ML19316A203

COL Docs - FW: LAR-19-019: Draft to Support Nov. 21, 2019 Pre-submittal Meeting

ML19316A203
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	11/12/2019
From:	NRC
To:	NRC/NRR/DNRL
References
Download: ML19316A203 (73)

Text

From: Habib, Donald Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 8:22 AM To: Vogtle PEmails

Subject:

FW: LAR-19-019: Draft to Support Nov. 21, 2019 Pre-submittal Meeting Attachments: LAR-19-019 draft for PSM.pdf From: Humphrey, Mark Phillips <MPHUMPHR@southernco.com>

Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 2:49 PM To: Habib, Donald <Donald.Habib@nrc.gov>; Santos, Cayetano <Cayetano.Santos@nrc.gov>

Cc: Grant, Eddie <X2EDGRAN@SOUTHERNCO.COM>; Chamberlain, Amy Christine

<ACCHAMBE@southernco.com>; Agee, Stephanie Y. <SYAGEE@southernco.com>; Arafeh, Yasmeen N.

<YNARAFEH@southernco.com>; Patel, Chandu <Chandu.Patel@nrc.gov>; Redd, Jason P.

<JPREDD@southernco.com>; Wu, Si <wu1s@westinghouse.com>; Harper, Zachary S

<harperzs@westinghouse.com>

Subject:

[External_Sender] LAR-19-019: Draft to Support Nov. 21, 2019 Pre-submittal Meeting Tanny and Don-As communicated by Yasmeen Arafeh in her email dated Nov. 5, 2019, SNC is proposing a pre-submittal meeting (PSM) regarding VEGP Units 3 and 4 LAR-19-019 [Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis] on Nov. 21, 2019. Please confirm this date is acceptable to the Staff.

SNC is providing the attached draft LAR enclosures for the Staffs consideration to support a 2-week review in advance of the proposed PSM. SNC plans to submit LAR-19-019 on Dec. 17, 2019 following the proposed PSM.

SNC appreciates the opportunity to discuss the draft LAR with the Staff on Nov. 21, 2019, if that date is acceptable. Please contact me with any questions you may have.

Respectfully, Mark P. Humphrey Licensing Supervisor Nuclear Development Southern Nuclear 3535 Colonnade Parkway Birmingham, AL 35243 O: 205.992.6452 C: 205.215.5152 mphumphr@southernco.com

Hearing Identifier: Vogtle_COL_Docs_Public Email Number: 498 Mail Envelope Properties (BN7PR09MB254888F70B8AD234AEB15D5B97770)

Subject:

FW: LAR-19-019: Draft to Support Nov. 21, 2019 Pre-submittal Meeting Sent Date: 11/12/2019 8:21:30 AM Received Date: 11/12/2019 8:21:42 AM From: Habib, Donald Created By: Donald.Habib@nrc.gov Recipients:

"Vogtle PEmails" <Vogtle.PEmails@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: BN7PR09MB2548.namprd09.prod.outlook.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1664 11/12/2019 8:21:42 AM image001.gif 2058 LAR-19-019 draft for PSM.pdf 1890747 Options Priority: Normal Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Southern Nuclear Operating Company ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 1 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP)

VEGP) Units 3 and 4 T

AF Request for License nse Amendment Rega Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Basis (LAR-19-019)

(LAR L -199-01 0

Regarding Civil Structural Design Licensing ons Inputs to C DR (This Enclosure consists of 37 pages, including this cover page)

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019)

Table of Contents

1.

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION

2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION

4. REGULATORY EVALUATION 4.1. Applicable Regulatory Requirements/Criteria 4.2. Precedent 4.3. Significant Hazards Consideration 5.

4.4. Conclusions ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS S

T

6. REFERENCES AF DR Page 2 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019)

Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.98(c) and in accordance with 10 CFR 50.90, Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) hereby requests an amendment to Combined License (COL) Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, respectively.

1.

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION The proposed changes would revise the accidental air and surface temperatures for the main steam isolation valve (MSIV) compartments, accident thermal loads for the exterior walls below grade and basemat in the auxiliary building, and normal thermal loads for the passive containment cooling system (PCS) tank in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The proposed changed impact UFSAR Tier 2 and Tier 2* information in UFSAR Subsection S 3H.3.3, and Tables 3.8.5-3, 3H.5-1, 3H.5-2, 3H.5-3, 3H.5-4 3H.5-5, 3H.5-6, 3H.5-7, 3H.5-8, 7, 3H.5 3H 3H.5-9, 3H.5-11, 3H.5-12, and 3H.5-15.

This enclosure requests approval of the license amendment ent necessary to implement imp this change.

2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION Design Function Related to the Activity T

postulated internal or external AF As described in COL Appendix C, Section afety-afet tion ion 3.3, the nuclear containment and the shield and auxiliaryy buildings.

structures are to provide support, protection, mechanical and electrical equipment nt located in the nuclear provide protection for the safety-related ated equipment y related nuc uildings. The primary island structures include the prima functions of the nuclear island separation for the seismic Category I ion, and sepa nuclea island. The nuclear island structures are structurally designed to meett seismic Category I requirements.

req The nuclear island structures equipme against the consequences of either a nal event. The nuclear island structures are designed to withstand the D

effects of natural phenomena without loss of capability R

mena such as hurricanes, capability to perform safety functions.

steel containment vessel buildings. The containment, basemat which is embedded below functions The be hurrican ity to perform safety fu to withstand the effects ects of postulated inte floods, tornados, tsunamis, and earthquakes functions. The nuclear island structures are designed internal events such as fires and flooding without loss of T nuclear island structures include the containment (the el and the containment cco internal structures) and the shield and auxiliary t, shield and auxiliary buildings are structurally integrated on a common the finished plant grade level.

The shield building is the structure that surrounds the containment vessel. The shield building cylinder is a composite steel and concrete (SC) structure except for the portion surrounded by the auxiliary building, which is reinforced concrete (RC). During normal operations, a primary function of the shield building is to provide shielding of the containment vessel and the radioactive systems and components located in the containment vessel. The shield building, in conjunction with the internal structures of the containment, provides the required shielding for the reactor coolant system and the other radioactive systems and components housed in the containment. The shield building also protects the containment vessel from external events. The shield building protects the containment vessel and the reactor coolant system from the effects of tornadoes and tornado produced missiles. The shield building protects the containment vessel and the reactor coolant system from external events, such as aircraft impact or tornado missile impact.

The shield building is an integral part of the passive containment cooling system. The passive containment cooling system air baffle is located in the upper annulus area. It is attached to the Page 3 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019) cylindrical section of the containment vessel. The air inlets in the shield building provide the air flow for the passive containment cooling system. The passive containment cooling water storage tank (PCCWST), located on the roof of the shield building, provides water for external cooling of the containment.

The auxiliary building is RC and houses the safety-related mechanical and electrical equipment located outside the containment and shield buildings. The primary function of the auxiliary building is to provide protection and separation for the seismic Category I mechanical and electrical equipment located outside the containment building. The auxiliary building provides protection for the safety-related equipment against the consequences of either a postulated internal or external event. The auxiliary building also provides shielding for the radioactive cti equipment and piping that is housed within the building.

The auxiliary building is a seismic Category I reinforced concrete structure. It shares a common oncrete structure st basemat with the containment building and the shield d building.

building bu . The auxiliary auxil building wraps around approximately 70 percent of the circumference T ce of the shield building structural walls of the auxiliary building are structurally shield building.

building. Floor slabs and the buildi rally connected to the cylindrical section of the AF As identified in UFSAR subsection 6.2.2, the thermal energy from the containment serves as the means of transferring resulting in a significant increase containment cooling system also he PCS P

function is to reduce the containment temperature accident (LOCA) or main steam line break engineered safety features system. Its is an en engineer mperature and press emperature MSLB) accident iinside the containment by removing reak (MSLB) nt atmosphere.

pressure pre following a loss of coolant passive containment cooling system also atmosphere. The pas ng heat to the safety-related safety-re sa rease in containmen ultimate heat sink for other events containment pressure and temperature. The passive so provides a source of safety-related makeup water to the spent D

fuel pool in the event of a prolonged loss of normal As identified in UFSAR R

containment cooling function.

unctio unction.

Background and Description ption of the Change 1 - Design Temperature t Activity norm spent fuel pool cooling.

6.2.2.2.3, the PCS tank is incorporated into the shield building R Subsection 6.2.2.2 structure above the containment vessel and is filled with demineralized water for the passive tur for Thermal Gradient tur The thermal loads are design basis loads in the AP1000 licensing basis for seismic Category I (SC-I) structures. The design temperatures (both normal and accident) for thermal gradient for the nuclear island critical sections are defined in UFSAR Table 3H.5-1.

Change 1A - PCS Tank Wall Normal Temperature There is an inconsistency of normal temperature in the PCS tank between the UFSAR Subsection 3H.3.3 & Table 3H.5-1 and other sections of the licensing basis. UFSAR Subsection 3H.3.3 identifies that the water in the PCS tank is assumed to be at 70°F when the outside air temperature is 115°F for normal thermal loading. Similarly, UFSAR Table 3H.5-1 specifies a PCS tank wall inside design temperature of 70°F and outside temperature of 115°F for determining the thermal gradient across the PCS tank walls.

However, the Technical Specifications show that the minimum PCS tank water temperature is 40°F and the maximum PCS water temperature is 120°F as identified in the Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.6.1. UFSAR Table 6.2.2-1, Passive Containment Cooling System Performance Parameters, also identifies that the Page 4 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019) minimum PCS tank water temperature is 40°F and the maximum water temperature is 120°F. The structural design of the PCS tank walls takes a conservative deterministic assumption to the maximum thermal gradient across the walls by using thermal gradient of 40°F (inside) / 115°F (outside) and 40°F (inside) / -40°F (outside). Therefore, the temperature for normal thermal loading in the PCS tank needs to be changed from 70°F to 40°F on the inside in UFSAR Subsection 3H.3.3 and Table 3H.5-1.

Change 1B - Auxiliary Building Exterior Walls Below Grade and Basemat Accidental Thermal UFSAR Table 3H.5-1 defines temperatures for the auxiliary building exterior walls below grade and basemat. There is an inconsistency of accident thermal loads for the exterior walls below grade and basemat in auxiliary building between twee UFSAR Table 3H.5-1 and tween UFSAR Table 3D.5-4, which identifies abnormal accident cident environment.

ciden envi As identified in UFSAR Table 3D.5-5, the accident environments nts are thet same sa as the abnormal environments for the auxiliary building rooms with exterior w walls below be grade. UFSAR below grade and basemat in auxiliary building.

T Table 3H.5-1 currently does not require considering 3D.5-5 define the abnormal and accident environments of equipment location and shows that dering accident thermal ng. However, UFSAR T therma ther in the exterior walls Table 3D.5-4 and Table vironment outside containment as a function at accident ent thermal th temperatures tem exist in auxiliary UFSAR Table 3D.5-1 and UFSAR UFSAR Tables 3D.5-4 and 3D.5 7 is 140°F for rooms with AF building rooms, including rooms next exterior walls below grade and ventilation and air-conditioning loss of AC power are 3D.5-5, 3D.5-re considered xt to exterior walls below AR Figures 1.2-4, nd basemat

-5, the governing gove ith exterior walls below b

ditioning (HVAC) or loss 1.2-5, 1.2--4, 1.2-1.2 1.2 belo grade and the basemat. Per

-5 and 1.2-6, the auxiliary building emat are in environmental env en Zones 2, 6 and 7. Per accident temperature in Zones 2, 6 and a

grade due to either a loss of heating, los of AC power. Since the loss of HVAC and lo nsidered events in the auxiliary building, the exterior walls below D

grade and basemat gradient as result R

Society of Heating, mat in auxiliary building ating, Refrigerating Therefore, UFSAR Refrigerat AR Table 3H of the below grade exterior buildin need to be designed for the accident thermal sult of those events. Fo outside temperature perature (below grade)

For the purposes of determining thermal gradients, an grade of 50°F is considered in accordance with America and Air- Conditioning Engineer (ASHRAE) requirements.

3H.5-1 needs to be updated to show accident temperature of 140°F on the inside of the below b grade exterior walls and basemat and 50°F on the outside er walls and basemat. In addition, since the temperatures defined in this row of UFSAR Table 3H.5-1 are specifically for the auxiliary building exterior walls below grade and basemat, it is proposed to add Auxiliary Building in the remark column of the table.

As result of the change of accident thermal gradient on exterior walls below grade and basemat in the auxiliary building, the governing load combinations and demands for the auxiliary building basemat critical sections identified in UFSAR Table 3.8.5-3, and for Wall 1 in UFSAR Tables 3H.5-2 and 3H.5-3 are impacted. The changes to basemat in UFSAR Table 3.8.5-3 are discussed in detail in Change 2A below. The changes to Wall 1 in UFSAR Tables 3H.5-2 and 3H.5-3 affecting Wall 1 are discussed in detail in Change 2B below.

Page 5 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019)

Change 2 - Critical Section Tables Update for Auxiliary Building Basemat, Concrete Walls, and Shield Building Roof UFSAR Section 3.8 and Appendix 3H list critical sections of SC-I structures in the nuclear island.

The critical section tables in the UFSAR show demands and/or capacities of the critical sections.

During AP1000 design certification, a thermal note was added to some of the critical section tables. The thermal note clarifies that the design of the critical section tables considered thermal loads even though the required reinforcement in the tables do not reflect values under combined seismic and normal thermal loads. The combination of seismic loads and normal/accident thermal loads were evaluated in the design calculations to confirm the design meet ACI 349-01 requirements. However, the critical section tables did not reflect demands under combined seismic and thermal when the AP1000 design was certified. As part of efforts of updating temperatures in UFSAR Table 3H.5-1 for structural design as discussed discu discusse in Change 1, the critical section tables for the walls and basemat are revisited and are proposed pro to remove the thermal note to show demands under combined seismic and thermal ermal loads.

hermal load The revised tables with inclusion of combined seismic and thermal load combinations inations provide quantification quant q of that load combination within the UFSAR to clearly demonstrate ACI 349-01 and UFSAR Table 3.8.4-2. The proposed T thermal note can also simplify the presentation of the trate compliance with load combinations in posed chang to the tables by removing the osed changes e critical section de designs in the licensing basis AF and can facilitate future understanding of how under the load combinations with inclusion and to delete the corresponding thermal ow the loads are applie update the critical section tables of auxiliary ary y building walls and sion off combined seism rmal note.

note.

n In addition to the inclusion of combined seismic and changes in the critical section a

n tables are also caused applied. Therefore, it is proposed to an basemat to reflect the demands seismic and thermal load combinations, thermal load combinations, the demand caus by refined meshing of local finite element D

models, localized detailing updated to match the latest R

UFSAR Table 3.8.5 g changes, test design for so 3.8.5-3 shows under load combinations ws the loca ations with thermal note (Note 6). T expanded load combinations. The capacities are also ges, and expand some of the critical sections as discussed below.

Change 2A - Basemat Critical Section Sec Table Update (Table 3.8.5-3) t required reinforcement and provided reinforcement in the basemat at two critical locations.

locat UFSAR Table 3.8.5-3 does not reflect the demands w seismic and thermal loads combined as identified in the The basemat is in the rooms which are subject to 140°F of accident thermal in the loss of AC power or loss of HVAC, and the basemat is exposed to soil/rock which has a temperature of 50°F. Therefore, the basemat is subject to accident thermal gradient. The combined seismic and thermal loads impact the demands of the basemat in UFSAR Table 3.8.5-3.

In addition to the combined seismic and thermal loads, the following changes in the design documents contribute to the demand changes in UFSAR Table 3.8.5-3:

• Updated basemat design based on the revised liftoff and basic stress analyses utilizing the updated nuclear island finite element model

• Update of top reinforcement clear cover due to construction requirements

• The current calculation has a criterion of keeping a minimum of 20% margin in the reinforcement design of the basemat. The revised design calculation only keeps the criteria of 20% margin to the reinforcement design at areas specified in UFSAR Page 6 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019)

Figure 3.8.5-3 and calculates minimum required reinforcement in rest of locations in accordance with ACI 349-01 to remove unnecessary conservatism.

Furthermore, the demands in current UFSAR Table 3.8.5-3 do not include a small portion of basemat (between column line L to 5' east of column line L and shield building to column line 9.2) as shown in UFSAR Figure 3.8.5-3 Sheets 5-7. However, the table does not identify this exception. Therefore, it is proposed to clarify this information through a note in the table. The proposed markup of UFSAR Table 3.8.5-3 is consistent with the scope of the current UFSAR Table 3.8.5-3, which does not include the small region of basemat.

Change 2B - Wall 1 Critical Section Table Update (Tabless 3H.5-2 3 and 3H.5-3)

There are two critical section tables for Wall 1 in the licensing ensing basis, ba UFSAR Tables 3H.5-2 and 3H.5-3. UFSAR Table 3H.5-2 for Wall 1 shows the the moments momen and forces in different m

segments along the height from EL. 66'-6" to 180'-0". 0". UFSAR Table 3H.5-3 identifies both the provided and required reinforcement in Wall 1 under various lload combinations c without AF seismic and thermal loads combined as identified required reinforcement in UFSAR Table 3H.5 UFSAR Table 3H.5-2. Wall 1 is an exterior dentified in the thermal 3H.5-3 rior wall and is Therefore, Wall 1 is subject to both normal no therma note (Note 2). The therm H.5-3 is calculated based ba on the demands in i next to the Spent Fuel Pool (SFP).

nd accident and ac thermal t loads. The combined 3H.5-3.

T seismic and thermal loads impact the documents contribute to the changes

• Change of accident he demands of Wall In addition to the combined seismic and thermal ther changes in values ident thermal for auxiliary ccident aux Wa 1 in UFSAR Tables 3H.5-2 and loads, lo the following changes in the design valu in UFSAR Tables 3H.5-2 and 3H.5-3:

building walls below grade from Not DR Required to defined

°F on the inside surface o 140°F wall, as discussed in Change

• The current Cha urren calculations urrent culations use combinat combin combined with thermal s

1B above and 50°F on the outside surface of the us the basic load combinations for SC-I structures as ed in UFSAR Tables 3.8.4-1 and 3.8.4-2. The updated calculations expand the basicic load combinations by considering the directionality of the seismic loads therm accident pressure, and PRHA loads. The expanded load combinationss were performed to document explicit quantification of the possible combinations and to simplify explanation for future reference.

• The current tables are based on calculations that divide the wall into segments to determine the required reinforcement shown by contour plots by means of a finite element analysis path operation. In some locations, localized regions of some walls were updated with refined meshing in the finite element analysis. The refined meshing was performed to simplify the assessment of peak demand from localized loading conditions. The updated calculations use design forces and moments taken from the global finite element model and calculate the required area of steel by considering the load combinations for each wall element, which provide more accurate results.

• The current calculations use a conservative representative thermal reduction factor. The updated calculations utilize a thermal reduction factor by elevation, considering reinforcement specific to each wall zone. The local thermal reduction factors better represent the level of cracking in the wall section and provide a more accurate thermal demand.

Page 7 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019)

Furthermore, as result of revised design calculations mentioned above, the required shear reinforcement in UFSAR Table 3H.5-3 is changed from Not Required (NR) to 0.17 in2/ft between EL. 100'-0" and EL. 135'-3". Accordingly, the shear reinforcement of #4@6"x6" is added to Wall 1 between EL. 100'-0" and EL. 135'-3". Since the current UFSAR Table 3H.5-3 shows that there is no shear reinforcement provided between EL. 100'-0" and EL.

135'-3", UFSAR Table 3H.5-3 is revised to show the provided shear reinforcement EL.

100'-0" and EL. 135'-3".

Change 2C - Wall 7.3 Critical Section Table Update (Tables 3H.5-4 and 3H.5-5)

There are two critical section tables for Wall 7.3 in the licensing basis, including UFSAR Tables 3H.5-4 and 3H.5-5. UFSAR Table 3H.5-4 for Walll 7.3 shows the moments and forces in different segments along the height from EL. 66'-6" 66'--6" to roof. UFSAR Table 3H.5-66' 5 for Wall 7.3 shows the required reinforcement under governing govern load combinations without seismic and thermal loads combined as identified ntified in the entified thermal note (Note 1) and th therm provided reinforcement. The required reinforcementment in UFSAR TableT 3H.5-5 is calculated based on the demands in UFSAR Table 3H.5-4.

