ML19341A179
| ML19341A179 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1981 |
| From: | Dale L MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| AECM-81-30, NUDOCS 8101220294 | |
| Download: ML19341A179 (49) | |
Text
-
f"P.
I MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 1
1 Helping Build Mississippi 5"
"J P. O. B O X 16 4 0. J A C K S O N, MISSISSIPPI 39205 January 16, 1981 NUCLEAR PAoCUCTICN CEPARTMENT U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D.C.
20555 Attention:
Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director
Dear Mr. Denton:
SUBJECT:
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-416 and 50-417 File 0260/L-380.0/L-371.0 NRC/INEL Audit Action Items AECM-81/30 In response to the 53C's request for additional action and pursuant to closing the action items identified by the NPC/ Idaho National Engineering Laboratories (INEL) structural audit, conducted March 17-21, 1980, of our agent Bechtel Power Corporation, MP&L is submitting the following attached information.
Each action item identified by NTC/IhTL is listed with its response in a format similar to NRC question responses.
This submittal represents all but eleven of the action items. Eight of these open items will be submitted by the end of this month.
We expect the remaining items to be submitted in February, 1981.
All calculations requested are confidential and proprietary to our agent, Bechtel Power Corporation, and will be submitted directly to yan by Bechtel.
Yours tyuly, L. F. Dale
/
Nuclear Project Manager JGC/JDR:lm Attachments cc:
(See Next Page)
?
.5
/ I
. ~..
MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission AECM-81/30 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Page 2 cc:
Mr. N. L. Stampley Mr. G. B. Taylor Mr. R. B. McGehee Mr. T. B. Conner Mr. Victor Stello, Jr., Director Division of Inspection & Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. T. R. Thompson EG&G Idaho, Inc.
P.O. Box 1625 (TSB-6)
4 a
G 9
m i
+
Attschm:nt to AECM-L1/30 NRC/INEL STRUCTURAL AUDIT RESPONSES TO ACTION ITEMS (As ident..fied in eaclosures 2 and 3 to NRC letter, Thomas C. Houghtun, NRC, to Mr. N. L. Stampley, MP&L, undated.*)
- This letter was received by MP&L on June 10, 1980, and assigned MP&L letter serial MAEC-80/113.
Atta.nm:nt to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS 1.
Select a critical section of a Category I structare, other than containment, and compare, on a quantitative basis, the existing design criteria and loading combinations with those of the Standard Review Plan.
RESPONSE
Response to this action item will be provided later.
o
~ Attachment to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS 2.
Evaluate in quantitative terms the effect on a critical structure of increasing the vertical earthquake from 2/3 of the horizontal to 3/3 (i.e., equal in intensity to the hosizontal earthquake).
RESPONSE
e An SSE vertical load analysis of the auxiliary building was performed in accordance with the methods described in FSAR Section 3.7, using Regulatory Guide 1.60 vertical design response spectra scaled to the same peak ground acceleration as the horizontal earthquake, 0.15g.
Damping assumed in this analysis is consistent with recommendations in Regulatory Guide 1.61. -FSAR Figure 3.7-75 shows the results of the analysis. This may be compared with FSAR j
Figure 3.7-42, which provides vertical SSE loads of the auxiliary -
l building using the design response spectra of FSAR Subsection 3.7.1.1 (the vertical earthquake peak ground acceleration 2/3 of that established for the horizontal direction, i.e., 0.10g).
r i
e 4
l f
1 l
s.
i I
i
~,,.,,.
Attachm:nt to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS 3.
Select a representative floor system supporting heavy equipment and quantify the effect of coupled subsystems (floors and floor beams) on a response spectra basis for a vertical earthquake.
RESPONSE
1 I
Response to this action item will be provided later.
i r
i l
l 1
l
Attachmrnt to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS 4
Generate the response spectra per RG 1.60 and by calculating the i
percentage of seismic contribution to overall load conditions, assess the impact of the use of Grand Gulf's response spectra as compared to those corresponding to RG 1.60.
