ML19352B316
| ML19352B316 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1981 |
| From: | Chen P, James Shea Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TASK-03-06, TASK-3-6, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8107020013 | |
| Download: ML19352B316 (8) | |
Text
m, O.
i
[
'o 8"
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$g ff
, o,1 WASHWGTON, D. C. 20%5
\\....} p#
June 18,1981 Doc' set No. 50-409 LICENSEE: DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE (DPC)
FACILITY:' la Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR)
SUBJECT:
SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS (SEP III-6)
NRC and Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC) representatives met at the NRC Bethesda, Maryland offices on May 19, 1981 to discuss the following:
1.
the NRC letter dated April 24, 1981, regarding the seismic reevaluation program plan, scope and schedule.
2.
clarification of questions raised by the NRC contractor (Lawrence Livermore Laboratory) 3.
status of the seismic reevaluation for the Lacrosse plant.
A list of attendees is attached as Enclosure 1.
SUMMARY
1 The NRC staff stated that the purpose of the meeting was to clarify for the licensee (DPC) the staff's position provided in the NRC letter to DPC dated April 24, 1981. Based on tiie licensee's response to this letter, the staff will complete its evaluation of the program plan including criteria, methods, procedures, scope and schedule for the seismic reevaluation and, if acceptable, approve the plans.
I 2.
The staff provided additional information inthe form of questions and guidelines for the licensee to use as they prepare their response to the April 24, 1981 NRC letter. The questions and guidelines are attached as Enclosure 2.
3 The staff stated that the final review for site specific spectra at SEP sites will be issued within a month. Two outstanding issues affect the site specific spectra, the review of local local site effects (soil amplification /liquification.) geology and The site specific spectra may be used for seismic reevaluation and plant modi fications.
8107020 O P
'O
. June 18,1981 4
The staff cautioned the licensee that in generating the. in-structure response spectra using the site specific spectra, the use of one time history may not be adequate because of inadequate frequency contents, amplitudes, and duration. The Itcensee was requested to provide justification for the adequacy of the time history or histories used in the analysis.
5.
The staff suggested that DPC consider the benefit of a meeting this summer with the staff to discuss the evaluation of criteria, methods, and procedures for seismic reevaluation to speed up the review of DPC seismic reevaluation program plan.
6.
DPC representatives agreed to submit the respense to the April 24, 1981 NRC letter by June 15, 1981.
3 g-W uLC' G
Pei-Ying Chen Ja.s J.
, Project Manager Systematic Evaluation Program Branch ating Reactors Branch #5 Division of Licensing Division of Licensing cc w/ enclosures:
See next page
,ee r
m m
Mr. Frank Linder June 18, 1981 CC Fritz-Schubert, Esquire U. S. Environmental Protection Staff Attorney Agency Dairyland Power Cooperative Federal Activities Branch 2615 East Avenue South Region V Office La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 ATIN: EIS COORDINATOR 230 South Dearborn Street
- 0. S. Heistand, Jr., Esquire Chicago, Illinois 60604 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street, N. W.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coumission Washington, D. C.
20036 Resident Inspectors Office Rural Route #1, Box 225 Mr. R. E. Shimshak Genoa, Wisconsin 54632 La Crosse Builing Water Reactor Dairyland Power Cooperative Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles P. O. Box 135 Kendal at Longwood, Apt. 51 Genoa, Wisconsin 54632 Kenneth Square, Pennsylvania 19348 Ms. Anne K. Morse Charles Bechhoefer, Esq., Chairman Coulee Region Energy Coalition Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P. O. Box 1583 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 Washington, D. C.
20555 La Crosse Public Library Dr. George C. Anderson 800 Main Street Departaent of Oceanography La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Resident Inspectors Office Mr. Ralph S. Decker Rural Route #1, Box 225 Route 4, Box 190D Genoa, Wisconsin 54632 Cambridge, Mary'.and 21613 Town Chairman Thoma: S. Moore Town of Genoa Atomic Safety ar.d Licensing Appeal Board Route 1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Genoa, Wisconsin 54632 Washington, D. C.
20555 Chairman, Public Service Commission Mr. John li. Buck of Wisconsin Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Hill Farms State Office Building U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Madison, Wisconsin' 53702 n'ashington, D. C.