T 5-4. Even though there ther is no thermal load on Wall 7.3, thermal loads are applied at otherr locations in the nuclear induced deformation in the nuclear island nuclea island, and the thermal nd can cause thermal stresses in Wall 7.3. The AF latest Wall 7.3 calculation includes the load combinations thermal loads. Therefore, UFSAR Tables 3H.5-4 load combinations and their results.

ults.

documents contribute to the changes in values

• The current calculations ther culations use the basic alculations bas ba comb 3H 4 and 3H.5-5 In addition to the combined seismic and thermal 3H with combined seismic and are revised to show those loads, the following changes in the design loa valu in UFSAR Tables 3H.5-4 and 3H.5-5:

load combinations for SC-I structures as DR defined in UFSAR combined combinations FSAR R Tables 3.8.4-the basic load combinations binations were performed combinations

• The current 3.8.4-1 3.8.4-1 and 3.8.4-2. The updated calculations expand combinatio by considering the directionality of the seismic loads ned with thermal, accident accid acc pressure, and PRHA loads. The expanded load perform to document explicit quantification of the possible ations and to simplify nt tables are determine the element analysis requ sim s explanation for future reference.

ar based on calculations that divide the wall into segments to he required reinforcement shown by contour plots by means of a finite sis path operation. In some locations, localized regions of some walls were updated with refined meshing in the finite element analysis. The refined meshing was performed to simplify the assessment of peak demand from localized loading conditions. The updated calculations use design forces and moments taken from the global finite element model and calculate the required area of steel by considering the load combinations for each wall element, which provide more accurate results.

• The current calculations use a conservative representative thermal reduction factor. The updated calculations utilize a thermal reduction factor by elevation, considering reinforcement specific to each wall zone. The local thermal reduction factors better represent the level of cracking in the wall section and provide a more accurate thermal demand.

• Change of concrete reinforcement cover from 1 1/2" to 2" to accommodate embedment plates Page 8 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019)

Furthermore, the current design of Wall 7.3 has T headed shear reinforcement of

1. 6@12"x12" between EL. 155'-6" and the roof. The corresponding provided area of reinforcement is 0.44 in2/ft and is larger than the required reinforcement of 0.38 in2/ft. The design proposes to change the #6@12"x12" T headed shear reinforcement #4@6"x6" conventional shear reinforcement between EL. 155'-6" and the roof to accommodate the construction need. The corresponding provided area of reinforcement in the revised design is 0.80 in2/ft. UFSAR Table 3H.5-5 currently shows the shear reinforcement is 0.44 in2/ft. Therefore, UFSAR Table 3H.5-5 is revised to show shear reinforcement area of 0.80 in2/ft between EL. 155'-6" and the roof.

Change 2D - Wall L Critical Section Table Update (Tabless 3H.5-6 3 and 3H.5-7)

There are two critical section tables for Wall L in the licensin licens licensing basis, including UFSAR Tables 3H.5-6 and 3H.5-7. UFSAR Table 3H.5-6 for Wall L shows the moments and forces in different segments along the height from EL. 117'-6" 7'--6" to 154'-2".

17' 154'-2". UFSAR Table 3H.5-7 15 for Wall L shows both the provided and required ired reinforcement reinforceme under un governing load AF combinations without seismic and thermal loads (Note 1). The required reinforcement in UFSAR ds combined as ident FSAR Table 3H.53H.5-7 demands in UFSAR Table 3H.5-6. Wall L is the east wall of the which is subject to high temperature during accident.

acciden The combined loads impact the demands of Wall L in UFSAR Tables 3H.5-63H co identified in the thermal note identifi

-7 iss calculated based on the th east MSIV compartment seismic and thermal and 3H.5-7.

T In addition to the combined seismic

• The current calculations defined in UFSARSAR ismic andd thermal loads documents can also impactt the values in UFSARUF ulations use the basic AR Tables 3.8.4 ba loads, load the following changes in the design Tables 3H.5-6 and 3H.5-7:

load combinations for SC-I structures as and 3.8.4-2. The updated calculations expand 3.8.4-1 an DR the basic load combined combinations ad combinations mbinations by considering d with thermal, accident combinations binations and to simplify

• The current determine e the required element analysis co the directionality of the seismic loads acciden pressure, and PRHA loads. The expanded load a

nations were performed perform to document explicit quantification of the possible simpli explanation for future reference.

rrent tables are based b on calculations that divide the wall into segments to require reinforcement shown by contour plots by means of a finite alysis p walls were updated path operation. In some locations, localized regions of some at with refined meshing in the finite element analysis. The refined meshing was performed to simplify the assessment of peak demand from localized loading conditions. The updated calculations use design forces and moments taken from the global finite element model and calculate the required area of steel by considering the load combinations for each wall element, which provide more accurate results.

• The current calculations use a conservative representative thermal reduction factor. The updated calculations utilize a thermal reduction factor by elevation, considering reinforcement specific to each wall zone. The local thermal reduction factors better represent the level of cracking in the wall section and provide a more accurate thermal demand.

• Change of concrete reinforcement cover from 1 1/2" to 2" to accommodate embedment plates

• Update of MSIV accident pressure and steam generator accident pressure as result of previous licensing amendment request LAR-17-028.

Page 9 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019)

Furthermore, the current design of Wall L has T headed shear reinforcement of

1. 3@12"x12" between EL. 135'-3" and EL. 154'-2". The corresponding provided area of reinforcement is 0.11 in2/ft and is larger than the required reinforcement of 0.01 in2/ft. As result of revised design calculations mentioned above, the required shear reinforcement is changed from 0.01 in2/ft to 0.13 in2/ft between EL. 135'-3" and EL. 154'-2". Therefore, the shear reinforcement is changed from #3@12"x12" T headed shear reinforcement to

1. 4@6"x6" conventional shear reinforcement between EL. 135'-3" and EL. 154'-2. The corresponding provided area of #4@6"x6" shear reinforcement in the revised design is 0.80 in2/ft. UFSAR Table 3H.5-7 currently shows the shear reinforcement is 0.11 in2/ft.

Therefore, UFSAR Table 3H.5-7 is revised to show shear reinforcement area of 0.80 in2/ft between EL. 135'-3" and EL. 154'-2.

Change 2E - Shield Building Roof Critical Section Table ble Up (T Update (Tables 3H.5-9 and 3H.5-15)

There are two critical section tables for the shield hield building roof ro in the licensing basis, AF including UFSAR Tables 3H.5-9 and 3H.5-15. UFSAR Table 3H.5-9 demands and capacities of the air inlet and combinations without seismic and thermal 2). UFSAR Table 3H.5-9 Sheet 3 and ombined as nd UFSAR Ta 3H.5-3H.5-9 Sheets 1-2c show the d tension ring of the shield al combined a identified capacities of the PCS tank exteriorr wall and conical roof sh building under load identifie in the thermal note (Note 3H.5-15 show the demands and Table 3H.5 ro ofo the shield building under load operation. The PCS tank in winter and atmosphere T

combinations with seismic and d normal rmal thermal combined.

structures are adjacent to the PCS tank and upper an water temperature of 40°F F and maximum water ere temperature of 115 here com The shield building roof annulus. The PCS tank has a minimum wate temperature of 120°F during normal k exterior wall is also subject su to atmosphere temperature of -40 °F 11 °F in summer. The tension ring and air inlet D

are next to the upper outside during R

er annulus ulus interior, whi to 165 °F of air temperature on tthe ins g accident. The conical to air which can be heated up a beginning to rise.

se. Therefore, the and accident thermal mal loads. T of shield building roof which is on the outside of the air baffle, are subject inside and 115 °F of atmosphere temperature on the conica roof is above the containment vessel and is subject conic after passing through the bottom of the air baffle and th shield building roof structures are subject to both normal The combined seismic and thermal loads impact the demands oof in UFSAR Tables 3H.5-9 and 3H.5-15. It is proposed to revise Tables 3H.5-9 and 3H.5-15 H with inclusion of combined seismic and normal/accident thermal load combinations, and remove the thermal note for the purpose of:

• Providing quantification of that load combination within the licensing basis

• Simplifying the presentation of the critical section designs in the licensing basis.

Page 10 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019)

Change 3 - Spent Fuel Pool West Wall Critical Section Table Update (Table 3H.5-8)

The west wall of Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) (along column line L-2) is a critical section in the licensing basis. UFSAR Figure 3H.5-10 shows an elevation of the west wall of the SFP and element numbers in the finite element model. UFSAR Table 3H.5-8 shows the demands and capacities of the SFP west wall at seven critical locations. Revision of the design calculations to clarify detail and document explicit quantification of the load combinations resulted in the following changes which impact the demands in UFSAR Table 3H.5-8:

• The accident thermal loads are combined with seismic loads in the load combinations for SFP wall to provide quantification of that load combination within the UFSAR to clearly demonstrate compliance with load combinations in ACI 349-01 and UFSAR Tables 3.8.4-1 and 3.8.4-2.

• The SFP finite element analysis (FEA) model is refined by changing han hang the element size from 5' x 5' to 1' x 1' to allow the averaging of elements to occur to o aid in rrealistic representations of stress at discontinuities such as corners. The refined meshe meshes are averaged back out to elements shown in UFSAR Figure 3H.5-10.

• The boundary conditions in the SFP FEA model are e refined. In addition add to t the current model with fixed-fixed boundary condition, a new model created to accommodate the changes of floor 009. The fixed-pinned model can capture the T del with fixed-pined orr to wall con e slight fi fixed-pined ht rotation ed boundary b

bo condition was connections as approved in LAR occurred at floor to wall connection rotatio occurre D

due to the position of the floor dowel in n relation to floor floo bottom botto liner plate and its ability to transfer force via a non-contact lap splice ce type mechanism.

plice mechanism The results from the two models are enveloped to conservatively capture pture potential behavior behavio of the floor to wall connection.

R Change 4 - Critical Section Tabless Update for Auxiliary AF Change 4A - Composite calculations to site UFSAR Table 3H.5-11 5-11 Aux te Floor Critical Section 11 shows the deman column lines M and P at EL. 135' construction, extreme environmental Building B Floors Sectio Table Update (Table 3H.5-11) demands and capacities of the composite floor between 135'-3". The floor design considers the dead, live, environmenta and other applicable loads. Revision of the design environment o clarify detail a and d document explicit quantification of the load combinations resulted in the following changes chang are made which impact the demands in UFSAR Table chan 3H.5-11:

• Modified seismic mic mass by counting 25% of live load instead of 100% of the live load,

• Refined floor vertical seismic acceleration,

• Account for air handling unit loads.

Change 4B - Tagging Room Ceiling Critical Section Table Update (Table 3H.5-12)

UFSAR Table 3H.5-12 shows the demands and capacities of the tagging room ceiling floor, which is a cast-in-place concrete placed on precast concrete floor. Revision to the design calculations to better capture the behavior of the structure and to incorporate revised design changes as discussed below results in impact on the demands in UFSAR Table 3H.5-12:

• Refined analysis to more accurately account for 2-way behavior of the slab

• Change as approved in LAR-14-003.

Therefore, it is proposed to revise UFSAR Table 3H.5-11 to match the latest design documents.

Page 11 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019)

Licensing Basis Change Descriptions:

Proposed Licensing Basis Changes Text, Table, or Figure Description of the Proposed Change UFSAR Subsection 3H.3.3 x The second paragraph under subheading Operating Thermal Loads (To) is proposed to be revised to identify that the structural design of PCS tank also conservatively assumes that the temperature on the inside of the PCS tank walls is 40°F when the outside air temperature is postulated to be at 115°F.

UFSAR Table 3.8.5-3 x In the critical location between n column co lines K to L and shield building to column line 11:

o UFSAR Table 3.8.5 3.8.5--3 show 3.8.5-3 shows the required top reinforcement along east- east -w west direction east-west dir is 1.5 in2/ft. It in2/ft to Note T

is proposed to change the top reinforcement ote 5 because the gov design iss in other seg 3.8.5-3 5-3 Sheets eets 3-6.

3 rein gove from 1.5 governing locations for the segments as shown in UFSAR Figure AF o UFSAR FSAR Table 3 reinforcement is proposed to change in2/ftt to 1.85 o UFSAR Tabl reinforcem reinforceme 1.8 in2/f 3.8.5 3.8.5-3 cha

/ft.

-3 shows the required bottom inforcement along east-west direction is 1.6 in2/ft. It the top reinforcement from 1.6 Table 3.8.5-3 shows the required shear reinforcement in this critical section is 0.23 in2/ft. It is proposed to change the shear reinforcement from 0.23 DR lines K-2 in2/ft tto 0.24 in2/ft.

x In the critic ccritical location between column lines 1 to 2 and column K 2 to N:

o UFSAR Table 3.8.5-3 shows the required top reinforcement along north-south direction in central zone is 2.72 in2/ft. It is proposed to change the top reinforcement from 2.72 in2/ft to 3.11 in2/ft.

o UFSAR Table 3.8.5-3 shows the amount of bottom reinforcement required along east-west direction is low per Note 5 in the table. The required bottom reinforcement along east-west direction becomes 1.85 in2/ft in design finalization. It is proposed to replace Note 5 with 1.85 in2/ft in the table for the required bottom reinforcement.

x It is also proposed to remove Note 6 from Table 3.8.5-3 because the demands in the table reflect load combinations with seismic and thermal loads combined. The superscript of Note 6 on top of the table next to Required is removed.

x It is proposed to add a clarification note (Note 6) in current UFSAR Table 3.8.5-3 to clarify that the demands in the table do not include a small portion of basemat (between column Page 12 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019) line L to 5' east of column line L and shield building to column line 9.2) as shown in UFSAR Figure 3.8.5-3 Sheets 5-7. The superscript of the new Note 6 is added next to Column line K to L and from Shield Building to Col. Line 11 in the table. F UFSAR Table 3H.5-1 x It is proposed to revise to identify that the water in the PCS tank is assumed to be 40°F when the outside air temperature is 115°F for determining normal thermal loading on the PCS tank and affected structures for summer conditions.

x It is proposed to revise to show 140°F accident thermal on the inside surface of the auxiliary building exterior walls below grade and basemat to correspond orre with the accident temperatures for equipmentt qualifica qualification.

qua x It is proposed to revise to o show 50°F a accident thermal on the outside surface of the e auxiliary building bu exterior walls below grade and basemat mat to correspond espon with w the ASHRAE UFSAR Table 3H.5-2 x requirements In Table 3H.5-2 T2 between EL o It is proposed EL. 135'-3" 135'-3" and EL. 180'-0":

sed to change the load combinations and AF corresponding orresponding demands vertical o It is proposed to correspo corresponding horizonta 1.2To 1.2To 1.2T r

demand which governs required de reinforcement from D + L + H + Ta to ertical reinforcemen reinforceme 0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym.

0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa 9D+F+H+Es+Pa t change the load combinations and demands which governs required horizontal reinforcement from 1.05D + 1.3L + 1.3H +

o to D+F+L+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym and DR x

0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym.

0.9D Table 3H.5-2 In Tabl 3H between EL. 100'-0" and EL. 135'-3":

o IIt is proposed to change the load combinations and corresponding demands which governs required vertical reinforcement from D + L + H + Ta to 0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym.

o It is proposed to change the load combinations and corresponding demands which governs required horizontal reinforcement from D + L + H + Ta to D+F+L+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym.

x In Table 3H.5-2 between EL. 82'-6" and EL. 100'-0":

o It is proposed to change the load combinations and corresponding demands which governs required vertical reinforcement from 1.05D + 1.3L + 1.3H +

1.2To to 0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym.

o It is proposed to change the load combinations and corresponding demands which governs required horizontal reinforcement from D + L + Es to 0.9D+0.9F+1.3L+1.2To+1.3H+1.3Ro and 0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym.

x In Table 3H.5-2 between EL. 66'-6" and EL. 82'-6":

Page 13 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019) o It is proposed to change the load combinations and corresponding demands which governs required vertical reinforcement from D + L - Es and 0.9D + Es to 0.9D+F+H+Ro+To+Es o It is proposed to change the load combinations and corresponding demands which governs required horizontal reinforcement from 0.9D + Es to 0.9D+F+H+Ro+To+Es.

UFSAR Table 3H.5-3 x In Table 3H.5-3 between EL. 135'-3" and EL. 180'-0":

o It is proposed to change the required vertical reinforcement from 3.48 48 in2/ft to 3.65 in2/ft on the outside face, and fromom 1.94 1 in2/ft to 2.76 in2/ft on the inside face of the wall.

o It is proposed d to change the required horizontal reinforcementnt from 2.65 in2/ft to 3.08 in2/ft on the x

T ace, and from 1.52 in2//ft to 2.51 in2/ft on the outside face, ace ce of the wall.

inside face 5-3 between In Table 3H.5-3 wa etween EL. 100'-0" 100' and EL. 135'-3":

AF o It is proposed to ch reinforcement einforcement from 1 tside face, and from outside inside f

de face of the wall.

o It is proposed p

propos change the required vertical 1.88 in2/ft to 3.00 in2/ft on the 1.77 in2/ft to 3.00 in2/ft on the to change the required shear reinforcement from NR to 0.17 in2/ft, and provided reinforcem reinforceme shear reinforcement rei from None to 0.80 in2/ft.

DR x In Table Ta 3H.5 between EL. 82'-6" and EL. 100'-0":

3H.5-3 o It is proposed to change the required vertical rreinforcement from 1.42 in2/ft to 3.04 in2/ft on the outside face, and from 1.01 in2/ft to 3.04 in2/ft on the inside face of the wall.

o It is proposed to change the required horizontal reinforcement from 0.70 in2/ft to 1.55 in2/ft on the outside face, and from 0.70 in2/ft to 1.25 in2/ft on the inside face of the wall.

o It is proposed to change the required shear reinforcement from 0.003 in2/ft to 0.03 in2/ft.

x In Table 3H.5-3 between EL. 66'-6" and EL. 82'-6":

o It is proposed to change the required vertical reinforcement from 2.29 in2/ft to 3.37 in2/ft on the outside face, and from 1.87 in2/ft to 2.68 in2/ft on the inside face of the wall.

o It is proposed to change the required horizontal reinforcement from 0.87 in2/ft to 0.95 in2/ft on the outside face, and from 0.87 in2/ft to 0.95 in2/ft on the inside face of the wall.

Page 14 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019) o It is proposed to change the required shear reinforcement from 0.27 in2/ft to 0.56 in2/ft.

x It is also proposed to remove the content of Note 2 and change it to Not used. in Table 3H.5-3 because the demands in the table reflect load combinations with seismic and thermal loads combined.

UFSAR Table 3H.5-4 x In Table 3H.5-4 between EL. 155'-6" and roof:

o It is proposed to change the load combinations and corresponding demands which governs required vertical reinforcement from 1.05D + 1.3L + 1.2To to a+R 0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym.

o It is proposed to change hange the load combinations and hang corresponding demands demand which whi governs required horizontal reinforcement orcement from fro 1.05D 1.0 + 1.3L + 1.2To to 0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym.

H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+

x T

In Table 3H.5-4 between EL.

o It is proposed E 135'-3" posed to change roposed corresponding ch ding demands esponding d 3" and 135'-3" an EL. 155'-6":

the load combinations and which governs required x

AF vertical ertical reinforcement 0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym.

0.9D

.9D+

reinforc

+F+H+Es+Pa+T F+H+Es+Pa+

o It iss proposed to change c

from 0.9D - Es to the load combinations and esponding demands which governs required corresponding horizontal reinforcement horizonta D+F+L+H D+F+L+H+

re D+F+L+H+Ro+To+Es.

In Table 3H.5-4 from D + L - Es to 3H.5-4 between EL. 117'-6" and EL. 135'-3":

3H.5-DR o It is p cor proposed to change the load combinations and corresponding demands which governs required vertical reinforcement from 0.9D - Es to 0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym.

o It is proposed to change the load combinations and corresponding demands which governs required horizontal reinforcement from D + L - Es to 0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym.

x In Table 3H.5-4 between EL. 100'-0" and EL. 117'-6":

o It is proposed to change the load combinations and corresponding demands which governs required vertical reinforcement from 0.9D - Es to 0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym.

o It is proposed to change the load combinations and corresponding demands which governs required horizontal reinforcement from D + L - Es to 0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym.

x In Table 3H.5-4 between EL. 82'-6" and EL. 100'-0":

o It is proposed to change the load combinations and corresponding demands which governs required Page 15 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019) vertical reinforcement from 0.9D - Es to 0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym.

o It is proposed to change the load combinations and corresponding demands which governs required horizontal reinforcement from D + L - Es to D+F+L+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym.

x In Table 3H.5-4 between EL. 66'-6" and EL. 82'-6":

o It is proposed to change the load combinations and corresponding demands which governs required vertical reinforcement from 0.9D - Es to 0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym.

a+R hange the o It is proposed to change th load combinations and corresponding demands demand which whi governs required horizontal reinforcement orcement from D + L - Es to forcement

+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Y

+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj 0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym.

UFSAR Table 3H.5-5 x T

In Table 3H.5-5 between E o It is proposed 155'-6" 6" and EL. 155'-6" an roof:

oposed to change the required horizontal ment from 3.96 in2/ft to 4.06 in2/ft.

reinforcement orcement x

x AF o It is proposed to change In Table reinforcement einforcement from 0 able 3H.5-5 H.5-5 between EL.

3H.5 o It is 0.4 c the provided shear 0.44 in2/ft to 0.80 in2/ft.

E 135'-3" and EL. 155'-6":

s proposed to change the required vertical reinforce reinforcement In Table 3H.5-5 3H.5-5 o It is pr from 3.59 in2/ft to 3.64 in2/ft.