RESPONSE
Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61 were applied to the Grand Gulf Auxiliary Building seismic model (FSAR Figures 3.7-19 and 3.7-20) to yield the SSE horizontal and vertical response loads.
(The horizontal and vertical design response spectra were scaled to.15g peak ground acceleration). FSAR Figures 3.7-73, 3.7-74, and 3.7-75 provide the results of this analysis. These may be compared with FSAR Figures 3.7-38, 3.7-40, and 3.7-42, which are based on the design response spectra of FSAR Subsection 3.7.1.1, scaled to.15g and.10g maximum ground acceleration for horizontal and vertical directions, respectively.
An OBE analysis of the Auxiliary Building applying Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61, although not performed, would yield an increase in the response loads of FSAR Figures 3.7-39, 3.7-41, and 3.7-43 proportional to the SSE analysis described above.
To examine the effects of seismic loads based on Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61 on overall load combinations, a typical Auxiliary Building interior wall and floor were studied. The critical load combinations in FSAR Tables 3.8-37 through 40 include the effects of an OBE, based on the design response spectra of FSAR Figure 3.7-2.
The contribution of E (including load factor) to the total actual design stress ranges from 6 to 90 percent. Conservatively, increasing design basis earthquake loads by 20 percent to account for the influence of imposing Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61, would, by inspection, yield an actual stress level well below allowable values. The re fo re, the impact of the Regulatory Guides is not of sufficient magnitude to affect the structural integrity of the areas evaluated.
l NOTE:
Figures 3.7-73, 3.7-74, and 3.7-75 were provided in the response to NRC question 130.14.
Tables 3.8-37 through 40 were provided in the response to NRC question 130.40.
These respones were incorporated into the FSAR by Amendment 44, submitted November 29, 1980, i
Attechment to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS 5.
Categorize the loads defined in GE Report 22A4365, " Interim Containment Loads Report - Mark III Containment," Revision 2, in accordance with the Structural Engineering Branch Technical Position, "BWR Mark III Containment Pool Dynamics."
RESPONSE
As stated in FSAR Section 3.8.1.3, the containment is designed in accordance with the loads defined in FE Topical Report, NEDO 11314-08 (CESSAR Appendix 3B) (previously CE Document 22A4365 Rev.
2, Interim Containment Loads Report (ICLR)). These load combinations, to which we committed in Itea 130.12 of MP&L letter, AECM-76/18, to Mr. W. F. Butler, NRC, dated March 30, 1976, and subsequently r dated in FSAR Subsection 3.9.1.3.8, conform to the NRC Structural Engineering Branch position for BWR Mark III Containment Pool Dynamics as follows:
Pool swell loads (R, R Co, ( as defined in FSARSubsection3.81.3.$),R,R,R'are tEeated as C' bnormaI pressure loads 3
D F
a with load factors of 1.5 for abnormal plant design conditions, 1.25 for abnormal plant plus severe environmental design conditions, and 1.0 for abnormal plant plus extreme environmental design conditions (SEB Position 1.a.).
Pool swell loads and accident pressures are conservatively combined using maximum values from an envelope of their actual time histories of occurance (SEB Position 1.b.).
Safety Relief Valve (SRV) loads (C, C, C, C ) are treated as 2
g live loads with similar load factors applied.
In the combinations that contain 1.5 times an abnormal pressure load, a load factor of 1.25 is applied to concurrent 3RV loads (SEB Position 2.a.).
Loads from a single SRV discharge (C ) are considered to act g
concurrently with pool swell loads resulting from a design basis accident (DBA) (SEB Position 2.b.).
Loads from multiple SRV discharges (C, C, C ) are considered to actconcurrentlywithloadsassociatedwihhsmallbreak(SBA)and intermediate break (IBA) accidents (SEB Position 2.c.).
Thermal loads due to SRV discharge are treated as T I# " '" I O
operating conditions and as (T # A) f r accident conditions (SEB O
Positioa 2.d.).
The suppression pool liner plate was found to conform to the criteria of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Division 1,Section III, Subsection NE, as discussed in FSAR Subsection 3.8.1.4.2. (SEB Position 2.e.).
