e
\\
" t-
~'
where 1 = effective length of the member e = the least radius of gyration For columns with sienderness ratio greater than 20 u = 1.0 2.3 For members subjected to tension u =.5 where cu= uniform ultimate strain of the material cY = strain at yield of material Se e
,=
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL It:FORMATI0il PART II - HAVEil SITE ADDE;1DUM
~
130.0 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH 130.31 In Section 3.8.5.1 and on Figure 3.8.1 of the Haven Site (3.8.5)
Addendum, it is indicated that the Auxiliary Building will be rock founded by using one of the following construction techniques:
(1) Shear walls extending from rock to the base mat of'the Auxiliary Building with intermediate soil fill between the shear walls, or (2) Mass concrete placed on the rock surface and extending to the base mat of the Auxiliary Building, or (3)
Soil cement placed on the rock surface and extending to the base mat of the Auxiliary Building.
It is also indicated that the area between the Reactor Containment wall and the limits of excavation is back filled with compacted granular material to the foundation elevation of the Fuel Building, the No. 1 Main Steam Value House and to finish grade in other areas.
In consideration of the various construction techniques which are to be employed in the Haven Project, it is requested that the following information be provided:
(1)
If soil fill, whether compacted granular material or any other material is used, what is the function or requirement of such soil fill?
Indicate if the lateral pressure exerted on the containment wall is considered in the design of the containment structure.
(2)
If mass concrete is used, is such concrete considered as structural concrete and what are the requirements and quality control of such concrete?
(3)
If soil cement is used, what are the requirements and quality control of such a foundation material?
(4)
In making the seismic analysis for the structures involved, what range of material properties is considered?
130.32 It is noted, that the containment base mat is site dependent.
(3.8.5)
The WUP PSAR design of the containment base mat has a thickness of 10 ft. and for the Haven site, it has a thickness of 15 ft.
With such a difference in the thickness of the foundation mat, there should be some effect on the degree of restraint at the junction of the cylinder and the mat.
Describe how this change effects your design approach.
Also, indicate how the loads included in all the load categories listed in Sections 3.8.1.3 and 3.8.3.3 can affect the design of the base mat, as you state in Section 3.8.5.3.
130.33 In Section 3.8 of the Haven Site Addendum, the strength of concrete (3.8) for various Seismic Category I structures should be provided, since there is no mention of concrete strength in the WUP PSAR.
321.0 HYDROLOGY / METEOROLOGY BRANCH - HYDROLOGY SECTION 321.7 There is some confusion with the design basis low water levels (2.4.11) for service water requirements.
Section 2.4.11.5 states that
- y the service water intakes and conduits are designed to satisfy plant requirements at the minimum recorded low mean water level of 576.6 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL).
Section 2.4.11.2 stites that the drawdown due to wind would be about 2 feet, and if superimposed on the recorded mean low water, would yield an elevation of 574.59 feet MSL.
State whether or not the safety-related systems are designed for the low water level due to wind setdown, and if not, what provisions are made for this design basis condition.
312.8 The water levels presented on Figure 9.2.1-4 do not correspond (9.2.5) to those in Section 2.4.
For example, if plant grade of 610 (2.4) feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) corresponds to 0 feet reference, than the lowest recorded water level of 576.6 feet MSL should correspond to -33.4 feet, not -45 feet as stated on Figure 9.2.1-4.
Explain this inconsistency.
In addition, Figure 9.2.1-4 should be amended to include, (1) the maximum low water level due to wind setdown, and (2) the minimum water level necessary for correct operation of the safety-related pumps.
m