5 between be b EL. 117'-6" and EL. 135'-3":

proposed to change the required horizontal DR x x

In Table Ta reinforcement from 2.03 in2/ft to 2.10 in2/ft.

reinfo o It is proposed to change the required vertical reinforcement from 2.63 in2/ft to 3.10 in2/ft.

3H.5-5 between EL. 100'-0" and EL. 117'-6":

o It is proposed to change the required horizontal reinforcement from 2.29 in2/ft to 2.34 in2/ft.

In Table 3H.5-5 between EL. 82'-6" and EL. 100'-0":

o It is proposed to change the required vertical reinforcement from 2.08 in2/ft to 2.33 in2/ft.

x In Table 3H.5-5 between EL. 66'-6" and EL. 82'-6":

o It is proposed to change the required vertical reinforcement from 0.98 in2/ft to 1.52 in2/ft.

x It is also proposed to remove the content of Note 1 and change it to Not used. in Table 3H.5-5 because the demands in the table reflect load combinations with seismic and thermal loads combined.

UFSAR Table 3H.5-6 x In Table 3H.5-6 between EL. 135'-3" and EL. 154'-2":

o It is proposed to change the load combinations and corresponding demands which governs required vertical reinforcement from 0.9D + Es + Pa + Yj to 0.9D+F+L+H+Ro+To+Es.

Page 16 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019) o It is proposed to change the load combinations and corresponding demands which governs required horizontal reinforcement from 0.9D + Es + Pa + Yj to 0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym.

x In Table 3H.5-6 between EL. 117'-6" and EL. 135'-3":

o It is proposed to change the load combinations and corresponding demands which governs required vertical reinforcement from 0.9D + Es + Pa + Yj to 0.9D+F+L+H+Ro+To+Es.

o It is proposed to change the load combinations and corresponding demands nds which governs required ment from 0.9D + Es + Pa + Yj to horizontal reinforcement 0.9D+F+L+H+Ro+To+Es.

o+To+E o+To+Es.

UFSAR Table 3H.5-7 x In Table 3H.5-7 between en EL. 135'-3" 135' and EL. 154'-2":

o It is proposed sed to change the t required horizontal DR x In Table ment from 2.08 in2/ft to 2.09 in2/ft.

reinforcement o It is proposed to change reinforcement orcement ment fro rovided reinforcement provided le 3H.5-7 3H.5-reinforce 3H.5-7 between EL.

chang the required shear from 0.01 in2/ft to 0.13 in2/ft, and ffrom 0.11 in2/ft to 0.80 in2/ft.

EL 117'-6" and EL. 135'-3":

o It is proposed to change the required horizontal AF reinforcement reinforce forcement reinforcem reinforceme o It is proposed p

from 1.36 in2/ft to 1.46 in2/ft.

ment fro o It is proposed propos pr to change the required vertical reinforcement from 2.02 in2/ft to 2.37 in2/ft.

to change the required shear reinforcement from 0.33 in2/ft to 0.55 in2/ft.

reinfo T

x It is also als proposed pr to remove the content of Note 1 and change Not used. in Table 3H.5-7 because the demands in the it to No ta table reflect load combinations with seismic and thermal loads combined.

co com UFSAR Table 3H.5-8 x It is proposed to update the forces and moments under the same load cases and load combinations at each critical location to match the latest calculations. The changes of moments and forces are marked up on pages 46-59 of this document. In addition to the existing load combinations, it is proposed to add the forces and moments under the load combinations with seismic and accident thermal loads combined, which is shown as LC(6a), D + L + F + Es + Ta and LC(6b),D + L + F + Es + Ta in the markups of Table 3H.5-8.

x In the Notes of UFSAR Table 3H.5-8 it is proposed to change Maximum principal stress for load combination 5 including thermal to Maximum principal stress for load combinations including thermal and change Maximum stress intensity range for load combination 5 including thermal to Maximum stress intensity range for the load combinations including thermal for all sheets.

Page 17 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019) x It is proposed to change the values of maximum principal stress from 40.3 ksi to 48.2 ksi on Sheet 2, 46.95 ksi to 51.3 ksi on Sheet 3, and from 25.1 ksi to 28.2 ksi on Sheet 6, and 22.1 ksi to 27.2 ksi on Sheet 7.

x It is proposed to change the values of maximum stress intensity range from 46.3 ksi to 74.2 ksi on Sheet 1, from 50.8 ksi to 70.1 ksi on Sheet 2, from 84.9 ksi to 97.4 ksi on Sheet 3, from 72.6 ksi to 74.3 ksi on Sheet 4, from 20.6 ksi to 23 ksi on Sheet 5, from 31.3 ksi to 34.2 ksi on Sheet 6, and from 22.1 ksi to 35.0 ksi on Sheet 7.

UFSAR Table 3H.5-9 x In UFSAR Table 3H.5-9 Sheet et 1 for axial force and bending verification:

o At Section 2 lower, wer, it is proposed pro to change the Seismic L/C from rom 9 to 33 and corresponding co stress from 14.31 ksi to 28.11 ksi at 5.625° 5.625 5 angle and change the Seismic mic L/C from 17 to 4 41 and corresponding stress from om 13.15 ksiks to 27.59 ksi at 84.375° angle.

o At Section n 1 lower, low it is proposed to change the Seismic eismic L/C from 9 to 34 and corresponding stress from om 15.35 ksi to 3030.07 ksi at 0° angle and change the 30.0 ismic L/C from 17 to 43 and corresponding stress Seismic m 14.46 ksi to 29.48 ksi at 90° angle.

from o The ma maximum stress among the two sections is changed from fr 15.35 ksi to 30.07 ksi, and maximum required reinforcement is changed from 9.21 in2/ft to 18.00 in2/ft. The demand to capacity ratio is changed from 0.51 + 2% to 1.00.

x UFSA Table 3H.5-9 Sheet 1 for shear force and torsion In UFSAR verification:

ve verific o At Section 1 lower, it is proposed to change the stress from 6.28 ksi to 7.27 ksi at 0° angle and change the stress from 5.80 ksi to 6.78 ksi at 90° angle.

o The maximum stress among the Section 2 lower and Section 1 lower is changed from 6.28 ksi to 7.27 ksi, and maximum required reinforcement is changed from 5.65 in2/ft to 6.54 in2/ft. The demand to capacity ratio is changed from 0.31 to 0.36.

x It is also proposed to remove Note 2 from Table 3H.5-9 Sheet 1 because the demands in the table reflect load combinations with seismic and thermal loads combined.

x In UFSAR Table 3H.5-9 Sheet 2a (horizontal sections):

o At Section 5 + 6, it is proposed to change the stress from 1.91 ksi to 2.01 ksi at 0° - 5.625° angle and change the Seismic L/C from 8 to 24 and corresponding stress from 1.80 ksi to 2.08 ksi at 84.375° - 90° angle.

Page 18 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019) o At Section 7, it is proposed to change the stress from 2.38 ksi to 4.19 ksi at 0° - 5.625° angle and change the Seismic L/C from 8 to 24 and corresponding stress from 2.15 ksi to 4.27 ksi at 84.375° - 90° angle.

o At Section 9, it is proposed to change the stress from 2.26 ksi to 5.02 ksi at 0° - 5.625° angle and change the stress from 2.27 ksi to 5.03 ksi at 84.375° - 90° angle.

o At Section 11, it is proposed to change the stress from 1.73 ksi to 3.55 ksi at 0° - 5.625° angle and change the stress from 1.53 ksi to 3.57 ksi at 84.375° - 90° angle.

o The maximum required reinforcement of the Sections d re 5 + 6, 7 and 9 is changed fro 2.38 in2/ft to 5.03 in2/ft.

anged from apacity ratio is changed from 0.20 to The demand to capacity 0.42.

o The maximum m required reinforcem reinforcement reinfo of Section 11 is x

T It is also proposed oposedd to remove rem 2 2 changed from 1.73 in /ft to 3.57 in /ft. The demand to capacityy ratio is changed chan from 0.15 to 0.30.

Note 2 from Table 3H.5-9 Sheet x

AF 2a because with seismic In UFSAR se the demands in the table mic and thermal lo ismic o At Section 3 U 3H.5-9 FSAR Table 3H.5-3H.5 Seismic L/C from from 9.97 ksi fr t reflect load combinations loads combined.

load Sheet 2b (vertical sections):

-9 Sh Upper, it is proposed to change the 9 to 33 and the corresponding stress k to 11.91 ksi at 0° angle and change the Seismic L/C from 17 to 41 and corresponding stress DR from 9.25 o At S 9 ksi to 11.91 ksi at 90° angle.

Section 3 Lower, it is proposed to change the stress ffrom 8.45 ksi to 8.84 ksi at 0° angle and change the stress from 7.75 ksi to 8.08 ksi at 90° angle.

o At Section 4 Upper, it is proposed to change the Seismic L/C from 9 to 33 and the corresponding stress from 10.53 ksi to 11.91 ksi at 5.625° angle and change the Seismic L/C from 17 to 41 and the corresponding stress from 9.75 ksi to 11.91 ksi at 84.375° angle.

o At Section 4 Lower, it is proposed to change the stress from 8.26 ksi to 8.65 ksi at 5.625° angle and change the stress from 7.54 ksi to 7.86 ksi at 84.375° angle.

o The maximum required reinforcement of the Sections 3 Upper, 3 Lower, 4 Upper and 4 Lower is changed from 10.53 in2/ft to 11.91 in2/ft. The demand to capacity ratio is changed from 0.88 to 0.99.

x It is also proposed to remove Note 2 from Table 3H.5-9 Sheet 2b because the demands in the table reflect load combinations with seismic and thermal loads combined.

x In UFSAR Table 3H.5-9 Sheet 2c (out of plane shear reinforcement):

Page 19 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019) o At 0° - 5.625° angle, it is proposed to change the Seismic L/C from 1 to 25 and the corresponding required reinforcement from 0.13 in2/ft to 0.16 in2/ft at maximum of vertical Sections 3 upper to 4 upper. The sum of the required reinforcement in maximum of vertical Sections 3 upper to 4 upper and in Horizontal Section 5+6 is changed from 0.13 to 0.16.

o At 84.375° - 90° angle, it is proposed to change the Seismic L/C from 1 to 25 and the corresponding required reinforcement from 0.12 in2/ft to 0.16 in2/ft at maximum of vertical Sections ect ecti 3 upper to 4 upper. The sum of the required ed reinforcement reinfo re in maximum of uppe to 4 upper vertical Sections 3 upper u and in Horizontal Section 5+6 is changed from fro 0.12 to 0.16.

o At 84.375° - 90° angle,angle, it is propo proposed to change the T

required reinforcement maximum um sum of the 0.2 in2/ft to 0.22 in2/ft at einforcement from 0.21 m of vertical Sections 3 lower to 4 lower. The he requ reinforcement in maximum of required reinf AF vertical rtical Sections 3 lower to 4 lower and in Horizontal ection 9 is changed ffrom 0.21 to 0.22.

Section o At 0° - 5.625° angle, ang smic L/C from 18 to 66.

Seismic 84.375° - 90° o At 84.37 it is proposed to change the 9 angle, it is proposed to change the required reinforcement rrei from 0.21 in2/ft to 0.22 in2/ft at maximum of vertical Sections 3 lower to 4 lower. The DR x x

It is al w

sum of vert o the required reinforcement in maximum of vertical Sections 3 lower to 4 lower and in Horizontal S

Section 11 is changed from 0.21 to 0.22.

also proposed to remove Note 2 from Table 3H.5-9 Sheet 2c because b the demands in the table reflect load combinations with seismic and thermal loads combined.

In UFSAR Table 3H.5-9 Sheet 3:

o It is proposed to change the maximum required vertical reinforcement from 1.49 in2/ft to 1.53 in2/ft and change the corresponding demand to capacity ratio from 0.54 to 0.56 at the bottom segment of the wall.

o It is proposed to change the maximum required hoop reinforcement from 0.80 in2/ft to 1.22 in2/ft and change the corresponding demand to capacity ratio from 0.40 to 0.61 at the bottom segment of the wall.

o It is proposed to change the maximum required vertical reinforcement from 0.64 in2/ft to 0.69 in2/ft and change the corresponding demand to capacity ratio from 0.23 to 0.25 at the mid-height segment of the wall.

o It is proposed to change the maximum required hoop reinforcement from 1.93 in2/ft to 1.99 in2/ft and change Page 20 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019) the corresponding demand to capacity ratio from 0.97 to 0.99 at the mid-height segment of the wall.

UFSAR Table 3H.5-11 x For concrete slabs parallel to the beams:

o It is proposed to change the governing load combinations from 3 - Extreme Environmental Condition to 6 - Abnormal Condition.

o It is proposed to change the in-plan shear forces from 20.0 kips to 31.0 kip.

o It is proposed to change the required reinforcement from 0.41 in2/ft to 0.43 in2/ft.

x For concrete slabs perpendicular ular to the beams:

o It is proposed to o change chang ch the governing load combinations from m Normal Norm Con Condition to 6 - Abnormal Condition.

o It is proposed ed to change the required req reinforcement x

because the T

from 0.28 in2/ft to 0 posed It is also proposed 0.43 in2/ft.

osed to remove e composite rem Note 1 from Table 3H.5-11 posite floor has been evaluated under the UFSAR Table 3H.5-12 x AF binations with sseismic thermal loads combined and load combinations the evaluations aluations not governing.

ning demonstrated that the load combinations are ations demonstrat demonstrate For the design of the 24 o It is proposed propos p

combination combinati combinatio 24- inch slab:

to change the governing load from Extreme Environmental Condition (SSE) to Abnormal Condition.

DR o It is proposed at the to p to change the design bending moment t midspan along E-W direction from 14.40 kips ft/ft t 16.23 kips ft/ft.

o It is proposed to change the design in-plane tension (E/W Direction) at midspan and at support from 21.9 kips/ft to 37.1 kips/ft.

o It is proposed to change the bottom reinforcement along E-W direction from 0.53 in2/ft to 0.71 in2/ft.

o It is proposed to change the design in-plane tension (E/W Direction) from 21.9 kips/ft to 37.1 kips/ft.

o It is proposed to change the design bending moment along N-S direction from 8.47 kips ft/ft to 21.55 kips ft/ft.

o It is proposed to change the top and bottom reinforcement along N-S direction from 0.59 in2/ft to 0.65 in2/ft.

x It is also proposed to remove the content of Note 1 and change it to Not used. in Table 3H.5-12 because the demands in the table reflect load combinations with seismic and thermal loads combined.

UFSAR Table 3H.5-15 x It is proposed to change the required radial reinforcement from 1.80 in2/ft to 1.81 in2/ft and change the corresponding Page 21 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019) reinforcement ratio from 1.30 to 1.29 at the conical roof near tension ring.

x It is proposed to change the required vertical reinforcement from 1.49 in2/ft to 1.53 in2/ft and change the corresponding reinforcement ratio from 1.85 to 1.80 at the knuckle region.

x It is proposed to change the required radial reinforcement from 2.85 in2/ft to 3.48 in2/ft and change the corresponding reinforcement ratio from 1.25 to 1.02 at the knuckle region.

x It is proposed to change the required hoop reinforcement from 2.64 in2/ft to 2.67 in2/ft and change the corresponding reinforcement ratio from 1.18 to 1 1.16 at the knuckle region.

x It is proposed to change the e required req hoop reinforcement from 2.49 in2/ft to 2.50 in2/ft att the compress com compression ring.

3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION D

Change 1 - Changes of Design Temperature for Thermal Grad R

Gradient Change 1A - PCS Tank Wall Normal Temperature Change As discussed, UFSAR Subsection 3H.3.3 and UFSAR Table revised to identify a temperature T 3H.5-1 are proposed to be re of 40°F (in lieu of 70°F) for the PCS tank water for AF determining normal thermal loading oading on the PCS ta tank and affected structures when the outside air temperature is 115 115°F.

°F.. The PCS recirculation 115°F recir heater is provided to maintain water contents inside the e PCS tank above 40°F 40 during normal operation. The recirculation heater automatically turns urns heater inlet temperature gets down to approximate rns on when the heate 47°F and turns off when it reaches approximate appro 52°F. When the outside air temperature T

is 115°F in summer, mer, the PCS tan tank water wat temperature can reach 120°F. Even though the PCS tank water cannot get down to 40°F when outside air temperature is ter temperature cann canno 115°F, the structural design of theth PCS tank walls takes a conservative deterministic assumption to maximum the thermal th gradient across the walls by using thermal gradient of 40°F on the inside ide and 115°F 115 on the outside. The PCS tank walls are also designed for 11 thermal gradient of 40 °F on the inside and -40°F on the outside during winter normal 40°F operation. The use of a PCS tank water temperature of 40°F for determining the design thermal gradient across the PCS tank walls during summer conditions is conservative and consistent with the requirements of the AP1000 civil/structural design criteria, and is based on the minimum PCS tank water temperature allowed in the Technical Specifications of 40°F as identified in surveillance requirement SR 3.6.6.1.

UFSAR Table 3H.5-9 Sheet 3 currently shows demands under combined seismic and normal thermal loads for the PCS tank exterior wall. UFSAR Figure 3H.5-11 shows reinforcement details of the PCS tank. The PCS tank structure has been evaluated with the revised PCS tank water temperature of 40°F for normal thermal loading during summer conditions. The results of that evaluation conclude that the values currently specified in UFSAR Table 3H.5-9, Sheet 3, which identify the maximum reinforcement required, the reinforcement provided, and the ratio of reinforcement provided/reinforcement required for the PCS tank, remain bounding. Accordingly, no change to the PCS tank reinforcement physical design is required. The proposed change does not impact UFSAR Table 3H.5-9 Page 22 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019)

Sheet 3 or Figure 3H.5-11. The PCS tank design continues to meet the requirements of ACI-349 and AISC N690.

Change 1B -Auxiliary Building Exterior Walls Below Grade and Basemat Accidental Thermal Change The proposed activity revises the accident temperatures for auxiliary building exterior walls below grade and basemat in UFSAR Table 3H.5-1 to match the accident temperatures for equipment qualification in UFSAR Tables 3D.5-4 and 3D.5-5 which are supported by design analyses. The current UFSAR Table 3H.5-1 shows that the accident thermal does not need to be considered for the exterior walls below grade and basemat in the auxiliary building. However, the accident temperatures in rooms that at are adjacent to exterior walls below grade and basemat in the auxiliary building can cause ause an accident thermal gradient on the walls and basemat per UFSAR Tables 3D.5-4 and 3D.5-5. 3D.5-5. Per UFSAR Table 3D.5-3 1 and UFSAR Figures 1.2-4/5/6, the auxiliary building uilding ilding exte walls below grade and exterior wa basemat are in environmental Zones 2, 6 and 7.. The maximum a accident temperatures for accide exterior walls below grade and basemat are 120°F in Zone 2, 140°F 140° in Zone 6, and 114°F in Zone 7. For conservatism, it is assumed d that the accident temperature temp for the inside of exterior walls below grade and basemat in the e auxiliary building is 140°F when determining thermal gradient for those structures. temperature on the outside of exterior walls

s. The tempera below grade and basemat in the auxiliary xiliary building is a assumed to be 50°F in accordance ass with ASHRAE requirements. The auxiliary building exterior walls below grade and basemat are re-evaluated forr the accident thermal g gradient of 50°F to 140°F. The effect of the new thermal gradient nt is evaluated forf the impacted walls using thermal behavior fundamentals. The moment ment due to the therm thermal g gradient is calculated based on a plate with a clamped edge. Because ause the moment is generated due to the restraint at the edges cause preventing deflection, out-of-plane on, no out of--plane shear out--of she is developed. The moment due to the thermal gradient is calculated ulated using the ccracked section properties. The structures continue to be evaluated in accordance with ACI 349-01. 3 The design of exterior walls below grade in auxiliary building ding using the revised temperature satisfies ACI 349-01.

There are two critical ritical sections section of the auxiliary building in the licensing basis that show sectio demands below grade, de, including inc the auxiliary building wall along column line 1 (Wall 1) as shown in UFSAR Tables es 3H.5-2 and 3H.5-3, and the auxiliary building basemat as shown in UFSAR Table 3.8.5-3. UFSAR Table 3.8.5-3 shows the required reinforcement and provided reinforcement in the basemat at two critical locations. As discussed in Change 2, the critical section tables for the walls and basemat are revisited and are proposed to remove the thermal note to show demands under combined seismic and thermal loads.

This is because the revised tables with inclusion of combined seismic and thermal load combinations provide quantification of that load combination within the UFSAR to clearly demonstrate compliance with load combinations in ACI 349-01 and UFSAR Table 3.8.4-

2. The proposed changes of accident temperatures in auxiliary building exterior walls below grade and basemat impact UFSAR Tables 3.8.5-3, 3H.5-2 and 3H.5-3. The impacts are evaluated in Change 2A and Change 2B in this document.