Attechm:nt to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS 1.
General Live load drawings
RESPONSE
Live load drawings were transmitted via VDT-80/0386, A. Zaccaria, Bechtel, to T. R. Thompson, EGSG Idaho Inc., dated April 14, 1980.
4
Attachment to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Representative generic calculations for tornadic missiles considering 12" dia pipe and automobile.
RESPONSE
Proprietary calculation C-E020.0 for tornado missiles has been submitted to NRC/EG&G in the following letters:
D. E. Huffman, Bechtel, to E. C. Shomaker, NRC, dated June 6, 1980, and VB-80/0230, A. Zaccaria, Bechtel, to T. R.
Thompson, EG&G Idaho Inc., dated July 2, 1980.
O
4 Attachment to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Copy of civil design criteria.
RESPONSE
Proprietary civil design criteria has been submitted to NRC/EG&G in the following letters:
D. E. Huffman, Bechtel, to E. C. Shomaker, NRC, dated June 6, 1980, and VB-80/230 dated July 2, 1980.
e i
I I
Attreb.nent to AECM,81/30 ALTIT ACTION ITEMS Provide rationale on seismic structure-soil-structure analyses using lumped mass.
RESPONSE
FSAR Section 3.7 and Bechtel Topical Report BC-TOP-4 have been submitted to the NRC/EG&G under cover of the following letter:
VDT-80/0156, A. Zaccaria, Bechtel, to T. R. Thompson, EG&G Idaho Inc., dated February 1, 1980.
i I
i 1
i 1
Attechm'ent to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Give stiffness properties for rodofoam used between buildings.
RESPONSE
See attached information sheets from W. R. Grace & Co. for Rodofoam.
t RODOFOAT T~
CELLULAR PLASTIO JOINT FILLER For SElSMIC MOVEMENT c'a TOTAL CAPABILITY MIN! MUM LOAD TRANSFER ED w
ENGINEERED:
- MAXIMUM RADIATION RESISTANCE
- JOINT FORMER TO BE LEFT IN PLACE l DESCRIPTION hESIGN CRITERIA Cellular cross linked polyethytene in sheet form.
SEISMIC MOVEMENT Sizes available: Thickness up to 3". in sheets 4S" Subjected to seismic movement of 1.76 H:.0.9 g
. by 4B". May be laminated f or greater thickness.
acceleration. 31"/sec. velocity for 150 cycles with no damage to the Roccfoam or to the adjacent concrete.
MINIMUM LOAD TRANSFER
' USE under seism.c test ng ! cad transfer at S0'S compressa was W pst Designed especia!!y for seismic separation joints in nuclear power plants, nucl ear fuel RADIATION RESISTANCE reprocessing plants, fossil fuel generating Exposure to 5 X 1C* Rads before threshold plants, and pumped storage plants.
damage and to 1 X 10' Racs before 25te damage.
With the Rodof oam Il adhered to a vertical concrete JO!NT FORMING surface with special adhesive. the second concre e At 2.8 psi lateral pressure of concrete (placed at placement may be made against the Rodcfoam to 2 f t. vertical lif t per hour at 70 F.) deflection of form the seismic separation joint.
Rodofoam 11 will be 2 St..
(
RODOFOAM 11 COMPRESSION DEFLECTION 0
(
eo t
O 9
sc i
$a l
0
/
w i
sy,
/
1 j
m o
S b**
f" i
_/
3 8 to I
r-a l
t i
l l
l w
2e ao e
so so ro ec DEFLECTION. ** oF ORIGINAL THICKNESS
']
c:
E
~
g l
ncw#-M-C GRACEI CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS DIVISION. W. R. OR ACE & CO.
n a hoor she inform.v*on twen here ~n!! be belo!*l l' w based on o=r bes' kaniedtr. a4 ** betse
- si to be true *d Mn m d.[.
aremsatt. Plraar rest all tra:rments, recommendersons or saggert,ons homo ne consonesson wash owe cond raons c'sa.e whnch apply no al1 goods serpi.ed by ess. M e asseme no responssbointy for she mar of these caerments. recomerMarsons yy or suggesinons, nor die et sournd thene as a reemmend.stoon for any est w%4 weasid.n!":nge any pa: ens or ccryr'tht-wvn e sdi scangsas n omf DEADeuatttal. 82 wnifTCMaeL Avt CAwstiCCt. nu13. 02140
- CJ'ICA;0.1.wCurtan eeovston. LOS ag s.