The proposed changes do not impact the structural behaviors of basemat and Wall 1. The proposed activity does not impact the equipment qualifications because the equipment is qualified in accordance UFSAR Appendix 3D and there is no change to the information in Page 23 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019)

UFSAR Appendix 3D. The proposed activity does not impact the radiation shielding because the physical design of the concrete structures does not change.

Change 2 - Critical Section Tables Update for Auxiliary Building Basemat, Concrete Walls and Shield Building Roof Even though the demands (i.e. forces, moments, and required reinforcement) in critical section tables of auxiliary building walls and basemat do not reflect combined seismic and thermal loads, the design of those structures were evaluated to confirm that the demands under combination of mechanical loads (i.e. dead loads, live loads, seismic loads) and thermal loads met ACI 349-01 and UFSAR Table 3.8.4-2 requirements. The behavior of mechanical loading and thermal loading are different. The thermal demand in most cases is self-relieving g due d to concrete cracking and localized yielding of reinforcement as described in Appendix A of ACI AC 349-01. The combination A

of SSE and thermal load results in a structural demand that is less les than the ACI 349 capacity of the building structures. Thermally induced forces do not reduce the plastic collapse strength of the structure. The margin of the structure with respect spect to review level earthquake is not demand is complex, as described in the ACI 349-01 generated for combination with SSE is typically T

compromised by consideration of this load combination. nation. The accurate calculation App c

01 commentary to Appendix.

nerated in a conservative y generated conser of thermal Thermal demand manner, so that the between mechanical loading demand changed. The thermal demand in AF combination of SSE and thermal does not reflect representation of the thermal demand.

flect the actual to the self-relief mechanisms described above. The margin emand. Removal of the load combination provides quantification antification of that lo actua demand under thermal condition due margi ini the AP1000 building design d vs. capacity allows for a conservative approach in development of thermal demand. As such, the significan significance of the thermal demand has not n the SSE plus thermal therma load combinations is a conservative t note and inclusion of the SSE plus thermal load combination within the UFSAR to clearly loa the design.

D demonstrate compliance with the R

Change 2A - Basemat Critical The nuclear island e ACI 349 load combinations. As such, the note is no longer needed. The inclusion of the SSE plus thermal nd structures, basemat foundation. T structure auxiliary building are fou S

ttherma load combinations in the tables does not change Critica Section Table Update (Table 3.8.5-3) structures consisting of the containment vessel, shield building, and founded on the 6-foot-thick, cast-in-place, reinforced concrete The basemat provides the interface between the nuclear island structures and the supporting soil or rock. The basemat transfers the load of nuclear island structures to the supporting soil or rock. The basemat transmits seismic motions from the supporting soil or rock to the nuclear island. Resistance to sliding of the concrete basemat foundation is provided by soil friction.

The demands in UFSAR Table 3.8.5-3 do not include the loads combinations with seismic and thermal loads combined due to the thermal note. This activity proposes to delete the thermal note in Note 6 and show the required reinforcement under load combinations with seismic and thermal combined. As discussed in Change No. 1B above, the accident thermal gradient for the basemat is changed from NR to 140°F inside/50°F outside in UFSAR Table 3H.5-1. The revised accident thermal gradient is accounted in the basemat design and is reflected in the markup of UFSAR Table 3.8.5-3. The revised liftoff analysis is consistent with methods used in the previous analysis and is in compliance with the licensing basis requirements in UFSAR Appendix 3G. The change of concrete cover is in Page 24 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019) compliance with ACI 349-01. The revised criteria of margin continue to be in compliance with requirements in UFSAR Subsection 3.8.5.4.1. The basemat design with the revised demands remains in compliance with ACI 349-01. No increase in provided reinforcement in the basemat is needed. The proposed changes do not have adverse impact on the global structural analysis of the nuclear island. The proposed changes do not impact the interactions between the basemat and soil or rock. The proposed changes have no impact of the analysis of the nuclear island to sliding or overturning.

The addition of the new Note 6 is to clarify that the demands in current UFSAR Table 3.8.5-3 does not include a small portion of basemat (between column line L to 5' east of column line L and shield building to column line 9.2) as shown ho in UFSAR Figure 3.8.5-3 Sheets 5-7. This change does impact the intent of the table and does not impact the design ble an of the basemat.

Change 2B - Wall 1 Critical Section Table Update 3H.5 and 3H.5-3) ate (Tables 3H.5-2 AF Wall 1 at the south end of the auxiliary building from EL. 66'-6" to EL. 180'-0 and is designed provides protection to equipment and components tornado missile impact. Wall 1 is designed seismic radwaste building in seismic icc event.

g is a SC-I SC-I reinforced mponents inside th orced concrete gned in accordance with withstand the strike gned to withs s co wall extended w ACI 349-01. Wall 1 the auxiliary building from from the adjacent non-loads combined due to required reinforcement T

UFSAR Table 3H.5-2 for Walll 1 shows along the height from EL. 66'-6" 66'--6" to 180'-0".

66' o the thermal moments and forces in different segments ws the momen 180'-0". UFSAR 180'- UFSA Table 3H.5-3 for Wall 1 shows the required reinforcement under various load combinations co without seismic and thermal mal note and shows provided reinforcement as well. The ent in UFSAR Table 3 3H.5-3 is calculated based on the demands in D

UFSAR Table 3H.5-2.

forces in UFSAR H.5--2. This act H.5 required reinforcement R

UFSAR Table orcement under load co 3H.5-3.

e 3H.5 3H proposes to delete the thermal note and show the activity pro combinations with seismic and thermal combined in his activity proposes to update the corresponding moment and

-3. This AR Table 3H.5-2 212°F of accident 3H.5 as well. Wall 1 is next to the SFP and can be subject to nt temperature temperatur above EL. 135'-3" in the event of spent fuel pool boiling.

temperatu Wall 1 is also an exterior wall and can be subject to atmosphere temperature as low as -

xterior w 40°F in winter. Wall 1 is designed for combined seismic and this type of accident thermal.

The thermal induced deformation on the upper elevation also results in thermal stresses on lower portions of the wall between EL. 82'-6" and EL.100'-0". In addition, as discussed in Change 1B, the accident thermal gradient for the exterior walls below grade in the auxiliary building is changed from NR to 140°F inside/50°F outside in a loss of AC power or loss of HVAC event. The wall segment below grade is designed for combined seismic and accident thermal gradient due to either a loss of AC power or loss of HVAC event.

Since loss of AC power can also cause SFP boiling, the wall segment between EL. 82'-6" and EL.100'-0" is checked for combined thermal demands due to SFP boiling on EL. 135'-

3" and loss of AC below grade. The markup of UFSAR Tables 3H.5-2 and 3H.5-3 reflect the combined seismic and thermal demands under those two types of accident events. In addition, the change of load combinations in the calculations provide a conservative design because the revised load combinations are more comprehensive and can envelope the possible scenarios in the service life of the structures. The refined analysis also provides more conservative results because the envelope of peak values from FEA Page 25 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019) meshes can better reflect the localized demands. The refined thermal reduction factor by using individual factors per elevation can better reflect the actual thermal behavior of structures at different locations, and therefore is more accurate. Therefore, the revised demands in the UFSAR tables provide conservative and accurate results of the design.

The revised provided shear reinforcement of #4@6"x6" meets the requirements of ACI 349-01. The markup of Table 3H.5-3 shows that the required reinforcement is smaller than the provided reinforcement. The Wall 1 design remains in compliance with ACI 349-01 and the requirements in UFSAR Subsection 3.8.4.5.1. There is no reduction in margin of safety for the structure because Wall 1 continues to meet ACI 349-01. The proposed changes do not have adverse impact on the global structural analysis of the nuclear island.

The proposed changes do not impact the design function regarding reg the capability of Wall 1 to withstand tornado missile impact. The proposed changes hanges do hang d not impact the ability of Wall 1 to resist strike from the non-seismic radwaste in seismic seis event.

ev Change 2C - Wall 7.3 Critical Section Table Update pdate (Tables 3H.5-4 3H -4 and 3H.5 a 3H.5-5)

AF Wall 7.3 is a SC-I reinforced concrete wall that connects the shield auxiliary building Wall I. Wall 7.3 extends from accordance with ACI 349-01. Wall 7.3 is UFSAR Table 3H.5-4 for Wall 7.3 shows om EL. 66'-6" rom s designed 66'--6" to EL 66' ssh EL. 18 building and the 180'-0 and is designed in signed to withstand seismic impact.

hows the moments momen a and forces in different segments required reinforcement in UFSAR Table 3H.5-4.

T along the height from EL. 66'-6"" to roof. UFSAR Table required reinforcement under governing loads combined due to the thermal note an n UFSAR Table 3H and show Tab 3H.5-5 for Wall 7.3 shows the ng load combinations comb combi without seismic and thermal shows provided reinforcement as well. The 3H.5-5 is calculated based on the demands in 3H.5 proposes to delete the thermal note and show the

4. This activity propose D

required reinforcement UFSAR Table 3H.5-5.

forces in UFSAR R

and is not subject ment under load combi H.5--5. This activ H.5 AR Table T e 3H.53H.5-4 ubject to normal thermal thermal loads applied at other deformation in the for combined seismic the combinations with seismic and thermal combined in proposes to update the corresponding moment and activity pro 4 as well.

we Wall 7.3 is an interior wall in the auxiliary building w

or accident thermal loads. However, due to the othe locations in the nuclear island, the thermal induced ot island causes thermal stresses in Wall 7.3. Wall 7.3 is designed e nuclear isla isl mic and thermal. The markup of UFSAR Tables 3H.5-4 and 3H.5-5 reflect the combined seismic s and thermal demands. In addition, the change of load combinations in the calculations provide a conservative design because the revised load combinations are more comprehensive and can envelope the possible scenarios in the service life of the structures. The refined analysis also provides more conservative results because the envelope of peak values from FEA meshes can better reflect the localized demands. The refined thermal reduction factor by using individual factors per elevation can better reflect the actual thermal behavior of structures at different locations, and therefore is more accurate. The revised concrete reinforcement cover meets ACI 349-01 and has negligible impact on the performance of the wall. Therefore, the revised demands in the UFSAR tables provide conservative and accurate results of the design and do not impact the performance of the structure. The revised provided shear reinforcement meets the requirements of ACI 349-01. The markup of Table 3H.5-5 shows that the required reinforcement is smaller than the provided reinforcement. The Wall 7.3 design remains in compliance with ACI 349-01 and the requirements in UFSAR Subsection 3.8.4.5.1. There is no reduction in margin of safety for the structure because Wall 7.3 continues to meet Page 26 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019)

ACI 349-01. The proposed changes do not have adverse impact on the global structural analysis of the nuclear island. The proposed changes do not impact the ability of Wall 7.3 to withstand seismic impact.

Change 2D - Wall L Critical Section Table Update (Tables 3H.5-6 and 3H.5-7)

Wall L, to the west of Main Control Room (MCR) in the auxiliary building, is a SC-I reinforced concrete wall, and extend from EL. 66'-6" to the roof. Wall L is designed to withstand seismic impact.

UFSAR Table 3H.5-6 for Wall L shows the moments and forces in different segments along the height from EL. 117'-6" to 154'-2". UFSAR Table 3H.5-7 for Wall L shows the required reinforcement under governing load combinations ions without w seismic and thermal loads combined due to a thermal note and shows provided provid reinforcement rein as well. The required reinforcement in UFSAR Table 3H.5-7 is calculate calculated based base on the demands in UFSAR Table 3H.5-6. This activity proposes to o delete the thermal th note and show the UFSAR Table 3H.5-7. This activity proposes forces in UFSAR Table 3H.5-6 as well.

T required reinforcement under load combinations ons with seismic and an thermal combined in ses to update the corresponding ell. Wall L is the east corre moment and eas wall of the east MISV can envelope the possible AF compartment and can be subject to accident ccident thermal 3H.5-7 3H.5-demands. In addition, the change of load comb conservative design because ause the revised load sible scenarios in th ssible therma temperature break in the MISV compartment. Wall L is also an interior ambient temperature of 70°F. Wall L is designed for co markup of UFSAR Tables 3H.5-6 H.5-6 and d 3H.5 temper inter due to high energy line wall and can be subject to combined seismic and thermal. The reflect the combined seismic and thermal

-7 reflec combinations in the calculations provide a loa combinations c are more comprehensive and the service life of the structures. The refined D

analysis also provides factor by using R

des more conservative results because the envelope of peak values from FEA meshess can better reflect ref ng individual factors p the localized demands. The refined thermal reduction per elevation can better reflect the actual thermal behavior of structures at different locations, and therefore is more accurate. The revised concrete reinforcement orcement cover performance of the cove meets ACI 349-01 and has negligible impact on the he wall. The change of MSIV accident pressure and generator accident pressure as result of previous pre incorporated into the wall licensing amendment request LAR-17-028 has been wa calculations and does not impact the physical design of the wall.

Therefore, the revised demands in the UFSAR tables provide conservative and accurate results of the design and do not impact the performance of the structure. The revised provided shear reinforcement meets the requirements of ACI 349-01. The markup of Table 3H.5-7 shows that the required reinforcement is smaller than the provided reinforcement.

The Wall L design remains in compliance with ACI 349-01 and the requirements in UFSAR Subsection 3.8.4.5.1. There is no reduction in margin of safety for the structure because Wall L continues to meet ACI 349-01. The proposed changes do not have adverse impact on the global structural analysis of the nuclear island. The proposed changes do not impact the ability of Wall L to withstand seismic impact. Wall L continues to provide MCR boundary and MSIV boundary.

Page 27 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019)

Change 2E - Shield Building Roof Critical Section Table Update (Tables 3H.5-9 and 3H.5-15)

The shield building and shield building roof provide shielding of the containment vessel and the radioactive systems and components located in the containment vessel. The shield building protects the containment vessel and the reactor coolant system from the external event, i.e. tornado missile impact, aircraft impact. The shield building supports the baffle that directs the air over the exterior of the containment vessel. The air inlets in the shield building provide the air flow for the passive containment cooling system. The PCCWST, located on the roof of the shield building, stores water for external cooling of the containment as parts of the passive containment cooling system.

UFSAR Table 3H.5-9 Sheets 1-2c show the demands and capacities cap of the air inlet and tension ring of the shield building under load combinations nations without nation witho seismic and thermal combined due to the thermal note. UFSAR Table 3H.5-9 H.5-9 Sheet H.5 She 3 andan UFSAR Table 3H.5-15 show the demands and capacities of the PCS S tank exterior wall w an and conical roof of the activity proposes to delete the thermal note the demands under load combinations with T

shield building under load combinations with seismic and normal thermal e in UFSAR Table 3H.5-9 tth combined. This 3H.5 Sheets 1-2c and show h seismic and normal/accident norm thermal loads AF combined in UFSAR Tables 3H.5-9 and The upper annulus, which is on control and contains air which The accident air temperature nd 3H.5 n 3H.5-15.

n the outside

-15.

15.

The tension ring and air inlet in the shield building are next to the upper annulus interior.

side of the air baffle, ch experiences only ature on the inside of ring and air inlet can reach o

b is exposed to air without HVAC a relatively small heat up during accident.

o the shield building at the elevation of tension summer and 10 °F in winter. Since the atmosphere each 165 °F in summe D

temperatures in summer R

tension ring and loads. The markups mmer is 115 °F and in w gradient for the tension winter is -40 °F, the maximum accident thermal ension ring and air inlet is 50 °F (= 165 °F - 115 °F). The tension ring and air inlet structures ures are also subject to normal thermal gradient of 110 °F (-40 °F outside/70

°F inside) in winter and 45 °F (115 (11 °F outside/70 °F inside) in summer. Therefore, the designed for combined seismic and normal/accident thermal nd air inlet are d des ups of Table 3H.5-9 Sheets 1-2c show that the required reinforcement is equal or smaller than an the provided reinforcement under combined seismic and thermal loads. The tension ring ng and air inlet structural design remains in compliance with the applicable requirements in ACI 349-01 and AISC N690-94. There is no reduction in margin of safety for the structure because the design of tension ring and air inlet structures continues to meet the applicable codes.

The conical roof is above the containment vessel and is subject to air which can be heated up after passing through the bottom of the air baffle and beginning to rise during accident.

The accident air temperature on the inside of the shield building conical roof can reach 180 °F in summer and 120 °F in winter. Since a portion of the conical roof is exposed to atmosphere and the atmosphere temperatures in summer is 115 °F and in winter is -40

°F, the maximum accident thermal gradient for the conical roof is 160 °F (= 120 °F - (-40)

°F). The conical roof is also subject to normal thermal gradient of 110 °F (-40 °F outside/70

°F inside) in winter and 45 °F (115 °F outside/70 °F inside) in summer. Therefore, the shield building conical roof is designed for combined seismic and normal/accident thermal loads. The markup of Table 3H.5-15 shows that the required reinforcement is smaller than Page 28 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019) the provided reinforcement under combined seismic and thermal loads. The conical roof design remains in compliance with ACI 349-01. There is no reduction in margin of safety for the structure because the design of the conical roof continues to meet the applicable codes.

The PCS tank has a minimum water temperature of 40°F and maximum water temperature of 120°F during normal operation. The PCS tank exterior wall is also subject to atmosphere temperature of -40 °F in winter and atmosphere temperature of 115 °F in summer. The structural design of the PCS tank walls takes a conservative deterministic assumption to the maximum thermal gradient across the walls by using thermal gradient of 40°F (inside) / 115°F (outside) and 40°F (inside) / -40°F 4 (outside) during normal operation. Even though there is no accident thermal load ad on o thet PCS tank exterior wall, thermal loads applied at other locations of the shield d building buil roof, i.e. conical roof and ro tension ring, can induce deformation and therefore re cause thermal th stresses in the PCS tank exterior wall. Therefore, the PCS tank exterior rior wall is designed desig for fo combined seismic and normal/accident thermal loads. The markup required reinforcement is smaller than the seismic and thermal loads. The PCS tank T 3H.5-9 kup of Table 3H.5-3H.5 he provided reinforcement nk exterior xterior wall reinforce wa design remains r

Sheet 3 shows that the

-9 Sh under combined in compliance with AF ACI 349-01. There is no reduction in margin of safety of the PCS tank exterior wall continues The proposed changes do not the nuclear island. The proposed to withstand tornado missile shield building roof and nues posed changes do airc d provided steel remain safet for the structure because the design ot have adverse impact applicable codes.

ues to meet the applic ap impac on the global structural analysis of d not impact the ability of the shield building ssile impact or aircraft impact because the configuration of the remai unchanged. The proposed changes do not rema D

change the configuration inlets. The proposed leak chase design n or size of the air uration esign are not changed The SFP walls are module walls w ai inlets or alter the design air flow through the posed changes do not impact the volume of the PCS tank and the performance of the tank. Piping an R

and instrumentation connections to the tank and the tank change in size or location.

Change 3 - Spent Fuel Pool West Wall W Critical Section Table Update (Table 3H.5-8) which are located on the south side of the auxiliary building from elevation 66'-6" to elevation 135'-3",

35 enclosed by column lines 2 and 4, and L2 and K2, as shown in UFSAR Figure 3.8.4-4 Sheets 1-5. The SFP walls are similar to the module walls inside containment, which consist of steel faceplates, steel trusses, shear studs and concrete. The west wall of the SFP along column line L-2 is a critical section as defined in UFSAR Subsection 3H.5.5.1. UFSAR Table 3H.5-8 shows the demands and capacities of the SFP west wall at seven critical locations, which are defined in UFSAR Figure 3H.5-10. UFSAR Table 3H.5-8 shows forces and moments under critical load cases, including dead load, live load, hydrostatic load, normal thermal load and accident load, and shows moments and forces under representative load combinations, such as gravity load combination, gravity and seismic load combination, and load combinations with seismic and normal thermal loads combined. UFSAR Table 3H.5-8 also shows required steel plate thickness without thermal versus provided steel plate thickness, maximum principal stress versus yield stress, and maximum stress intensity versus allowable stress intensity. This activity proposes to revise demands in UFSAR Table 3H.5-8 to match the revise design evaluation of SFP walls.

Page 29 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019)

SFP walls are subject to 212 °F of accident thermal during SFP boiling. As part of design finalization, the accident thermal load is combined with seismic load and other loads in accordance with UFSAR Tables 3.8.4-1 and 3.8.4-2, and ACI 349-01. The moments and forces under combined seismic and accident loads are added to the markups of UFSAR Table 3H.5-8.

The original SFP wall analysis used finite element model with approximate 5' by 5' mesh and fixed-fixed boundary condition. The design finalization refines the finite element model by changing the mesh size to 1' by 1' and creating two finite element models with fixed-fixed and fixed-pinned boundary conditions. The pinned connection is used at floor to wall connections where the bottom dowel is located above the bottom WT stiffeners on the floor to capture the potential rotation. The results from the two FEA models are enveloped to conservatively capture potential behavior of the floor to wall connection. The results from om the refined FEA models are also averaged back to the original element size. SFP Wall L-2 L is designed under load combinations with seismic and accident thermal loads combined mbined by using usi results from refined FEA models. The markups of UFSAR Table 3H.5-8 show that the th required requ plate thickness excluding thermal is smaller than the provided plate thickness, hickness, the maximum max principal stress for intensity range for the load combinations including T the load combinations including thermal is smaller than ng han the yield stress, and an the maximum stress a

g thermal is smaller tthan the allowable stress intensity. The design of SFP Wall L-2 remains in compliance mpliance with the applicable requirements in Change 4 - Critical Section Tables AF ACI 349-01 and AISC N690-94. There is no reduction in margin the design of the SFP Wall L-2 continuess to do not have adverse impact on the global ables Update p

marg of safety o meet the applicable obal structural applica sa for the structure because codes. The proposed changes tructural analysis of the nuclear island because the changes are made to local models and do not impact the mass or stiffness of the global model.