L. n
'r*.
.q a
{
g g [g - - "--
D
,e*
- '. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES l H5W TO SPECIFY
. Density. Ib/ cu. ft.
2 2 0.4 The premolded filler used in all seismic separation Joints shall be Rodofoam il as manufactured by R'cevery, after 50% Comoression 90% Min.
Construction Products Division,W.R.Gra:e & Co.,
Trnsile strength, osi 40 or equal subject to specific written approval, and Eiengation at Break. %
275 meeting the Cenditions of service as listed befow.
Water Absorption. % by volume, 24 hrs.
0.1 Ao:lication Temeerature Rance
-40*F to 175 F CONDITIONS OF SERVICE Dimensiona! Stability @ 200'F, 72 hrs.
3.5% Change. Max.
The manuf acturer shall furnish evidence as to the maximum radiation dosage to which the seismic joint filler may be exposed over the service life of the project without damage, and evidence that the seismic filler willwithstand the maximum designed earthquake conditions of the project without damage to the adjacent concrete.
h
(
D**D "]D'3}$
oJu SU.kfru.:
ww
Attachment to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Artificial seismic time history development.
RESPONSE
The artifical seismic time history development is discussed in FSAR Subsection 3.7.1.2.
This subsection, in response to NRC Question 130.16, has been revised to reflect the following information.
The modification of the El Centro earthquake stated in FSAR Subsection 3.7.1.2 consists of an iterative process whereby the actual earthquake time history is manipulated to raise or suppress its response spectrum until the design spectrum is satisfactorily enveloped for a specified value of damping. The above technique is described in Section 2.5 of BC-TOP-4-A, Rev. 3.
~.
Attachment to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Containment Define "new loads" pressure, fields spatially and temporally by figures.
These are time varying loads on suppression pool.
I
RESPONSE
The response to this action item is provided in the following
- table, i
LOAD GESSAR II, APPENDIX 3B*
FSAR SECTION 3.8**
General Tables 3B-2; Figures 3b-9, Figures 3.8-46, 48, Information 3B-10, 3B-36, 3B-37, 3B-42 49, 52 to 3B-44, 3B-51, 3B-57, 3B-58, 3B-64 to 3B-72, 3B-75, 3B-76 i
Condensation Figures 3B-16, 3B-17, Oscillation Attachment F to Appendix 3B 4
Chugging Table 3B-4; Figures 3B-20 Figures 3.8-48a, 50 to 3B-35, 3B-39, 3B-41, 3B-45 to 3B-50, 3B-53 1
Pool Swell Figures 3B-7, 3B-11, Figures 3.8-47 3B-56, 3B-73 SRV Table 3BA-6 to 3BA-11, Figures 3.8-16a, 16b, 3BA-13, 3BA-14, 3BA-21; 17-20, 21a to 25a, 25b, Figures 3B-8, 3BA-8 to 26a to 28a, 29, 30, 30a 3BA-25, 3BA-30 to 35a, 35b, 36a to 40a, 40b, 41a to 45a, i
45b Tables and Figure Numbers are as contained in GESSAR II, Appendix 3B, which has been incorporated into the Grand Gulf FSAR by Amendment 43 as Appendix 6D.
Figure Numbers are as contained in the Grand Gulf FSAR.
9 L
T
Attschm::nt to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Provide summary i stiffness and mass matrix used to model the enclosure building.
RESPONSE
Proprietary calculation G-C-712 has been submitted to the NRC/EG&G in the following letters:
D. E. Huffman, Bechtel, to E. C. Shomaker, NRC, dated June 6, 1980 and VB-80/230, A. Zaccaria, Bechtel, to T. R.
Thompson, EG&G Idaho, Inc., dated July 2, 1980.
a l
l
Attechm::nt to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Justify or account for failure to consider torsional effect on drywell from filter demineralization room.