The proposed changes do not impact pact the ability of SFP Wall for Auxiliary Auxi Auxil W L-2 to withstand seismic impact.

Building Floors D

The floors in the auxiliary anchorage for component building floor system R

accordance with AISC y building SC N690-94 the wet concrete during ng are seismic C ent and piping supports m is designed as co Category I structures and provide support and ssuppor and other attachments. One type of auxiliary composite structural steel and reinforced concrete in com N690-94 utilizing a metal deck spanning between the beams to support N

g construction.

construction The design of the concrete and reinforcement in the floor sections satisfies the requirements uirements of designed as reinforced concrete accordance with ACI 349.

o ACI 349. Other floor structures in the auxiliary building are crete slabs with cast-in-place concrete placed on precast panels in Change 4A - Composite Floor Critical Section Table Update (Table 3H.5-11)

UFSAR Table 3H.5-11 shows the demands and capacities of the composite floor between column lines M and P at EL. 135'-3". This activity proposes to revise the demands and capacities of the composite floor. There are multiple changes made in the latest design for the composite floor, including (a) modified seismic mass by counting 25% of live load instead of 100% of the live load, (b) refined floor vertical seismic acceleration, (c) account for air handling unit loads. As result of the changes in the design, the governing load combinations of the floor is changed from extreme environmental condition which has combined gravity and seismic loads to abnormal condition which has combined gravity and accident thermal/pressure loads. The in-plane shear in the direction parallel to the beams in increased from 20 kips per foot width to 31 kips per foot width. The required reinforcement is changed from 0.41 in2/ft to 0.43 in2/ft in the direction parallel to the beams Page 30 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019) and from 0.28 in2/ft to 0.43 in2/ft in the direction perpendicular to the beams. The revised required reinforcement remains smaller than the provided reinforcement.

Even though there is no direct thermal load applied on the composite floor at this location, the composite floor between column lines M and P is next to the MSIV compartments which are subject to accident thermal loads, and the thermal induced deformation in the structures around MSIV compartments can cause thermal stresses in the floor. The composite floor is also evaluated under the combined seismic and accident thermal loads by using refined thermal reduction factor. The evaluation shows that the required reinforcement under combined seismic and accident thermal loads with refined thermal reduction factor can be bounded by the required reinforcement me under abnormal condition without seismic included. Therefore, this change activity ity proposes pr prop to use the demands under abnormal condition without seismic included and delete d Note 1 in UFSAR Table 3H.5-11.

AISC N690-94 and ACI 349-01. There is no because the design of the composite floor T

The design of the composite floor remains in compliance with applic applicable app requirements in o reduction in margin of safety for the structure oor continues to meet the applicable codes. The D

proposed changes do not impact the e ability of the composite composi floor to withstand seismic impact. The proposed changes do not impact the ability abil of o the composite floor to provide support and anchorage for component nt and piping supports ponent supp and other attachments.

R Change 4B - Tagging Room AF made in the latest account for 2-way LAR-14-003. The m Ceiling Critical Section UFSAR Table 3H.5-12 shows the demand floor, which is a cast-in-place in demands an n-place concrete pla proposes to revise the demands demands and capacities st design for the slab s

capa Sectio Table Update (Table 3H.5-12) and capacities of the tagging room ceiling placed plac on precast concrete floor. This activity of the floor. There are multiple changes th floor, including (a) refined analysis to more accurately way behavior of the slab, (b) revised design methodology as approved in in The current value is based on a depth of slab equal to 24-inch taking into consideration the composite behavior be of the precast panel and cast-in-place slab using the bottom layer of reinforce reinforcement in the precast panel for the mid-span positive moment reinforcem reinforcement. The methodology for designing these types of floor slabs was revised e metho through LAR-14-003, w which was approved by NRC and has been incorporated in the licensing basis. The revised methodology requires the floor slab to be designed based on the thickness of the cast-in-place portion only. This results in a reduced depth to the reinforcement which has a corresponding increase in area of reinforcement required. The revised required reinforcement in the 24 inch slab remains smaller than the provided reinforcement.

Even though there is no direct thermal load applied on the tagging room ceiling floor, thermal loads are applied at other locations in the nuclear island, and the steady state heat transfer analysis can result in thermal gradient in the tagging room ceiling floor. The heat transfer analysis of the auxiliary building shows that there is no normal thermal gradient in the tagging room ceiling floor, and the accident thermal gradient is only 17 °F and therefore has negligible impact on the demands in the floor. Therefore, the demands in the markup of UFSAR Table 3H.5-12 do not reflect the demands under accident thermal.

Page 31 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019)

The design of the tagging room ceiling floor remains in compliance with ACI 349-01. There is no reduction in margin of safety for the structure because the design of the tagging room ceiling floor continues to meet the applicable codes. The proposed changes do not impact the ability of the tagging room ceiling floor to withstand seismic impact. The proposed changes do not impact the ability of the tagging room ceiling floor to provide support and anchorage for component and piping supports and other attachments.

Summary The proposed changes revise the accidental air and surface temperatures for the MSIV compartments, accident thermal loads for the exterior walls below grade and basemat in the auxiliary building, and normal thermal loads for the PCS tank.. The Th above proposed changes would not adversely affect any safety-related equipment or function, unction, de unctio design function, radioactive material barrier or safety analysis.

4. REGULATORY EVALUATION 4.1 T

Applicable Regulatory Requirements/Criteria rements/Criteria ts/Crite AF 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, VIII.B.6 Tier 2* information. This activity license (COL), and thus requires (LAR) (as supplied herein) 6 requires prior NR

.B.6 y includes equires NRC approval.

ein) is requir required.

appr 2

NRC approval for the departure from departures that do not meet the Tier 2*

des Tier 2* depa departure exemption criteria of License Condition 2.D.(13)

Therefore, T

of the VEGP Unit 4 combined a license amendment request D

10 CFR 50, Appendix Design Criterion tested to quality dix A, General Design ndix n (GDC) 1, Qua Desig Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants, General Quality sstandards and records, requires that structures, systems, and components important R importa to safety shall be designed, fabricated, erected, and ality standards commensurate industry standards, comm s, the requirements 10 CFR 50, Appendix A requ with the importance of the safety functions to be performed. By continuing to follow the guidelines of the NRC Regulatory Guides and of GDC 1 have been maintained.

A, GDC 2, Design bases for protection against natural phenomena, requires that structures, systems, and components important to safety shall be designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena such as earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, tsunami, and seiches without loss of capability to perform their safety functions. There is no change to the expected responses to natural phenomena, the nuclear island continues to be able to respond to the same design basis earthquake; therefore, there are no changes to the conformance with GDC 2.

10 CFR 50, Appendix A, GDC 4, Environmental and dynamic effects design bases, requires that structures, systems, and components important to safety shall be designed to accommodate the effects of and to be compatible with the environmental conditions associated with normal operation, maintenance, testing, and postulated accidents, including loss-of-coolant accidents. The changes in this activity do not alter the structures within the nuclear islands response to environmental conditions associated with normal operation, and because the same design criteria are used before and after the changes, Page 32 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019) the auxiliary and shield building continue to be able to withstand similar conditions; therefore, there are no changes to the conformance with GDC 4.

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix S provides the earthquake engineering criteria necessary for nuclear power plants to implement GDC 2 insofar as it requires structures, systems, and components important to safety to withstand the effects of earthquakes. As described in UFSAR subsections 3.2.1.1.1 and 3.7.1.1, 10 CFR 50, Appendix S, applies to seismic Category I structures. As described in UFSAR subsection 3.2.1.1.2, seismic Category II structures, such turbine building first bay which is adjacent to nuclear island outlined by Columns I.1 to R, 11.05 to 11.2, and 11.02 to 11.2, are designed to prevent their collapse during a safe shutdown earthquake, to preclude interactions ctio with seismic Category I structures that could degrade the functioning of a safety-related afety-rel afety structure, system or component. The proposed changes to the nuclear island SSCs and S do not adversely affect the structural capability of the seismic Category II structures.

ctures.. Therefore, uctures Therefore Th compliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix S, is not affected by this activity.

vity.

10 CFR 50.150 requires that nuclear power Terr plants shall be designed identify design features and functional capabilities abilities that design to accommodate to tha demonstrate demon with reduced use of AF operator actions (i) the reactor core remains adversely affect physical design or the continues to meet the requirements 4.2 Precedent emains cooled, (ii) spent fuel pool integrity is maintained.

ooled the containment con proposed changes ained. The propos c remains intact, and to the PCS tank do not he design function of the PCS. The PCS tank design ements of ACI-349 ACI--349 and AISC N690. Therefore, compliance ACI with 10 CFR 50.150 is not affected by this activity.

activity a

4.3 D

No precedent is identified.

dentified.

dentified Significant R ficant Hazards Cons Consideration Consid The proposed changes would revise MSIV compartments, accident thermal loads for the exterior walls below grade and nts, accid basemat in the auxiliary r

ary building, b

the accidental air and surface temperatures for the and normal thermal loads for the PCS tank The requested amendment proposes a change to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Tier 2 and Tier 2* information that do not meet the Tier 2* departure exemption criteria of License Condition 2.D.(13) of the VEGP Unit 4 combined license (COL), and thus requires NRC approval.

An evaluation to determine whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment was completed by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, Issuance of amendment, as discussed below:

Page 33 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019) 4.3.1 Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The design functions of the nuclear island structures are to provide support, protection, and separation for the seismic Category 1 mechanical and electrical equipment located in the nuclear island. The nuclear island structures are structurally designed to meet seismic Category 1 requirements as defined in Regulatory Guide 1.29.

The proposed changes to revise the accidentall air and surface temperatures for the MSIV compartments, accident thermal loads ads for the exterior ext walls below grade and basemat in the auxiliary building, and d normal thermal therm loadsloa for the PCS tank accident conditions. The proposed T

do not have an adverse impact on the response of the nuclearnuclea island structures to nuc safe shutdown earthquake ground motions or loads to anticipated an sed changes do not adversely a

or postulated affect the design AF function of any SSCs contained involve any accident initiating of an accident unaltered.

operation of mechanical ing nuclear island. This change does not ned within the n g components or ev ed. The e changes changes do not ical and fluid systems.

the response of systems ystems to postulated the predicted radioactive postulat accident adioactive releases due a

events, eve thus leaving the probabilities n impact the support, design, or systems There is no change to plant systems or sys conditions. There is no change to du to normal operation or postulated accident DR conditions. The plant response to events is accident s not adversely affected, ent precursors.

Therefore, affecte a

t previously evaluated accidents or external nor do the proposed changes create any new proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the ore, the propos probability or conseq 4.3.2 consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

Does the pro proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed changes to revise the accidental air and surface temperatures for the MSIV compartments, accident thermal loads for the exterior walls below grade and basemat in the auxiliary building, and normal thermal loads for the PCS do not change the design requirements of the nuclear island structures. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the design function of any SSC contained within the nuclear island, or any other SSC design functions or methods of operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or non-safety-related equipment. The proposed changes Page 34 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019) do not change the design, function, support, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems.

Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

4.3.3 Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed changes to revise the accidental air and an surface temperatures for a

the MSIV compartments, accident thermal loads ds for the exterior e walls below grade and basemat in the auxiliary building, and normal thermal the loads for the PCS tank lo do not alter any safety-related equipment, pment, applicable applicab de design codes, code conformance to American Institute American Concrete Institute (ACI)

T compliance, design function, or safety analysis.

te of Steel Construction ute 349-01.

CI) 349 an Construc These changes maintain The Thes (AISC) N690 and The criteria and requirements of AISC 9-01. T AF N690 and ACI 349-01 provide ACI 349-01 and therefore, alter any design function, sufficient margin de a margin of safety of the nuclear island SSCss conform nction, design analysis, analysis an n exists to justify de design basis acceptance sa nform to criteria and ore, maintains the margin fore, ma tto structural failure. The design an requirements in AISC N690 and of safety. The change does not or safety analysis input or result, and departure Consequently, no safety analysis or depa ceptance limit/criterion limit/criterio is challenged or exceeded by the proposed DR change, thus Therefore, hus the margin of safety is not reduced.

fore, the proposed am margin n of safety.

Based on the above, s

ove, it is co consid amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a ame concluded that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of no significant hazards consideration is justified.

4.4 Conclusions In conclusion, based on the considerations discussed above, (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.92, the requested change does not involve a Significant Hazards Consideration.

Page 35 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019)

5. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS The details of the proposed changes are provided in Sections 2 and 3 of this licensing amendment request.

The requested amendment proposes changes to information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) related to the accidental air and surface temperatures for the MSIV compartments, accident thermal loads for the exterior walls below grade and basemat in the auxiliary building, and normal thermal loads for the PCS tank.

This review has determined the proposed change requires an amendment to the COL. However, a review of the anticipated construction and operational effects of th the requested amendment has determined the requested amendment meets the eligibility criteria criter for ccategorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9), in that:

(i) license amendment request, an evaluation T

There is no significant hazards consideration.

As documented in Section 4.3, Significantt Hazards Consideration Consideratio Determination, of this ation was completed com to determine whether or not a AF significant hazards consideration is involved by focusing in 10 CFR 50.92, Issuance of amendment.

determined that (1) the requested the probability or consequences amendment does not create focus on the three standards set forth o

endment. The Significant endment does not involve a significant increase in sted amendment ences of an accident acc eate the possibility of accident previously evaluated; Si S

previously p

Hazards Consideration evaluated; (2) the requested o a new or different kind of accident from any valuated; and (3) the requested amendment does not involve a (ii)

D significant reduction Therefore, it is R

on in a margin of safety.

a finding of no significant hazards There is no significant haza ha safety s concluded that the rrequested amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration sideration under the standards s set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and accordingly, consideration is justified.

change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any ant cha effluents that may be released offsite.

The proposed changes revise the accidental air and surface temperatures for the MSIV compartments, accident thermal loads for the exterior walls below grade and basemat in the auxiliary building, and normal thermal loads for the PCS tank. The proposed change is unrelated to any aspect of plant construction or operation that would introduce any change to effluent types (e.g., effluents containing chemicals or biocides, sanitary system effluents, and other effluents), or affect any plant radiological or non-radiological effluent release quantities. Furthermore, the proposed change does not affect any effluent release path or diminish the functionality of any design or operational features that are credited with controlling the release of effluents during plant operation.

Page 36 of 37

ND-19-XXXX Request for License Amendment Regarding Reconciliation of Environmental Conditions Inputs to Civil Structural Design Licensing Basis (LAR-19-019)

Therefore, it is concluded that the requested amendment does not involve a significant change in the types or a significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite.

(iii) There is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

The proposed changes revise the accidental air and surface temperatures for the MSIV compartments, accident thermal loads for the exterior walls below grade and basemat in the auxiliary building, and normal thermal loads for the PCS tank. Plant radiation zones (addressed in UFSAR Section 12.3) are not affected, and controls under 10 CFR 20 preclude a significant increase in occupational radiation adiation exposure.

adiatio e Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a significant nt increase increas in in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

Based on the above review of the requested amendment, construction and operational effects of the requested hazards consideration, (ii) a significant change Tdment, it has been determined ted amendment ested amendm dete do n e in the types or signific that anticipated not involve (i) a significant significant increase in the amounts AF of any effluents that may be released offsite, cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(b), an environmental proposed exemption is not required.

6. REFERENCES ite, or (iii) a sign site, al impact statement or red.

significant significan increase in the individual or ure. Accordingly, the requested r amendment meets the ion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to o environmental assessment of the None.

DR Page 37 of 37

Southern Nuclear Operating Company ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Vogtle Electric Generating T

g Plant Units 3 and 4 AF Proposed Changes Basis Documents nges to Licensing Ba

((LAR-19-019)

L -19 LAR 19--019 0

DR Additions identif identified by blue underlined text.

Deletions Identifie Identified by red strikethrough of text.

• *

• indicates omitted o

om existing text that is not shown.

(This Enclosure consists of 33 pages, including this cover page)

ND-19-XXXX Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Revise UFSAR Tier 2* Subsection 3H.3.3, Loads, sixth subheading, Operating Thermal Loads (To), revise text as shown below.

3H.3.3 Loads Normal thermal loads for the passive containment cooling system (PCS) tank design are calculated based on the outside air temperature extremes specified for the safety-related design. The PCS tank is assumed to be at 40°F when the outside air temperature is -40°F. The water in the PCS tank is assumed to be at 70°F The structural design of the PCS tank also conservatively assumes that the temperature on the inside of the PCS tank walls is at 40°F when the outside air temperature is postulated to be at 115°F.

T AF DR Page 2 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Revise UFSAR Table 3H.5-1, Nuclear Island: Design Temperatures for Thermal Gradient as shown below.

Structure (See detail in Subsection 3H.3.3) Load Temperature (°F) Remark Normal Thermal, To [(Outside) (Inside)

PCS Tank Walls -40 +40 -

+115 +70 +40 Exterior Walls Below Grade Normal Thermal, To N/R N/R -

Accident Thermal, Ta N/R +50 N/R +140 - Auxiliary Building Basemat Normal Thermal, To N/R N/R -

Accident Thermal, Ta N/R +50 N +140 N/R + - Auxiliary Building AF T

DR Page 3 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Revise UFSAR Table 3.8.5-3, Definition of Critical Locations, Thicknesses and Reinforcement for Nuclear Island Basemat(1) (in2/ft) as shown below.

Basemat Required(3)(6) [Provided (Minimum)(4)]*

Segment (see detail in subsection North- North- East-3.8.5.4.4) Location South East-West Shear South West Shear Auxiliary Building Basemat Elevation 66 6 Column line K to L and from Shield Building to Col. Line 11(2)(6)

Top Face Note 5 1.5 Note 5 [2.25 2.25 Bottom Face Note 5 1.6 1.85 2.25 2.25 0.23 3 0.

0 0.24 0.25]*

Column line 1 to 2 and from Column Line K-2 to N wall(2)

General Area Top Face Note 5 Note 5 [2.25 2.25 Central Zone Top Face 2.72 3.11 Note 5 3.25

3. 2.25 D

Bottom Face Note 5 1.85 1.85 2.25

2. 2.25 0.47 0.50]*

R Notes:

6. Thermal loads have been considered ered in the design of o critical sections. The required AF reinforcement values shown do not ot include de the load cas case where seismic and normal thermal loads are numerically combined ned as the normal nor thermal t loads were assessed to be insignificant. When the seismic mic and normal thermal therm loads are numerically combined, the value of required reinforcement may increase; however, howeve in all cases the required reinforcement is howev less than the provided reinforcement orcement and thus the design of the critical section reinforcement is acceptable.

T

6. The 5'-0" portion of the Basemat between building to column area.

betwee column line L to 5' east of column line and shield betw mn line 9.2, as shown in Figure 3.8.5-3, Sheets 5-7, are not included in this Page 4 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Revise UFSAR Table 3H.5-2, Exterior Wall at Column Line 1 Forces and Moments in Critical Locations as shown below.

Load Combination Mx MY MXY TX TY TXY Elevation 180-0 to 135-3

[D + L + H + Ta 177.8 3.1 115.5 8.8 1.05 D + 1.3 L + 1.3 H+ 1.2 To]* 106.4 5.6 117.0 23.9

[0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym 194.9 0.3 155.8 82.8 0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym 266.4 18.4 27.2 34.0 D+F+L+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym 144.3 49.1 144.3 95.5 0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym]* 126.6 42.5 149.0 52.0 Elevation 135-3 to 100-0

[D + L + H + Ta 50.8 0.3 89.8 104.8 D + L + H + Ta 82.9 7.6

.6 1 172.9 24.8 D + L + H + Ta]* 60.0 3.6 165.7 165 106.0

[0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym 45.8 5.0 257.9 44.0 D

D+F+L+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym 63.4 1.9 149.7 149.7 47.3 D+F+L+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym]* 87.1 37.0 37 72.2 72 53.0 Elevation 100-0 to 82-6 R

[1.05 D + 1.3 L + 1.3 H + 1.2 To 48.1 1 8.4 106.1 17.3 D + L+ Es]* 1.8 5.4 15.6 58.6

[0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym 44.1 44.1

44. 13.8 13 194.4 130.8 AF 0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym 42.9 13.8 194.4 130.8 0.9D+0.9F+1.3L+1.2To+1.3H+1.3Ro 1.0 1.0 19.2 34.5 122.3 0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym]* m]* 21.1 21 1.1 16.0 36.0 128.8 Elevation 82-6 to 66-6

[D + L - Es 93.8 26.5 170.7 31.5 T

0.9 D + Es 32.7 27.2 182.1 42.4 0.9 D + Es]* 15.

15.5 27.2 18.6 42.4

[0.9D+F+H+Ro+To+Es 18.1 2.3 204.2 83.4 0.9D+F+H+Ro+To+Es 105.7 22.8 230.6 25.6 0.9D+F+H+Ro+To+Es]* 24.4 2.3 11.4 83.4 Page 5 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Revise UFSAR Table 3H.5-3, Exterior Wall on Column Line 1 Details of Wall Reinforcement (in2/ft) as shown below.