RESPONSE
The response te this audit item will be provided later.
Attacharnt to AECM-81/30 l
AUDIT ACTION ITEMS 4
a i
i Verify statements on concrete stress from pages 77-78 of G102 of analysis calculations.
RESPONSE
Pages 77-78 of proprietary calculation C-G102 contain stress 4
calculations for the following load combinations:
U = 1.00 + 1.0L + 1.0 (T0* A)
- DS' This equatics has since been superseded by the following equations:
i U = 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0 (T +T ) + 1.0 (P or P ) + 1.0C ( ) + 1.0R + 1.0E' DS U = 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0 (T +T*) + 1.0 (P or P ') + 1.0C (1) + 1.0R + 1.0E' 2
U = 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0 (T +T') + 1.0 (P or P ) + 1.0C ( ) + 1. ORC + 1.0E' (See FSAR Subsection 3.8.1.3.8.7.)
Building stresses are being determined for these combinations as part of the new loads adequacy evaluation requalification program. Analysis methods used are those outlined in FSAR Subsection 3.8.1.4.1.2 and controlling 1
stresses will be reported in the FSAR when available.
1 i
1
)
\\
Attechment to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Request sample calculations for determining governing steel and concrete stresses at characteristic points through foundation and containment shell.
RESPONSE
See Proprietary Calculations G-102.0 and G-125.0.
Request tangetial rebar calculations.
4
RESPONSE
See Proprietary Calculation G-351.0.
Request sample calculations for resolving element forces to sectional forces (Finite element stress distribution).
RESPONSE
See Proprietary Calculation G-350.2.
Pool swell loads on Elevation 135'-4".
RESPONSE
See Proprietary Calculation G-200.0.
Sample of enclosre building bracket.
RESPONSE
i See Proprietary Calculations G-181.0 and G-120.0.
I Stiffness summary table for containment and internals.
RESPONSE
See Proprietary Calculation G-712.0.
NOTE:
The above Proprietary Calculations G-102.0, G-125.0, G-351.0, G-350.2, G-200.0, G-181.0, G-121.0, and G-712.0 have been submitted to NRC/EG&G Idaho, Inc., in the following letters:
D.
E-. Huffman, Bechtel, to E. C. Shomaker, NRC, dated June 6, 1980, and VB-80/0230, A. Zaccaria, Bechtel, to T. R.
Thompson, EG&G Idaho, Inc., dated July 2, 1980.
u
-w,,-
,,,..., ~ -
-r--
Attachsent to AECM-81,JV AUDIT ACTION ITEMS
, Compare liner plate stresses to ACI-359 requirements.
RESPONSE
In response to NRC Question 130.30, FSAR Subsection 3.8.1.4.2 has been revised to reflect the following:
The liner plate was included in the linear elastic computer model used to analyze the containment concrete cylinder wall for all associated load cases. Based on this linear elastic analysis, the computer program results obtained show stresses in the liner plate in excess of the material yield stress for certain containment load cases. These stresses are not considered significant because the plate stresses will be limited by the material yield stress, and the plate functions as a leak tight barrier instead of a stress carrying element. For these reasons, and because no allowable stresses are stated in any of the documents used for this design, the yield stress of the material has been chosen far comparison in Tables 3.8.4 and 3.8.5.
Although it has not been used for design, the limits for strain from the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 2, have also been used for comparison.
]
(Grand Gulf Units I and 2 are not designed to comply with the requirements of ASME Sectiou III, Division 2).
The results of the analysis show that the liner plate Oces yield for some critical load cases but that the strains are within the limits of those specified in ASME Section III, Division 2.
For construction loads the plate remains within the stress limits specified in ASME Section III, Division 2.
i i
i I
l l
l
~._ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ -
[
Attechment to AECM-81/30 i
AUDIT ACTION ITEMS i
j -
{
Locations in containment and auxiliary building for which spectra are j
generated.
i
RESPONSE
Containment:
}
For N-S, E-W or vertical OBE or SSE, response spectra are generated at the following locations as shown on the containment mathematical model shown in FSAR Figure 3.7-18.
i l
Nodes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32.
Auxiliary Building:
L For N-S, E-W or vertical OBE or SSE, response spectra are generated at the following locations as shown on the auxiliary building
}
mathematical model shown in FSAR Figures 3.7-19 and 3.7-20.
4 Nodes M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M7, and M8.
1 i
f I
,,. _ = _. _ _ _.,. _,. _ _, _, - _. _
Attachm:nt to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Need explanation of modified working -tress design with sample calculations.
RESPONSE
The response to this item is Bechtel proprietary and will be submitted to NRC by separate letter.
Attcchmsnt to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Explain 21.2 ksi shear allowable for 38 ksi material (FSAR for shield wall).
RESPONSE
Response to this action item will be provided later.
O
Attachment to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Control Building Sample design calculatioa for Seismic Category I concrete c.asonry walls.
RESPONSE
Sample proprietary calculations for concrete masonry walls have been submitted to NRC by the following letter:
AECM-80/206, L. F. Dale, MP&L, to Harold R. Denton, NRC, dated October 2, 1980.
l
1 Attachment to AECM-31/30 6
AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Floor framing calculations.
RESPONSE
See Proprietary Calculation T-180.0.
Shear wall calculations.
r
RESPONSE
See Proprietary Calculation T-335.0.
Column calculations.
RESPONSE
See Proprietary Calculation T-200.0.
NOTE:
The above proprietary calculations have been submitted to NRC/EG&G Idaho, Inc., in the following letters.
D. E. Huffman, Bechtel, to E. C. Shomaker, NRC, dated June 6, 1980, and VB-80/0230, A. Zaccaria, Bechtel, to T. R.
Thompson, EG&G Idaho, Inc., dated July 2, 1980.
i e
i l
'.j-l 4
l-.
Attachment to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Damping ratio for soi".
RESPONSE
The response to this action is Bechtel proprietary and will be submitted to the NRC by separate letter.
Attechm:nt to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Displacement of structure-structure interaction.
RESPONSE
The response to this action item is Bechtel proprietary and will be submitted to the 57C by separate letter.
Attcchment to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION 7TEMS Auxilia ry Building Comparison of two dimensional and three dimensional seismic models and results.
RESPONSE
In response to the above item, see following discussion of the seismic models used in the analysis of the auxiliary building.
Additional information is included in Bechtel Proprietary Calculation C-H003.0 submitted to NRC by a separate letter.
(Note that the following,information was provided in the response to NRC Question 130.19.)
Auxiliary Building FSAR Figures 3.7-19 and 3.7-20 show the mathematical models for the auxiliary building. Also shown in FSAR Figure 3.7-21 is a l
3-dimensional mathematical model for the auxiliary and the control i
buildings, used to study the effect of structure-structure l
interaction between the two buildings.
1.
In considering the location of the center of gravity of the 3-dimensional model in the E-W direction, torsional effects, if any, due to N-S ground movement input, are studied. Shown also in the mathematical model are springs TR1 to TR6 representing the air j
gaps between the auxiliary and control buildings which are filled j
with foam rubber compressive material.
Comparison of the floor response spectra, based on this model and FSAR Figure 3.7-19 and FSAR Figure 3.7-20, indicates that the torsional effect as well as structure-structure interaction due to the compressible material are not significant enough to alter the seismic design based on FSAR Figures 3.7-19 and 3.7-20.
1 Since the control building was shown to have an insignificant impact on the response of the auxiliary building, a three dimensional model of the auxiliary building alone was developed as shown in attached Figure 3.7-21A, to further evaluate the effects of building eccentricities on total response. This evaluation is further discussed in FSAR Subsection 3.7.2.11.
Method Used to Account for Torsional Effects (For Other Than NSS i
Systems)
The dynamic analysis of structures is covered in FSAR Subsection i
3.7.2.1.
The effects of torsion are considered in the analyses as described in the following paragraphs.