Wall Segment Required(2) [Provided (Minimum)]*

(See detail in Subsection 3H.5.1.1.) Location Vertical Horizontal Shear(3) Vertical Horizontal Shear(3)

Wall Section 1, 6 Elevation 180-0 N/R None to 135-3 Outside Face 3.48(4) 3.65 2.65 3.08 [3.91(4) 3.12 Inside Face 1.94 2.76 1.52 2.51 3.12 3.12]*

Wall Section 2, 3, 7 Elevation 135-3 NR 0.17 None to 100-0 0.80]*

Outside Face 1.88 3.00 3.04 [3.12

[ 12

[3. 3.12 Inside Face 1.77 3.00 2.23 3.12 3 3.12]*

Wall Section 4, 8 Elevation 100-0 to 82-6 DR Outside Face Inside Face 1.42 3.04 1.01 3.04 0.70 1.55 0.70 1.25 0.003 0.0 0.03

[3.12 3.12 1.56 1.27]*

[0.44]*

AF Wall Section 5, 9 Elevation 82-6 to 0.27 0 0.56 [0.88]*

66-6 Outside Face 2.29 3.37 7 0.87 0.9 0 0.

0.95 [4.39 1.27 Inside Face 1.87 87 2.68 0.87 0 0.95 3.12 1.27]*

T Notes:

2. Thermal loads haveve considered in the design of critical sections. The required e been consid considere consider reinforcement values shown do notn include the load case where seismic and normal thermal loads are numerically combined ombine mbin as the normal thermal loads were assessed to be insignificant. When the seismic and normal thermal loads are numerically combined, the value of required reinforcement may increase; however, in all cases the required reinforcement is less than the provided reinforcement and thus the design of the critical section reinforcement is acceptable. Not used.

Page 6 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Revise UFSAR Table 3H.5-4, Interior Wall at Column Line 7.3 Forces and Moments in Critical Locations as shown below.

Load Combination Mx MY MXY TX TY TXY From Roof to Elevation 155-6

[1.05 D + 1.3 L + 1.2 To 135.3 10.9 117.3 210.2 1.05 D + 1.3 L + 1.2 To]* 75.5 4.1 229.8 94.3

[0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym 21.3 15.6 135.0 233.5 0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym]* 54.3 16.9 241.8 199.5 Elevation 155-6 to 135-3

[0.9 D - Es 14.1 1.3 160.8 228.7 D + L - Es]* 28.0 1.0 29.8 231.7

[0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym 9.1 4.0 192.2 189.3 D+F+L+H+Ro+To+Es]* 23.5 2.5

.5 39.1 215.9 Elevation 135-3 to 117-6

[0.9 D - Es 3.3 1.3 142.2 140.9 D

D + L - Es]* 10.0 1.0 41 41.7 175.0

[0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym 9.3 9.3 3.7 3.7 177.9 161.6 0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym]* 11.3 0.6 0.6 46.3 184.3 R

Elevation 117-6 to 100-0

[0.9 D - Es 4 4.7 2.8 143.9 184.9 D + L + Es]* 6.4 1.5 1 172.8 107.9 AF

[0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym 7.8 7.8 2.7 133.8 199.0 0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym]* 4.7 4 .7 1.2 178.9 116.4 Elevation 100-0 to 82-6

[0.9 D - Es 15.4 1

15 5 2.6 90.4 169.8 D + L - Es]* 8.7 2.6 46.6 175.6 T

[0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+YmYr+Yj+Ym 31.0 8.5 166.2 91.5 D+F+L+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym]*

+Yr+Yj+

+ YmYm]* 12.8 1

12.

2.8 0.0 6.4 164.8 Elevation 82-6 to 66-6

[0.9 D - Es 23.5 1.3 80.9 49.3 D + L - Es]* 0.8 1.3 1.7 74.1

[0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym j+Y 24.5 3.8 105.7 79.3 0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym]* 2.5 3.8 9.7 79.3 Page 7 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Revise UFSAR Table 3H.5-5, Interior Wall on Column Line 7.3 Details of Wall Reinforcement as shown below.

Reinforcement on Each Face (in2/ft)

Wall Segment (see detail in

[Provided Subsection 3H.5.1.2.)

Location Wall Section Required(1) (Min.)]*

From Roof to Elevation 155-6 Horizontal 1 3.96 4.06 [4.12 Vertical 7 3.60 3.72 Elevation 155-6 to 135-3 Horizontal 2 2.80 3.12 Vertical 8 3.59 3.64 3.72 Elevation 135-3 to 117-6 Horizontal 3 2.03 2.10 2.54 Vertical 9 2.63 3.10 3.12 Elevation 117-6 to 100-0 Horizontal 4 2.29 2.34 2.54 Vertical 10 2.98 3.12 Elevation 100-0 to 82-6 Horizontal 5 1.69 1 2.54 Vertical 11 2.08 22.33 3.12(3)

D Elevation 82-6 to 66-6 Horizontal 6 0.85 1.27 Vertical 12 0.98 0.9 1.52 1.56 Shear Reinforcement(2) (in2/ft2)

R From Roof to Elevation 155-6 Standard hook or 7 0.38 0.44 0.80]*

T headed bar AF Notes:

idered in the design

1. Thermal loads have been considered des of critical sections. The required reinforcement values shown do not include incl the load case where seismic and normal thermal loads are numerically combined mbined bined as the normal thermal tth loads were assessed to be insignificant. When the seismic mic and normal the thermal loads are numerically combined, the value of required reinforcement nforcement may increas increase; however, in all cases the required T

reinforcement is less ess ss than the provided provide reinforcement re and thus the design of the critical section reinforcement ement is acceptable. NNot used.

Page 8 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Revise UFSAR Table 3H.5-6, Interior Wall at Column Line L Forces and Moments in Critical Locations as shown below.

Load Combination Mx MY MXY TX TY TXY Elevation 154-2 to 135-3

[0.9 D + Es+ Pa + Yj 6.0 3.5 115.4 170.2 0.9 D + Es+ Pa + Yj]* 14.3 3.5 46.0 170.2

[0.9D+F+L+H+Ro+To+Es 12.0 4.8 124.1 129.7 0.9D+F+H+Es+Pa+Ta+Ra+Yr+Yj+Ym]* 31.3 4.4 24.6 233.1 Elevation 135-3 to 117-6

[0.9 D + Es+ Pa + Yj 145.3 12.2 26.0 38.2 0.9 D + Es+ Pa + Yj]* 24.5 7.1 15.5 114.9

[0.9D+F+L+H+Ro+To+Es 4.5 5.0 124.8 127.5 0.9D+F+L+H+Ro+To+Es]* 26.1 6.2

.2 9.3 132.6 AF T

DR Page 9 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Revise UFSAR Table 3H.5-7, Interior Wall on Column Line L Details of Wall Reinforcement as shown below.

Reinforcement on Each Face (in2/ft2)

Wall Segment (see detail in

[Provided Subsection 3H.5.1.3.)

Location Wall Section Required(1) (Min.)]*

Elevation 154-2 to 135-3 Horizontal 1 2.08 2.09 [2.27 Vertical 3 2.59 3.12 Elevation 135-3 to 117-6 Horizontal 2 1.36 1.46 4.39 Vertical 4 2.02 2.37 5.66]*

Shear Reinforcement(2) (in2/ft2)

Elevation 154-2 to 135-3 Standard hook or 5 0.01 0.13 [0.11 0.80 T headed bar Elevation 135-3 to 117-6 Standard hook or 6 0.33 0 0.55 1.76]*

T headed bar Notes:

D

1. Thermal loads have been considered in the design of critical sections.

reinforcement values shown do not include thermal loads are numerically combined R

be insignificant. When the seismic and the value of required reinforcement e the load case d as the nd normal thermal nt may increase; how reinforcement is less than the provided sectio secti The required ca where seismic and normal he normal norm thermal therma loads were assessed to therm loads load are numerically combined, howev however, in all cases the required ed reinforcement and thus the design of the critical AF section reinforcement is acceptable.

eptabl Not eptable. ot used.

use T

Page 10 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Revise UFSAR Table 3H.5-8 (Sheet 1 of 7), Design Summary of Spent Fuel Pool Wall Design Loads, Load Combinations, and Comparisons to Acceptance Criteria - Element No. 20477 as shown below.

Load/ Sxx Syy Sxy Mxx Myy Nx Ny Combination kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft Comments Dead (D) -16.15 -22.92 -28.34 -1.34 -1.06 -0.32 -0.32 Live (L) 1.46 0.32 -1.57 -0.06 -0.21 0.04 0.03 Hydro (F) 37.52 12.36 -4.32 -100.50 -14.49 62.14 -9.95 Seismic (Es) 46.21 56.51 183.20 81.72 28.70 103.00 14.79 Thermal (To) -61.80 -267.70 -51.15 -426.90 -145.50 90.32 -23.66 Thermal (Ta) -955.80 -444.60 -139.70 -1401.0 -450.00 227.50 227 22 7 -83.16 LC(1a) 32.40 -14.25 -48.39 -142.68 -22.12 8 86.61 -14.33 [1.4D+1.7L+1.4F LC(3a) 84.05 51.21 147.24 -60.38 7.15 189.71 189 18 9.71 0.56 D+L+F+Es LC(3b) 84.05 51.21 -219.16 -223.82 -50.25 0.25 -16.29 6.29 -29.02

-2 D+L+F+E's LC(3e)

LC(3f)

LC(3m)

LC(3n)

LC(3o)

D

-267.08

-267.08 R

84.20 84.20

-266.92

-116.11

-116.11 53.18 53.18

-114.13 115.28

-251.12 151.64

-214.76 119.68

-327.19

-490.63

-60.18

-223.62

-326.99 18 223.62 23.62 6.99

--83.79 83.79

--141.19 141.19 7.46

-49.9494

--83.47 83.47 246.16 40.16 40.16 189.71 189

-16.29 246.16 6 -14.22

-43.80 0.57

-29.01

-14.22 D+L+F+Es+To D+L+F+E's+To 0.9D+F+Es 0.9D+F+E's 0.9D+F+Es+To LC(3p)

LC(5a)

LC(5b)

LC(7a) AF

-266.92

-574.55

-825.30

-397.01

-114.13

-288.12

-421.18

-211.45 5

-246.72

-121.54 1.54

-153.29 153.29 53

-74.69 2 -490.43

--977.52 977.52

--53.19 53.

3.1

-427.19 43 19

-140.87

-1 40.8

-297.00

-29

-5.28

-125.72 8 40.16 204.04 63.89 132.70

-43.80

-62.22

-15.73

-28.49 0.9D+F+E's+To D+L+F+Ta D+L+F+Ta 1.05D+1.3L+1.05F+

T 1.2To]*

Dead (D) -15.54 -11.97 1.97 -19.

-19.88 9.888 0 0.12 0.10 -1.72 -0.36 Live (L) 0.78 -0.04 0.04 -1.18 8 -0.24 -0.13 -0.01 0.02 Hydro (F) 30.96 4.98 -3.82

.82 -63.41 -5.35 43.84 -5.16 Seismic (Es) 82.85 54.22 125.46 125 58.55 31.63 87.52 15.70 Thermal (To) -493.98 -241.71 -55.16 -494.28 -151.42 59.44 -31.16 Thermal (Ta) -863.45 -406.83 -143.22 -466.24 -453.18 196.15 -90.75 LC(1a) 22.92 -9.85 -35.18 -89.01 -7.58 58.96 -7.69 [1.4D+1.7L+1.4F LC(3a) 111.43 49.18 99.06 -30.33 24.10 147.17 8.14 D+L+F+Es LC(3b) 111.43 49.18 -151.86 -147.44 -39.15 -27.87 -23.26 D+L+F+E's LC(3e) -197.31 -101.89 64.59 -339.26 -70.53 184.32 -11.34 D+L+F+Es+To LC(3f) -197.31 -101.89 -186.34 -456.36 -133.79 9.28 -42.73 D+L+F+E's+To LC(3m) 112.20 50.42 102.23 -30.11 24.23 147.35 8.15 0.9D+F+Es LC(3n) 112.20 50.42 -148.70 -147.21 -39.03 -27.69 -23.24 0.9D+F+E's LC(3o) -196.53 -100.65 67.75 -339.03 -70.41 184.50 -11.32 0.9D+F+Es+To LC(3p) -196.53 -100.65 -183.17 -456.13 -133.67 9.46 -42.72 0.9D+F+E's+To LC(5a) -523.45 -261.30 -114.39 -979.93 -288.62 164.71 -62.21 D+L+F+Ta Page 11 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Load/ Sxx Syy Sxy Mxx Myy Nx Ny Combination kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft Comments LC(5b) -624.45 -326.96 -150.38 -10.07 8.26 60.09 -7.70 D+L+F+Ta LC(6a) -541.61 -272.74 -24.91 -921.37 -256.99 252.23 -46.51 D+L+F+Es+Ta LC(6b) -707.30 -381.18 -275.84 -1038.48 -320.25 77.19 -77.91 D+L+F+Es+Ta LC(7a) -353.28 -188.68 -67.78 -437.47 -119.25 88.80 -29.14 1.05D+1.3L+1.05F+

1.2To]*

Notes:

x - direction is horizontal; y - direction is vertical.

See Figure 3H.5-10 for element location.

Plate thickness required for load combinations excluding thermal:l: 0.42 inches (Maximum)

[Plate thickness provided: 0.50 -0.01 +0.10 inches]*

binatio binations Maximum principal stress for load combination 5 load combinations 46.33 ksi including thermal:

[Yield stress: 65.0 ksi (Minimum)]*

6 combinations including thermal:

Allowable stress intensity:

AF Maximum stress intensity range for load combination on 5 load 46.3 74.2 ksi 130.0 ksi (Minimum)

T DR Page 12 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Revise UFSAR Table 3H.5-8 (Sheet 2 of 7), Design Summary of Spent Fuel Pool Wall Design Loads, Load Combinations, and Comparisons to Acceptance Criteria - Element No. 10529 as shown below.

Load/ Sxx Syy Sxy Mxx Myy Nx Ny Combination kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft Comments Dead (D) -24.40 -96.30 -20.71 -1.16 -2.27 -0.28 -0.34 Live (L) -0.44 -2.48 -0.55 -0.01 -0.24 0.01 0.08 Hydro (F) 9.86 -5.49 6.22 8.37 -73.49 16.94 16.02 Seismic (Es) 110.80 335.20 95.73 19.03 93.81 22.15 29.34 Thermal (To) -215.70 -479.30 -150.10 -99.69 -357.90 16.39 19.34 Thermal (Ta) -389.40 -883.60 -273.20 -364.10 -982.20 40.42 17.26 LC(1a) -21.10 -146.72 -21.23 10.09 -106.48 23.34 2 22.09 [1.4D+1.7L+1.4F LC(3a) 99.77 228.74 83.17 29.58 -11.59 45.60 45.6 51.51 D+L+F+Es LC(3b) 99.77 228.74 -108.29 -8.48 -199.21 21 1.30 -7.17 D+L+F+E's LC(3e) -35.05 -70.83 -10.64 -32.72 -235.28 35.2 28 55 55.84 63.60 D+L+F+Es+To D

LC(3f) -35.05 -70.83 -202.10 -70.78 --422.90 422 42 2.90 11.54 11.

1.554 4.92 D+L+F+E's+To LC(3m) 102.64 240.85 85.80 29.71 -11.122 45.61 61 51.47 0.9D+F+Es LC(3n) 102.64 240.85 -105.66 -8.35 5 -198.74

-19 98.74 1.31 1.31 -7.21 0.9D+F+E's R

LC(3o) -32.17 -58.72 -8.02 -32.60 2.60 --234.81 234 23 4.81 55.86 55 63.55 0.9D+F+Es+To LC(3p) -32.17 -58.72 -199.48 --70.66 70.66 -422.43

-42 4222.43 11.56 4.87 0.9D+F+E's+To LC(5a) -258.35 -656.52 -185.79 -220.36

-2220.

0.3 36 -689.88

-68 6 9.888 41.93 26.55 D+L+F+Ta AF LC(5b) -362.67 -963.64 -260.17 7 7.94 7.994 -144.07

-14 14440 12.21 12.80 D+L+F+Ta

-177.61 -469.58 -128.51 8.51 -67.20

.20 -348.29

-34 29.80 31.07 1.05D+1.3L+1.05F LC(7a)

+1.2To]*

Dead(D) -17.41 -97.25 --17.82 17 82

17. --1.28 1.28 -0.78 -0.71 -1.27 Live(L) -0.49 -3.11 -0.65

-0 0.65 -0.09

-0 0.09 09 -0.29 0.00 0.03 Hydro(F) 6.13 -6.31 1 3.61 -1.47

-1 -51.56 11.49 13.08 Seismic(Es)

Thermal(To)

Thermal(Ta)

LC(1a)

LC(3a)

LC(3b)

LC(3e)

LC(3f) 75.07

-196.00

-361.26

-16.64 65.74 65.74

-56.76

-56.76 T 320.60 0.60

-447.61 447..61 447 6

-827.41 7 41

-150.28 211.40 211.40

-68.36

-68.36 8

80.9 80.95

-134.64

-134 34..64

-251.05

-251 21.

67.54 6

-94.37

-16.61

-178.52 6

51..05

--21.00 0

15.40

-144.47

-409.00

-3.99 11.98

-18.82

-78.31

-109.11 78.74

-333.40

-954.60

-73.77 5.48

-151.99

-202.89

-360.36 18.35 8.42 32.29 15.09 33.73

-2.98 38.99 2.29 26.14

-4.77

-7.21 16.57 43.20

-9.07 40.22

-12.05

[1.4D+1.7L+1.4F D+L+F+Es D+L+F+E's D+L+F+Es+To D+L+F+E's+To LC(3m) 67.98 224.24 69.97 12.20 5.85 33.80 43.31 0.9D+F+Es LC(3n) 67.98 224.24 -91.94 -18.60 -151.62 -2.90 -8.97 0.9D+F+E's LC(3o) -54.52 -55.52 -14.18 -78.10 -202.53 39.06 40.33 0.9D+F+Es+To LC(3p) -54.52 -55.52 -176.09 -108.90 -360.00 2.36 -11.95 0.9D+F+E's+To LC(5a) -237.57 -623.81 -171.77 -258.46 -649.25 30.96 7.33 D+L+F+Ta LC(5b) -293.85 -862.10 -215.10 7.87 -109.50 11.32 19.92 D+L+F+Ta LC(6a) -218.78 -541.51 -134.14 -243.06 -570.52 49.31 33.47 D+L+F+Es+Ta LC(6b) -368.91 -1182.70 -296.05 -273.86 -727.99 12.60 -18.81 D+L+F+E's+Ta LC(7a) -159.49 -448.50 -116.74 -111.35 -305.38 17.63 8.86 1.05D+1.3L+1.05F

+1.2To]*

Page 13 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Notes:

x - direction is horizontal; y - direction is vertical.

See Figure 3H.5-10 for element location.

Plate thickness required for load combinations excluding thermal: 0.47 inches (Maximum)

[Plate thickness provided: 0.50 -0.01 +0.10 inches]*

Maximum principal stress for load combination 5 load combinations 40.3 48.2 ksi including thermal:

[Yield stress: 65.0 ksi (Minimum)]*

Maximum stress intensity range for load combination 5 load 50.8 70.1 ksi combinations including thermal:

Allowable stress intensity: 130.0 ksi (Minimum)

T AF DR Page 14 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Revise UFSAR Table 3H.5-8 (Sheet 3 of 7), Design Summary of Spent Fuel Pool Wall Design Loads, Load Combinations, and Comparisons to Acceptance Criteria - Element No. 10544 as shown below.