1 l
).-
~
~
Attachment to AECM-80/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS i
RESPONSE (Continued)
When a horizontal load is applied to an asymmetric structure (where the center of mass does not coincide with the center of resistance), coupling between the two horizontal motions occurs.
The degree of coupling depends on the amount of eccentricity and the ratio of the uncoupled torsional frequency to the uncoupled lateral frequency.
If the uncoupled torsional frequency is high with respect to the uncoupled lateral frequency, and if the eccentricities are small, the coupling between translation and torsion can be neglected and the structure can be treated as a symmetric structure.
In the three dimersional finite element modeling of structures, the geometry of the structures is preserved, thus, the torsion effects are automatically taken into consideration.
For three-dimensional lumped-mass models which have translation-torsion coupling, the locations of the centers of mass (CM) and centers of rigidity (CR) are determined. Each idealized element is considered to run through the CR and is connected at its ends to the CM by a rigid bar.
However, the couplings between vertical and horizontal responses are very small and can be neglected Therefore, che vertical and horizontal model can be separated.
When torsional effects are taken into account for the dynamic analysis through the use of three-dimensional mathematical models, the need for statis factors and accidental torsion is eliminated.
To assure that torsional effects of all Category I buildings have been adequately considered, a three dimensional model of the auxiliary building, shown in Figure 3.7-21A, was developed. The auxiliary building was chosen because it is the most non-symmetric Category I building. This three-dimensional lumped mass model accounts for the actual locations of the centers of mass and centers of rigidity at each elevation. The response spectra generated using a 3-D model were then compared with those based on the mathematical models used for seismic design, shown in FSAR Figures 3.7-19 and 3.7-20.
This comparison showed that the effects of torsion had a negligible effect upon the floor response spectra used as the basis for piping and equipment analysis in the auxiliary building.
The structural response accelerations calculated from the CE-800 response spectru'm analysis were compared with those calculated using the oathematical models shown in FSAR Figures 3.7-19 and 3.7-20.
This comparison also showed that the effects of torsion had a negligible effect upon the response loads shown in FSAR Figures 3.7-28 to 3.7-43, which were used in the structural design of the auxiliary building.
Attcchment to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS RESPONSE (Continued)
An additional consideration related to the torsional response of symmetrical structures has not been considered in seismic design; however, this subject will be examined and appropriate measures will be taken, if found necessary.
l l
l l
l
Attach:2nt to AECM-81/30 ALTIT ACTION ITEMS Example of three dimensional stiffness and mass calculations.
RESPONSE
Response to this action item is Bechtel proprietary and will be submitted to NRC by separate letter.
L
Attechment to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Calculations for hydrodynamic analysis for spent fuel pool using TID 7024.
RESPONSE
See proprietary calculation H-013.0.
The proprietary calculation H-013.0 has been submitted to NRC/EC&G Idaho, Inc., in the followins letters:
D. E. Huffman, Bechtel, to E. C. Shomaker, NRC, dated June 6, 1980, and VB-80/230, A. "accaria, Bechtel to T. R.
Thompson, EG&G Idaho, Inc., dated July 2, 1980.
i i
l l
Attsch;ent to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Sample of calculations for west wall.
RESPONSE
See Proprietary Calculation H-013.0.
The Proprietary Calculation H-013.0 has been submitted to NRC/EG&G Idaho, Inc., in the following letters:
D. E. Huffman, Bechtel, to E. C. Shomaker, NRC, dated June 6, 1980, and VB-80/230, A. Zaccaria, Bechtel, to T. R.
Thompson, EG&G Idaho, Inc., dated July 2, 1980.
l l
l
Attechm2nt to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Beam and girder framing calculations.
RESPONSE
See Proprietary Calculation H-024.0.
The Proprietary Calculation H-024.0 has been submitted to NRC/EG&G Idaho, Inc., in the following letters:
D. E. Huffman, Bechtel, to E. C. Shomaker, NRC, dated June 6, 1980, and VB-80/230, A. Zaccaria, Bechtel, to T. R.
Thompson, EG&G Idaho, Inc., dated July 2, 1980.
l
Attcchm:nt to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Sample of composite column under Unit 2 pool.