Load/ Sxx Syy Sxy Mxx Myy Nx Ny Combination kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft Comments Dead (D) -20.03 -75.69 -42.72 3.53 -2.18 -0.01 -1.93 Live (L) -0.64 -1.98 -1.22 0.36 -0.06 0.02 -0.07 Hydro (F) -4.13 -2.97 -4.10 39.78 3.54 0.99 -4.80 Seismic (Es) 67.42 185.70 113.20 48.28 7.62 5.78 5.32 Thermal (To) -121.60 -387.30 -239.80 75.83 -107.40 39.64 49.91 Thermal (Ta) -215.20 -670.10 -416.60 184.20 -269.30 115.50 136.20 LC(1a) -34.91 -113.49 -67.62 61.25 1.81 1.40 1 -9.54 [1.4D+1.7L+1.4F LC(3a) 40.97 103.87 63.52 107.86 10.34 7.18 -3.41 D+L+F+Es LC(3b) 40.97 103.87 -162.88 11.30 -4.900 -4.39 -14.04 D+L+F+E's LC(3e) -35.03 -138.19 -86.36 155.26 -56.796.79 79 31.95 3 1.95 27.79 D+L+F+Es+To D

LC(3f) -35.03 -138.19 -312.76 58.70 --72.02 72.02 20.39 2 0.39 17.15 D+L+F+E's+To LC(3m) 43.61 113.42 69.01 107.15 10.61 1 0.61 1 7.166 -3.14 0.9D+F+Es LC(3n) 43.61 113.42 -157.39 10.59 9 -4.62

-4..62 --4.41 4.4 -13.78 0.9D+F+E's R

LC(3o) -32.39 -128.64 -80.87 154.54 4.54 --56.51 56.51 31.93 31 28.05 0.9D+F+Es+To LC(3p) -32.39 -128.64 -307.27 57.98 5 7.98 -71.75

-771.75 20.37 17.41 0.9D+F+E's+To LC(5a) -159.30 -499.45 -308.41 158.79 58.79 -167.01

-1 167.01 7.01 73.19 78.32 D+L+F+Ta AF LC(5b) -267.05 -805.64 -503.54 4 51.38 511.38 --38.58 38.5 1.37 -9.65 D+L+F+Ta 1.05D+1.3L+1.05F LC(7a) -117.40 -375.64 -230.60 30.60 102.82

.82 -79.20

-7 30.78 30.27

+1.2To]*

Dead(D) -23.37 -59.59 --41.62 41 62

41. 3.76 -0.81 0.28 -0.71 Live(L) -0.82 -2.01 -1.14

-11.14 0.366 -0.04 0.04 -0.02 T

Hydro(F) -4.24 -1.67 67 --3.22 3.222 28.34 28 2.08 1.19 -2.90 Seismic(Es) 75.42 145.64 45.6 45.64 111.14 11.1 44.70 4.30 5.79 4.07 Thermal(To) -103.44 -329.56 9.56 -196.76

-196 96..76 7 87.54 -91.81 42.74 40.36 Thermal(Ta) -188.49 -561.47 7 -351.05

-351 351 198.05 -247.04 118.07 126.02 LC(1a) -40.05 -89.18 -64.72 45.55 1.71 2.13 -5.10 [1.4D+1.7L+1.4F]

LC(3a) 45.29 81.70 63.87 88.50 6.37 7.78 -0.73 D+L+F+Es LC(3b) 45.29 81.70 -158.42 -0.91 -2.24 -3.80 -8.87 D+L+F+E's LC(3e) -19.36 -124.27 -59.11 143.21 -51.01 34.49 24.50 D+L+F+Es+To LC(3f) -19.36 -124.27 -281.39 53.80 -59.62 22.91 16.36 D+L+F+E's+To LC(3m) 48.45 89.67 69.17 87.76 6.49 7.72 -0.63 0.9D+F+Es LC(3n) 48.45 89.67 -153.12 -1.64 -2.12 -3.87 -8.78 0.9D+F+E's LC(3o) -16.20 -116.31 -53.81 142.48 -50.89 34.43 24.59 0.9D+F+Es+To LC(3p) -16.20 -116.31 -276.09 53.07 -59.50 22.84 16.45 0.9D+F+E's+To LC(5a) -146.24 -414.18 -265.39 156.24 -153.16 75.31 75.13 D+L+F+Ta LC(5b) -238.80 -668.77 -433.11 76.45 -23.63 2.24 -19.91 D+L+F+Ta LC(6a) -163.37 -523.13 -321.97 200.94 -148.86 81.10 -15.83 D+L+F+Es+Ta LC(6b) -314.22 -814.40 -544.25 31.75 -157.47 69.51 -23.98 D+L+F+E's+Ta Page 15 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Load/ Sxx Syy Sxy Mxx Myy Nx Ny Combination kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft Comments LC(7a) -107.64 -314.11 -196.14 99.83 -67.57 33.65 26.45 1.05D+1.3L+1.05F

+1.2To]*

Notes:

x - direction is horizontal; y - direction is vertical.

See Figure 3H.5-10 for element location.

Plate thickness required for load combinations excluding thermal: 0.31 inches (Maximum)

[Plate thickness provided: 0.50 -0.01 +0.10 inches]*

Maximum principal stress for load combination 5 load combinations 46.95 51.3 ksi including thermal:

[Yield stress: 65.0 ksi (Minimum)]*

Maximum stress intensity range for load combination 5 load 84.9 97.4 ksi combinations including thermal:

Allowable stress intensity: 1 130.0 ksi (Minimum)

T AF DR Page 16 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Revise UFSAR Table 3H.5-8 (Sheet 4 of 7), Design Summary of Spent Fuel Pool Wall Design Loads, Load Combinations, and Comparisons to Acceptance Criteria - Element No. 10524 as shown below.

Load/ Sxx Syy Sxy Mxx Myy Nx Ny Combination kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft Comments Dead (D) -35.61 -104.80 0.68 -4.70 7.72 -0.55 -2.22 Live (L) -0.45 -2.21 -0.72 -0.25 -0.49 0.00 0.10 Hydro (F) 11.85 -1.35 4.92 28.52 16.50 3.71 3.79 Seismic (Es) 76.80 225.60 79.29 53.31 177.00 6.83 55.70 Thermal (To) -369.10 -433.40 179.90 -215.40 -109.40 -7.32 -59.63 Thermal (Ta) -696.60 -730.00 329.40 -555.10 -487.60 -13.58 -95.78 LC(1a) -34.04 -152.37 6.62 32.92 33.09 4.43 4 2.37 [1.4D+1.7L+1.4F LC(3a) 57.33 116.69 86.14 88.29 207.34 11.48 11.4 58.89 D+L+F+Es LC(3b) 57.33 116.69 -72.44 -18.33 -146.6666 -2.18 -52.51 D+L+F+E's LC(3e) -173.36 -154.18 198.57 -46.34 138.96 38.96 6.90 6.9

6. 90 21.62 D+L+F+Es+To D

LC(3f) -173.36 -154.18 39.99 -152.96 --215.04 215.04 5 -6.76

-66.76 -89.78 D+L+F+E's+To LC(3m) 61.34 129.38 86.78 89.00 207.05 2 07.05 05 11.53 53 59.02 0.9D+F+Es LC(3n) 61.34 129.38 -71.80 -17.622 -146.95

-1466.95 --2.13 2.13 -52.38 0.9D+F+E's R

LC(3o) -169.35 -141.49 199.22 -45.62 5.62 138.68 1 38.68

8. 6.96 6 21.75 0.9D+F+Es+To LC(3p) -169.35 -141.49 40.64 -152.24 152.24 -215.32

-2 215.32 5.3 -6.71 -89.65 0.9D+F+E's+To LC(5a) -459.59 -564.62 210.75 -323.37

-3 323.37 -281.01

-2 281.01

.01 -5.32 -58.19 D+L+F+Ta AF LC(5b) -741.71 -755.24 398.888 19.86 9.8 124.99 1 24.9 -105.77 -114.64 D+L+F+Ta 1.05D+1.3L+1.05F+

LC(7a) -302.36 -439.4 139.9 39.9 136.9 136 6.9 57.2 -2.2 -42.9 1.2To]*

Dead(D) -26.88 -136.36 --4.55 4.55

. --2.71 2.71 8.30 -1.73 -2.55 Live(L) -0.57 -3.79 -0.78

-0 0.78 -0.28 28 -0.56 0.01 0.10 T

Hydro(F) 9.65 -2.30 30 3.42 20.28 20 15.30 2.96 -1.29 Seismic(Es) 71.56 289.90 89.9 89.90 91.9 91.93 54.83 199.98 7.42 64.34 Thermal(To) -318.13 -400.37 0.37 145.44 5.4 -220.52 -146.44 -5.03 -40.60 Thermal(Ta) -622.23 -668.85 5 285.16 285 285. -561.88 -521.80 -9.38 -75.34 LC(1a) -25.08 -200.56 -2.90 24.13 32.08 1.74 -5.20 [1.4D+1.7L+1.4F LC(3a) 57.62 146.53 91.38 80.24 229.14 9.85 60.09 D+L+F+Es LC(3b) 57.62 146.53 -92.47 -29.42 -170.83 -5.00 -68.59 D+L+F+E's LC(3e) -141.21 -103.70 182.28 -57.58 137.61 6.71 34.72 D+L+F+Es+To LC(3f) -141.21 -103.70 -1.57 -167.25 -262.35 -8.14 -93.96 D+L+F+E's+To LC(3m) 60.88 163.95 92.61 80.79 228.87 10.01 60.24 0.9D+F+Es LC(3n) 60.88 163.95 -91.24 -28.87 -171.09 -4.84 -68.44 0.9D+F+E's LC(3o) -137.95 -86.28 183.51 -57.03 137.35 6.87 34.87 0.9D+F+Es+To LC(3p) -137.95 -86.28 -0.34 -166.70 -262.62 -7.98 -93.81 0.9D+F+E's+To LC(5a) -406.69 -560.48 176.31 -333.88 -303.09 -4.62 -50.82 D+L+F+Ta LC(5b) -633.03 -744.00 335.67 -9.66 68.94 -92.69 -84.33 D+L+F+Ta LC(6a) -561.47 -454.11 427.59 -279.05 -103.11 -85.27 -19.99 D+L+F+Es+Ta LC(6b) -704.58 -1033.90 243.74 -388.71 -503.08 -100.12 -148.67 D+L+F+E's+Ta Page 17 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Load/ Sxx Syy Sxy Mxx Myy Nx Ny Combination kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft Comments LC(7a) -257.42 -450.80 106.88 -147.30 -85.78 -2.46 -34.34 1.05D+1.3L+1.05F

+1.2To]*

Notes:

x - direction is horizontal; y - direction is vertical.

See Figure 3H.5-10 for element location.

Plate thickness required for load combinations excluding thermal: 0.32 inches (Maximum)

[Plate thickness provided: 0.50 -0.01 +0.10 inches]*

Maximum principal stress for load combination 5 load combinations 42.1 ksi including thermal:

[Yield stress: 65.0 ksi (Minimum)]*

Maximum stress intensity range for load combination 5 load 72.6 74.3 ksi combinations including thermal:

Allowable stress intensity: 1 130.0 ksi (Minimum)

T AF DR Page 18 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Revise UFSAR Table 3H.5-8 (Sheet 5 of 7), Design Summary of Spent Fuel Pool Wall Design Loads, Load Combinations, and Comparisons to Acceptance Criteria - Element No. 10524 as shown below.

Load/ Sxx Syy Sxy Mxx Myy Nx Ny Combination kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft Comments Dead (D) -7.31 -29.13 -1.51 -1.45 -3.75 -0.06 0.35 Live (L) -0.11 -0.55 0.21 -0.14 -0.60 0.00 0.05 Hydro (F) 5.04 -0.04 -1.61 -16.58 64.59 -1.48 -20.87 Seismic (Es) 25.64 33.82 32.90 10.45 114.90 2.48 12.55 Thermal (To) -286.10 -78.70 66.37 -208.70 -130.00 0.86 -1.51 Thermal (Ta) -616.80 -121.80 116.60 -650.20 -502.40 6.16 3.93 LC(1a) -3.36 -41.77 -4.01 -25.47 84.16 --2.15 2 -28.64 [1.4D+1.7L+1.4F LC(3a) 25.28 4.09 29.35 -14.35 200.98 0.35 -16.27 D+L+F+Es LC(3b) 25.28 4.09 -36.45 -35.25 -28.82 82 -4.61 -41.37 D+L+F+E's LC(3e) -153.54 -45.10 70.83 -144.78 119.73 9.73 0.89 0.89 -17.21 D+L+F+Es+To D

LC(3f) -153.54 -45.10 5.03 -165.68 --110.07 110.07 10 -4.07

-44.07 -42.31 D+L+F+E's+To LC(3m) 26.11 7.55 29.29 -14.06 201.95 2 01.995 0.35 5 -16.35 0.9D+F+Es LC(3n) 26.11 7.55 -36.51 -34.966 -27.85 7.85 --4.61 4.6 -41.45 0.9D+F+E's R

LC(3o) -152.70 -41.63 70.77 -144.50 4.50 120.70 1 20.70 0.89 0 -17.29 0.9D+F+Es+To LC(3p) -152.70 -41.63 4.97 -165.40 165 16 5.40 -109.10

-10 1099.10 -4.07 -42.39 0.9D+F+E's+To LC(5a) -387.88 -105.84 69.97 -424.54

-42 4244.54 54 -253.76

-25 2 3.776 2.31 -18.01 D+L+F+Ta AF LC(5b) -646.13 -113.41 80.41 35.38 5.3 175.18 1 75.

5.1 1 -4.36 -31.38 D+L+F+Ta LC(7a) -217.10 -90.37 46.78 78 -175.63

-1755.63 -34.40

-34 -0.96 -22.61 1.05D+1.3L+1.05F+

1.2To]*

Dead(D) -8.17 -30.95 --0.12 0.12

. --1.17 1.17 0.10 -0.16 0.54 Live(L) -0.14 -0.57 0.14 -0.22 22 -0.79 0.00 0.07 T

Hydro(F) 5.35 -0.40 40 --1.33 1.33 3 8.58 8 86.46 1.24 -22.66 Seismic(Es) 24.18 33.3 33.34 30.3 30.34 23.64 161.73 3.85 15.90 Thermal(To) -242.25 -76.28 6 28 48.77 8.7 -202.47 -136.67 0.52 -1.81 Thermal(Ta) -542.05 -110.19 9 87.80 87.8 -643.16 -500.95 5.98 3.24 LC(1a) -4.18 -44.88 -1.79 10.01 119.85 1.52 -30.86 [1.4D+1.7L+1.4F LC(3a) 23.37 1.25 28.50 34.27 282.09 5.44 -15.22 D+L+F+Es LC(3b) 23.37 1.25 -32.18 -13.01 -41.37 -2.27 -47.03 D+L+F+E's LC(3e) -128.03 -46.43 58.98 -92.27 196.68 5.76 -16.35 D+L+F+Es+To LC(3f) -128.03 -46.43 -1.70 -139.55 -126.78 -1.94 -48.16 D+L+F+E's+To LC(3m) 24.32 4.92 28.37 34.60 282.87 5.45 -15.34 0.9D+F+Es LC(3n) 24.32 4.92 -32.31 -12.67 -40.59 -2.25 -47.15 0.9D+F+E's LC(3o) -127.08 -42.76 58.85 -91.94 197.45 5.78 -16.48 0.9D+F+Es+To LC(3p) -127.08 -42.76 -1.82 -139.21 -126.00 -1.93 -48.28 0.9D+F+E's+To LC(5a) -341.74 -100.80 53.57 -394.78 -227.32 4.82 -20.04 D+L+F+Ta LC(5b) -539.71 -94.05 58.98 41.54 179.68 -5.14 -28.12 D+L+F+Ta LC(6a) -515.53 -67.46 89.32 -371.14 -65.59 8.68 -12.22 D+L+F+Es+Ta LC(6b) -563.90 -134.15 28.64 -418.42 -389.05 -8.99 -44.03 D+L+F+E's+Ta Page 19 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Load/ Sxx Syy Sxy Mxx Myy Nx Ny Combination kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft Comments LC(7a) -184.82 -90.88 35.24 -144.35 -12.63 1.53 -24.50 1.05D+1.3L+1.05F

+1.2To]*

Notes:

x - direction is horizontal; y - direction is vertical.

See Figure 3H.5-10 for element location.

Plate thickness required for load combinations excluding thermal: 0.20 inches (Maximum)

[Plate thickness provided: 0.50 -0.01 +0.10 inches]*

Maximum principal stress for load combination 5 load combinations 20.6 ksi including thermal:

[Yield stress: 65.0 ksi (Minimum)]*

Maximum stress intensity range for load combination 5 load 20.6 23.0 ksi combinations including thermal:

Allowable stress intensity: 1 130.0 ksi (Minimum)

T AF DR Page 20 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Revise UFSAR Table 3H.5-8 (Sheet 6 of 7), Design Summary of Spent Fuel Pool Wall Design Loads, Load Combinations, and Comparisons to Acceptance Criteria - Element No. 21402 as shown below.

Load/ Sxx Syy Sxy Mxx Myy Nx Ny Combination kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft Comments Dead (D) -1.82 -17.93 4.00 0.92 0.93 -0.32 0.22 Live (L) -0.21 -0.98 0.41 0.19 -0.04 -0.02 -0.03 Hydro (F) 7.14 0.29 -2.18 104.60 15.51 -16.65 3.08 Seismic (Es) 36.81 21.41 17.68 139.90 28.75 12.42 12.08 Thermal (To) -228.50 -181.90 85.52 -291.30 -212.00 11.34 6.92 Thermal (Ta) -379.10 -378.40 159.80 -783.80 -661.10 41.72 28.29 LC(1a) 7.08 -26.36 3.24 148.06 22.95 --23.80 2 4.56 [1.4D+1.7L+1.4F LC(3a) 44.77 2.90 19.03 287.45 51.36 -11.24

-11.2 16.58 D+L+F+Es LC(3b) 44.77 2.90 -16.33 7.65 -6.144 -36.08 -7.58 D+L+F+E's LC(3e) -98.05 -110.78 72.48 105.39 -81.14 1.14 --4.15 4.15 20.90 D+L+F+Es+To D

LC(3f) -98.05 -110.78 37.12 -174.41 --138.64 138 13 8.64 -28.99 28.99 -3.26 D+L+F+E's+To LC(3m) 45.16 5.68 18.23 287.17 51.31 -11.18

-11.1 18 16.59 0.9D+F+Es LC(3n) 45.16 5.68 -17.13 7.37 -6.19

.19 --36.02 36.0 -7.57 0.9D+F+E's R

LC(3o) -97.65 -108.01 71.68 105.11 5.11 --81.19 81.

81.19 -4.09

-4 20.91 0.9D+F+Es+To LC(3p) -97.65 -108.01 36.32 -174.69 174 17 4.69 -138.69

-13 138 8.69 -28.93 -3.25 0.9D+F+E's+To LC(5a) -231.84 -255.12 102.10 -384.16

-38 3844.16 16 -396.79

-39 3 6.7 79 9.08 20.95 D+L+F+Ta AF LC(5b) -268.90 -468.00 168.355 -17.41 7.4 14.2 14.23 -18.83 13.88 D+L+F+Ta 1.05D+1.3L+1.05F+

LC(7a) -166.1 -156.2 66.6 6.6 -107.4 7.4 -141.8

-1 -9.3 8.6 1.2To]*

Dead(D) -1.52 -18.30 4.68

4. --0.37 0.37 0.72 0.00 -0.10 Live(L) -0.21 -0.93 0.42 0.288 -0.02 -0.02 -0.06 T

Hydro(F) 4.03 -0.43 43 --1.50 1.50 0 92.82 92 12.95 -15.46 3.60 Seismic(Es) 36.96 21.6 21.63 18.85 8.8 145.49 29.84 11.74 17.22 Thermal(To) -192.49 -155.43 5.43 84.14 4.1 -251.71 -207.93 11.21 8.20 Thermal(Ta) -334.80 -329.90 0 141.91 141 141. -762.50 -659.55 44.32 29.47 LC(1a) 3.16 -27.81 5.16 129.90 19.09 -21.67 4.80 [1.4D+1.7L+1.4F LC(3a) 40.88 1.79 21.85 275.34 48.66 -9.92 22.10 D+L+F+Es LC(3b) 40.88 1.79 -15.86 -15.63 -11.02 -33.39 -12.34 D+L+F+E's LC(3e) -79.43 -95.35 74.44 118.02 -81.30 -2.92 27.23 D+L+F+Es+To LC(3f) -79.43 -95.35 36.73 -172.95 -140.98 -26.39 -7.21 D+L+F+E's+To LC(3m) 41.24 4.55 20.97 275.10 48.61 -9.90 22.17 0.9D+F+Es LC(3n) 41.24 4.55 -16.74 -15.87 -11.07 -33.38 -12.27 0.9D+F+E's LC(3o) -79.07 -92.59 73.55 117.78 -81.35 -2.90 27.29 0.9D+F+Es+To LC(3p) -79.07 -92.59 35.85 -173.19 -141.03 -26.37 -7.15 0.9D+F+E's+To LC(5a) -206.95 -225.85 92.29 -383.84 -398.58 12.22 21.86 D+L+F+Ta LC(5b) -234.63 -256.17 103.47 -397.15 -399.55 10.60 21.12 D+L+F+Ta LC(6a) -197.67 -234.54 122.33 -251.67 -369.71 23.96 38.35 D+L+F+Es+Ta LC(6b) -271.60 -277.80 84.62 -542.64 -429.39 0.49 3.90 D+L+F+E's+Ta Page 21 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Load/ Sxx Syy Sxy Mxx Myy Nx Ny Combination kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft Comments

-142.00 -137.45 66.99 -91.35 -141.63 -7.85 9.75 1.05D+1.3L+1.05F LC(7a)

+1.2To]*

Notes:

x - direction is horizontal; y - direction is vertical.

See Figure 3H.5-10 for element location.

Plate thickness required for load combinations excluding thermal: 0.28 inches (Maximum)

[Plate thickness provided: 0.50 -0.01 +0.10 inches]*

Maximum principal stress for load combination 5 load combinations 25.1 28.2 ksi including thermal:

[Yield stress: 65.0 ksi (Minimum)]*

Maximum stress intensity range for load combination 5 load 31.3 34.2 ksi combinations including thermal:

Allowable stress intensity: 1 130.0 ksi (Minimum)

Page 22 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Revise UFSAR Table 3H.5-8 (Sheet 7 of 7), Design Summary of Spent Fuel Pool Wall Design Loads, Load Combinations, and Comparisons to Acceptance Criteria - Element No. 21414 as shown below.

Load/ Sxx Syy Sxy Mxx Myy Nx Ny Combination kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft Comments Dead (D) 0.69 -10.62 -2.57 -0.52 -0.22 -0.03 0.12 Live (L) 0.18 0.12 -0.45 0.00 -0.11 -0.01 0.02 Hydro (F) 4.25 0.56 -2.73 -27.01 -31.06 -1.46 1.82 Seismic (Es) 26.90 13.88 36.68 26.35 21.70 2.17 4.34 Thermal (To) -79.35 -40.69 49.04 -129.00 -119.30 10.01 6.90 Thermal (Ta) -129.60 -66.37 57.50 -374.60 -374.70 26.38 24.34 LC(1a) 7.24 -13.89 -8.19 -38.54 -43.97 --2.09 2 2.75 [1.4D+1.7L+1.4F LC(3a) 33.73 4.16 29.84 -11.98 -22.11 0.10 7.03 D+L+F+Es LC(3b) 33.73 4.16 -43.52 -64.68 -65.51 51 -4.24 -1.66 D+L+F+E's LC(3e) -15.86 -21.27 60.49 -92.61 -96.67 6.67 6.36 6 .36 11.34 D+L+F+Es+To D

LC(3f) -15.86 -21.27 -12.87 -145.31 --140.07 140 14 0.07 2.01 2 .0 01 2.66 D+L+F+E's+To LC(3m) 33.48 5.10 30.55 -11.93 -21.98 8 0.11 1 7.00 0.9D+F+Es LC(3n) 33.48 5.10 -42.81 -64.63 3 -65.38 5.38 --4.23 4.23 -1.69 0.9D+F+E's R

LC(3o) -16.12 -20.33 61.20 -92.56 2.56 --96.54 96.

96.54 6.37 6 11.31 0.9D+F+Es+To LC(3p) -16.12 -20.33 -12.16 -145.26 145 14 5.26 -139.94

-131399.94 2.02 2.62 0.9D+F+E's+To LC(5a) -75.87 -51.43 30.19 -261.65

-26 261 1.65 65 -265.57

-262 5.557 15.00 17.17 D+L+F+Ta AF LC(5b) -114.31 -96.07 55.47 -35.06

-355.06

.0 --36.08 36.0 2.55 -1.61 D+L+F+Ta 1.05D+1.3L+1.05F+

LC(7a) -54.08 -40.93 30.63 0.63 -125.65

.65 -122.46

-1 5.94 7.24 1.2To]*

Dead(D) 0.86 -10.93 --2.70 2.70

. 0.30 -0.02 -0.04 0.03 Live(L) 0.15 0.06 -0.38

-00.38 0.00 0 -0.13 -0.01 0.03 T

Hydro(F) 3.53 0.73 73 --2.83 2.83 3 -24.72

-2 -26.63 -1.07 1.12 Seismic(Es) 23.63 12.7 12.73 32.1 32.11 21.80 30.03 2.52 5.47 Thermal(To) -66.65 -39.03 9 03 45.95 5.9 -118.96 -121.48 8.32 7.62 Thermal(Ta) -111.54 -58.966 50.88 50.8 -364.47 -375.75 24.84 24.99 LC(1a) 6.38 -14.19 -8.39 -34.20 -37.54 -1.57 1.64 [1.4D+1.7L+1.4F LC(3a) 29.57 2.87 25.06 -12.51 -7.41 0.97 7.08 D+L+F+Es LC(3b) 29.57 2.87 -39.15 -56.11 -67.47 -4.06 -3.86 D+L+F+E's LC(3e) -12.09 -21.52 53.78 -86.86 -83.33 6.17 11.85 D+L+F+Es+To LC(3f) -12.09 -21.52 -10.43 -130.46 -143.39 1.14 0.91 D+L+F+E's+To LC(3m) 29.34 3.91 25.72 -12.54 -7.28 0.98 7.06 0.9D+F+Es LC(3n) 29.34 3.91 -38.50 -56.14 -67.33 -4.05 -3.88 0.9D+F+E's LC(3o) -12.32 -20.49 54.43 -86.89 -83.20 6.18 11.82 0.9D+F+Es+To LC(3p) -12.32 -20.49 -9.78 -130.49 -143.26 1.15 0.88 0.9D+F+E's+To LC(5a) -65.19 -47.00 25.89 -252.22 -261.63 14.41 16.78 D+L+F+Ta LC(5b) -88.36 -71.43 29.84 -36.01 -27.13 3.01 -2.28 D+L+F+Ta LC(6a) -64.73 -58.70 61.95 -230.42 -231.60 16.92 3.19 D+L+F+Es+Ta LC(6b) -111.99 -84.16 -2.27 -274.02 -291.66 11.89 -7.75 D+L+F+E's+Ta Page 23 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Load/ Sxx Syy Sxy Mxx Myy Nx Ny Combination kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft kip/ft Comments 1.05D+1.3L+1.05F LC(7a) -45.20 -39.92 28.16 -114.86 -119.27 5.06 6.95

+1.2To]*

Notes:

x - direction is horizontal; y - direction is vertical.

See Figure 3H.5-10 for element location.

Plate thickness required for load combinations excluding thermal: 0.14 inches (Maximum)

[Plate thickness provided: 0.50 -0.01 +0.10 inches]*

Maximum principal stress for load combination 5 load combinations 22.1 27.2 ksi including thermal:

[Yield stress: 65.0 ksi (Minimum)]*

Maximum stress intensity range for load combination 5 load 22.1 35.0 ksi combinations including thermal:

Allowable stress intensity: 1 130.0 ksi (Minimum)

T AF DR Page 24 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Revise UFSAR Table 3H.5-9 (Sheet 1 of 3), Shield Building Roof Reinforcement Summary (Tension Ring) as shown below.

Tension Ring - Axial Force and Bending Verification Seismic Maximum Maximum Location Stresses Maximum Steel Area [Design Limit(1) for Seismic Stresses Fy Required(2) [Steel Area Ratio Max Section Angles L/C fa ksi ksi ksi (in2/ft) Provided]* Required/Provided]*

2 lower 14.31 5.625° 9 33 28.11 13.15 84.375° 17 41 [Liner 1 1/2" =

[L 27.59 15.35 9.21 50 18 (in2/ft) [0.51 + 2%1.00]*

1 lower 15.35 30.07 18.00 0° 9 34 (Min)]*

(Min 30.07 14.46 90° 17 43 D

29.48 Tension Ring - Shear Force and Torsion Verification Verificat Seismic R

Maximum Maximum aximu Location Stresses Maximum Steell Are Area [Design Limit(1) for Seismic es Fy Required(2)

Stresses [Steel Area Ratio Max AF Section Angles L/C fa ksi si ksi ksi (in2/ft) Provided]* Required/Provided]*

2 lower 5.625° 18 4.83 84.375° 11 5.52

[Liner 1 1/2" =

1 lower 6.28 6.28 8 5.65 0° 17 50 18 (in2/ft) [0.31 0.36+ 2%]*

7.27 27 7.27 6.54 (Min)]*

5.80 T

90° 9 6

6.78 Notes:

1. [Two percent of thehe va value may be added to the design limit as an allowance for minor variances in analysis results.]*

2. Thermal loads have been considered in the design of critical sections. The required reinforcement values shown do not include the load case where seismic and normal thermal loads are numerically combined as the normal thermal loads were assessed to be insignificant. When the seismic and normal thermal loads are numerically combined, the value of required reinforcement may increase; however, in all cases the required reinforcement is less than the provided reinforcement and thus the design of the critical section reinforcement is acceptable.

Page 25 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Revise UFSAR Table 3H.5-9 (Sheet 2a of 3), Shield Building Roof Reinforcement Summary (Air Inlet) as shown below.

AIS Reinforcement Summary - Horizontal Sections Location Required - Seismic Load Maximum [Design Limit(1) for (Figure 3H.5-11) Combinations (in2/ft)

Required(2) [Provided]* Ratio Max Seismic Section Angles Values (in2/ft) Required/Provided]*

L/C 0°-5.625° 8 1.91 2.01 5+6 84.375°-90° 8 24 1.89 2.08 0°-5.625° 16 2.38 4.19 [Liner 1" =

[L

[Line 7 2.38 5.03 12 (in2/ft) (Min)]* [0.20 0.42 + 2%]*

84.375°-90° 8 24 2.15 4.27 D

0°-5.625° 16 2.26 5.02 9

84.375°-90° 24 2.27 5.03 11 R

0°-5.625° AF 84.375°-90° Notes:

16 24

1. [Two percent of the e value variances in analysis 1.73 3.55 1.53 55 53 3.57 3.

1.73

.73 3.57 e may be added to lysis results.]*

results.]*

[Liner 1" =

12 (in2/ft) (Min)]*

[0.15 0.30+ 2%]*

t the design limit as an allowance for minor T

2. Thermal loads reinforcement considered in the design of critical sections. The required s have been consider nt values shown do not be insignificant. When the seismic the value of required reinfo rein reinforcement is less than se d reinforcement no include the load case where seismic and normal thermal loads are numerically combined c as the normal thermal loads were assessed to and normal thermal loads are numerically combined, may increase; however, in all cases the required h the provided reinforcement and thus the design of the critical section reinforcement is acceptable.

Page 26 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Revise UFSAR Table 3H.5-9 (Sheet 2b of 3), Shield Building Roof Reinforcement Summary (Air Inlet) as shown below.

AIS Reinforcement Summary - Vertical Sections Location Steel Area (Hoop Direction - Y Local Dir.)

(Figure 3H.5-11)

Required - Seismic Load Combinations (in2/ft) Maximum [Design Limit(1) for Seismic Required(2) Ratio Max Values Section Angles L/C (in2/ft) [Provided]* Required/Provided]*

0° 9 33 9.9711.91 3 Upper 90° 17 41 9.25 11.91 0° 9 8.45 8.84 3 Lower D

90° 17 7.75 8.08 [Liner ner 1"1 =

2 10.53 0.53

.53 11.91 1 12 (in /ft)) (Min)]* [0.88 0.99 + 2%]*

5.625° 9 33 10.53 11.91 R

4 Upper 84.375° 17 41 9.75 11.91 91 1

AF 5.625° 10 8.26 26 8.65 8.

4 Lower 84.375° 19 7.54 7 7.86 Notes:

T

1. [Two percent off the value may variances in analysis ma be added to the design limit as an allowance for minor ysis results.]*

results

2. Thermal loads have been considered in the design of critical sections. The required reinforcement values shown do not include the load case where seismic and normal thermal loads are numerically combined as the normal thermal loads were assessed to be insignificant. When the seismic and normal thermal loads are numerically combined, the value of required reinforcement may increase; however, in all cases the required reinforcement is less than the provided reinforcement and thus the design of the critical section reinforcement is acceptable.

Page 27 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Revise UFSAR Table 3H.5-9 (Sheet 2c of 3), Shield Building Roof Reinforcement Summary (Air Inlet) as shown below.

Out of Plane Shear Reinforcement Summary -AIS Location Required - Seismic Load (Figure 3H.5-11) Combinations (in2/ft) Maximum [Design Limit(1) for Seismic Required(2) [Steel Area Ratio Max Angles Sections L/C Values Sum (in2/ft) Provided]* Required/Provided]*

Max of Vertical Sections 3 0.13 0.16 0°- upper - 4 1 25 0.13 0.16 5.625° upper Horizontal Section 0.00 5+6 D

Max of Vertical Sections 3 0.12 0.16 R

84.375°- upper - 4 1 25 0.12 0.16 0.1 90° upper Horizontal AF Section 0.00 5+6 Max of [(3) 3/4 TIE Vertical BAR @2.8125° Sections 3 0.10 0 (41.36") (8 1/2" 0°- upper - 4 0.34 [0.68 + 2%]*

T 1 0.34 in vertical 5.625° upper direction) = 0.50 Horizontal (in2/ ft) (Min.)]*

0.24 Section 7 Max of Vertical Sections 3 0.10 84.375°- upper - 4 1 0.30 90° upper Horizontal 0.20 Section 7 Max of Vertical Sections 3 0.21 0°-

lower - 4 18 0.21 5.625° lower Horizontal 0.00 Section 9 Page 28 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Enclosure 2 Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Out of Plane Shear Reinforcement Summary -AIS Location Required - Seismic Load (Figure 3H.5-11) Combinations (in2/ft) Maximum [Design Limit(1) for Seismic Required(2) [Steel Area Ratio Max Angles Sections L/C Values Sum (in2/ft) Provided]* Required/Provided]*

Max of Vertical Sections 3 0.21 0.22 84.375°-

lower - 4 11 0.21 0.22 90° lower Horizontal 0.000 Section 9 Max of Vertical Sections 3 0.21 0°-

lower - 4 18 66 0.21 5.625° D

lower Horizontal 0.000 Section 11 R

Max of Vertical Sections 3 0.21 0.22 84.375°-

AF lower - 4 11 0.21 0.22

.22 90° lower Horizontal 0.00 00 Section 11 Notes:

T

1. [Two percent of the value may be added add to the design limit as an allowance for minor a

variances in analysis results.]*

results.]

2. Thermal loads considered in the design of critical sections. The required s have been consid con reinforcement values lues shown d do not include the load case where seismic and normal thermal loads are numerically umerica meric combined as the normal thermal loads were assessed to be insignificant. When the th seismic and normal thermal loads are numerically combined, th the value of required reinforcement may increase; however, in all cases the required reinforcement is less than the provided reinforcement and thus the design of the critical section reinforcement is acceptable.

Page 29 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Revise UFSAR Table 3H.5-9 (Sheet 3 of 3), Shield Building Roof Reinforcement Summary (Exterior Wall of Passive Containment Cooling System Tank) as shown below.

Location Reinforcement on Each Face, in2/ft Ratio Wall (Figure 3H.5-11 Maximum Required/

Provided (Minimum)

Segment Sheet 5 of 6) Required Provided 1#8@1.125° &

Vertical 1.49 1.53 [2.75 0.54 0.56 1#11@1.125° Bottom Hoop° 0.80 1.22 1#9@6" 2 0.40 0.61 Shear 0.15 1#4@0.5625°x6" 0.94 0.16 1#8@1.125° &

Vertical 0.64 0.69 2.75 0.23 0.25 25° 1#11@1.125° Mid-height Hoop° 1.93 1.99 1#9@6"

@6" 2 0.97 0.99 8@1.125° &

8@1.

1#8@1.125° D

Vertical 0.52 2.75 2.7 2 0.19 1#11@1.1 1#11@1.125° Top Hoop° 0.79 1#9@6 1#9@6" 2]* 0.40 RAF T

Page 30 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Revise UFSAR Table 3H.5-11, Design Summary of Floor Elevation 135-3 Area 1 (Between Column Lines M and P) as shown below.

Governing Load Combination (Steel Beam)

Load Combination 3 - Extreme Environmental Condition Downward Seismic Bending Moment =(-) 63.9 kips-ft Corresponding Stress = 17.0 ksi Allowable Stress = 33.26 ksi Shear Force = 30.7 kips Corresponding Stress = 8.7 ksi Allowable Stress = 20.1 ksi Governing Load Combination (Concrete Slab)

Parallel to the Beams Load Combination 3 - Extrememe e Env Environme Environmental Condition Downward ard rd Seismic 6 - Abnormal Ab Conditions Bending Moment =(-) 16.09 6.09 kips kips-ft/ft

-ft/ft

/ft D

In-plane Shear = 20.0 31.0 kips (per er foot foo width of the slab)

Reinforcement (Each Face)

Required(1) 0.43 in2/ft

= 0.41 0.43 R

[Provided = 0.444 in2//ft (Min)]

(Min)]*

Perpendicular to the Beams Combination Number Normal Con Condition 6 - Abnormal Conditions AF Bending Moment =(+) 6.66 kips-ft (per foot width of the slab)

Reinforcement (Each Face)

Required(1) 0.2 0.43 in2/ft

= 0.28

[Provided = 0.60 in2/ft (Min)]*

T Notes:

1. Thermal loads considered in the design of critical sections. The required s have been consider considere reinforcementnt values shown d do not n include the load case where seismic and normal thermal loads arere numerically combined c as the normal thermal loads were assessed to be insignificant. When hen the seismic s and normal thermal loads are numerically combined, the value of required reinforcement rrein reinf ein einf may increase; however, in all cases the required reinforcement is less than the provided reinforcement and thus the design of the critical section reinforcement is acceptable.

Page 31 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Revise UFSAR Table 3H.5-12, Design Summary of Floor Elevation 135-3 (Operations work Area (Previously Known as Tagging Room) Ceiling)) as shown below.

Design of Precast Concrete Panels Governing Load Combination Construction Design Bending Moment (Midspan) =14.54 kip-ft/ft Bottom Reinforcement (E/W Direction)

Required(1) = 0.58 in2/ft

[Provided = 0.79 in2/ft (Min.)]*

Top Reinforcement (E/W Direction)

Required(1) = (Minimum required by the Code)

[Provided = 0.20 in2/ft (Min.)]*

Top and Bottom Reinforcement (N/S Direction)

Required(1) = (Minimum mum req required by the Code)

[Provided 0 in2/ft (Min.)

= 0.20 (Min.)]*

Design of 24-inch-Thich Slab D

Governing Load Combination Environme Environm Extreme Environmental Condition (SSE)

Abnormal normal Condit Condition Design Bending Moment (E/W Direction) Midspanan = 14.40

14. 16.23 kips ft/ft R

Design In-plane Shear = 31 31.9 kips fft Design In-plane Tension = 21.9 37.1 37 kips ft Bottom Reinforcement (E/W Direction)

AF Required(1) = 0.53 0

0. 0.71 in2/ft

[Provided = 0.79 in2/ft (Min.)]*

Design Bending Moment (E/W Direction) at Support = 28.81 kips-ft/ft Design In-plane Shear = 31.9 kips/ft Design In-plane Tension = 21.9 37.1 kips/ft T

Top Reinforcement (E/WW Direction)

Required(1) = 0.93 in2/ft

[Provided = 1.00 in2/ft (Min.)]*

Design Bending Moment nt (N/S Direction)

Direction Directi = 8.47 21.55 kips ft/ft Design In-plane Shear = 31.9 kips/ft Design In-plane Tension =27.2 kip/ft Top and Bottom Reinforcement (N/S Direction)

Required(1) = 0.59 0.65 in2/ft

[Provided = 0.79 in2/ft (Min.)]*

Notes:

1. Thermal loads have been considered in the design of critical sections. The required reinforcement values shown do not include the load case where seismic and normal thermal loads are numerically combined as the normal thermal loads were assessed to be insignificant. When the seismic and normal thermal loads are numerically combined, the value of required reinforcement may increase; however, in all cases the required reinforcement is less than the provided reinforcement and thus the design of the critical section reinforcement is acceptable.

Page 32 of 33

ND-19-XXXX Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis Documents - (LAR-19-019)

Revise UFSAR Table 3H.5-15 Shield Building Roof Reinforcement Ratio of Code Required Versus Provided as shown below.

Provided Stress (Minimum) Reinforcement Critical Section Component Required in2/ft in2/ft Ratio

[Conical Roof Axial + Bending - [Radial Beams 1.33 Beams]*(1) Shear - W36 X 395(2)]* 8.33

[Conical Roof Near Radial 1.80 1.81 [2.34]* 1.30 1.29 Tension Ring]* Hoop 4.31 [4.68]* 1.09

[Knuckle Region]* Vertical 1.49 1.53 [2.75]* 1.85 1.80 Radial 2.85 3.48 [3.55]* 1.25 1.02 Hoop 2.64 2.67 [3.12]*

[3.

[3.1 1.18 1.16

[Compression Ring]* Vertical 1.24 [2.40]*

[2.400] 1.94 Radial 3.09 [3.56]*

[3.56 3 6]* 1.15 Hoop 2.49 2.50 ((3.12]*

3.12 2]* 1.25 AF T

DR Page 33 of 33