RESPONSE
See Proprietary Calculation H-130.0.
The Proprietary Calculation H-130.0 has been submitted to NRC/EG&G Idaho, Inc., in the following letters:
D. E. liuffman, Bechtel, to E. C. Shomaker, NRC, dated June 6, 1980, and VB-80/230, A. Zaccaria, Bechtel, to T. R.
Thompson, EG&G Idaho, Inc., dated July 2, 1980.
Attachment to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Containment and auxiliary building relative deflection.
RESPONSE
Response to this action item is Bechtel proprietary and will be submitted to NRC by separate letter.
l l
l l
l l
Attechment to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Example floor response spectra.
RESPONSE
Response to this action item will be provided later.
Attechment to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Design calculations for 150 ton crane.
RESPONSE
The response to this action item is Bechtel proprietary and will be submitted to NRC by separate letter.
Attechm:nt to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Strain in fuel pool liner plate as related to ACI 359 criteria.
RESPONSE
Response to this action item will be provided later.
Attechm:nt to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Standby Service Water Cooling Tower Basin Sample calculation showing loads and load combination (pages, C-C200).
RESPONSE
Proprietary calculations showing loads and load combinations have been submitted to NRC and EG&G Idaho, Inc. in the following letters:
L. F. Dale, MP&L, to T. C. Houghton, NRC, letter number AECM-80/112, dated May 29, 1980 and VB-80/230, A. Zaccaria, Bechtel, to T. R. Thompson, EG&G Idaho, Inc., dated July 2, 1980.
l l
Attechment to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Standby Service Water Cooling Tower Basin Sample of SSWCTB supply pipe attachment to building.
RESPONSE
Proprietary calculations of SSWCTB supply pipe attachment to the building have been submitted to NRC and EG&G Idabot Inc. in the following letters:
L. F. Dale, MP&L, to T. C. Houghton, NRC, letter number AECM-80/112, dated May 29, 1980 and VB-80/0?.30, A. Zaccaria, Bechtel, to T. R. Thompson, EG&G Idaho, Inc., dated July 2, 1980.
Attacharnt to AECM-81/30
' s AUDIT ACTION ITEMS i
Standby Service Water Cooling Tower Basin Do both Finite Element and Elastic Half Space analyses for the generation of design response spectra and evaluate the effect of the envelope of above on equipment and piping design.
RESPONSE
The response to this request is presently being evaluated in response to NRC Question 130.25.
The requested information will be forwarded upon completion of the response to Q130.25.
l
)
i I
4 1
L y
,.y._
r,,-
7-,.-,-
Attechasnt to AECM-81/30 1
i AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Electrical Duct Banks Sample of' calculations at building and in free field.
}
Combination of stresses.
i Bond between conduit and concrete.
RESPONSE
See Proprietary Calculation C-X051.0 sent to NRC/EG&G Idaho, Inc.,
j in the following letters:
D. E. Huffman, Bechtel, to E. C. Shomaker, NRC, dated June 6, 1980, and VB-80/0230, A. Zaccaria, Bechtel, to T. R.
t Thompson, EG&G Idaho, Inc., dated July 2, 1980.
t 1
1 r
l 1-2 1
A i '
s
_ er
-~
~
O s'
Attschm:nt to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Concrete shear stress in free field.
RESPONSE
Response to this item will be provided later.
t Q.
Attachment to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Underground Categorv I Piping and Tanks Analysis of buried diesel oil storage tank (to be requested from the vendor).
RESPONSE
See Proprietary Design Report submitted to Bechtel by Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Buffalo Tank Division (Report No. AAD-76-101).
This report will be submitted to NRC by separate letter.
e l
h l
I t
i i-w my y-e
-, -w,.
,r-----
p c-
-yy.--,
e
['
Attcchm:nt to AECM-81/30 AUDIT ACTION ITEMS Calculations of the underground piping analysis.
Relative displacement calculations between tank and piping and between building and piping.
RESPONSE
Responses to these two action items will be provided later.
.