20555 Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Frederick Milton Olsen, III 609 North lltn Street Lacrosse, Wisconsin
- .t m
,4
- -,4-
6 List of Attendees
.TNELSON LLNL TCilENG NRC.
P.Y. CHEN NRC R. HERMANN NRC K. IIERRING NRC~
W. RUSSELL NRC
' R. BRIMER DPC R. SHIMSHAK DPC D. MILOS NES B. RUMPF NES-
' A. DEBELING EG8G C. Y. LIAW EG&G T. Y. LO LLNL J. SHEA NRC J. BURNS NRC
(
4 1
4 k
.f 4
i I
e vy_
?
GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES FOR THJ REVIEW OF SEISMIC QUfflFICA110N OF SEP GROUP II P ENT!
(San Onofre 1, Lacrosse, Big Rock Point, Yankee Rowe, Haddam Neck, and Dresden 1) 1.
BACKGROUND In order to determine the margin of safety of the selected eleven operating nuclear power plants relative to those desigr.ed under current standards, criteria, and procedures, and to define the nature and extent of retrofitting to bring these plants to acceptable levels of capability if they are not already at such levels, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) has been proceed-ing with Phase II of the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) since October 1977 through the review of 137 safety topics developed in Phase 1 of the SEP. The seismic design considerations, Topics II-4.A B, and C III-6, III-ll, and IX-1 are among the 137 safety topics to be reviewed.
II. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVE The objective of Topic III-6 (including Topics 111-11 and IX-1) is to review and evaluate the seismic resistance of facilities.
As a minimum, the seismic program should provide for an evaluation of:
1.
The integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, 2.
The capability of systems and components to shutdown the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition (i.e., Topic VII-3),
3.
The r sability of systems and components necessary to mitigate the consequences of accidents (i.e., Topics XV on design basis events) including fuel stcrage (Topic IX-1), and 4.
The integrity of structures containing the Items 1, 2 and 3 above.
III. GENERAL CRITERIA AND REFERENCES I
The bases used by the staff for the review and evaluation will be the following:
l 1.
NUREG/CR-0098, " Development of Criteria for Seismic Review of. Selected Nuclear Power Plants," N. M. Newmark and W. J. Hall, May 1978.
2.
The Final Ground Response Spectra from the NRC SEP Site Specific Spectra l
Project. The interim spectra was forwarded by the August 4,1980 NRC letter to the Group II owners.
3.
"SSRT Guidelines for SEP Soil-Structure Interaction Neview." N. M. Newmark.
December 8,1980.
4.
Standard Review Plan, Sections 2.5, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9. and 3.10.
c,s I
i
, 5.
Regulatory Guides 1.26, 1.29, 1.60, 1.61, 1.92, 1.100, and 1.122.
6.
For mechanicai and electrical equipment not covered by NUREG/CR-0098 or Regulatory Guide l.61, a damping value of up to 4 percent can be used for qualification by analysis. A higher damping value may be used if sufficient justification 1,s provided and found acceptable.
7.
In general, Items 1, 2 and 3 should be used as a group in cases where the criteria in Items 1, 2 and 3 differ from those in the Standard Review Plan or Regulatory Guides.
IV. GENERAL PROCEDURES A) Licensees are to implement a program to perform the required analysis and to submit a Safety Analysis Report (SAR) addressing tne analysis program, scope of analysis performed and the results of the analysis.
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(f) of the Comission Regulation, a letter was issued on August 4,1980 to Group 11 plants licensees requesting that the licensee:
1.
submit details of a seismic evaluation program plan addressing the scope of review, evaluation criteria and a schedule for completion; and 2.
provide justification for continued operation in the interim until the program is conplete.
The program plan should be acceptable to the NRC Staff.
B) When the analysis is conpleted, tha licensee will submit the Safety Analysis Report for staff review.
In addition to the detailed descriptions of the methods and procedures used, and the results obtained, a summary of the evaluations of structures, systems and components should be provided in the SAR.
The licensee should provide the following information in tabular form for each equipment item:
1.
Method of qualification used:
(a) Analysis or test or a combination of test and analysis (indicate the conpany that prepared the report, the reference report number and date of the publication).
O g-
l (b)
If by test, describe whether it was a single or multi-frequency test and whether input was single axis or nulti-axis.
(c)
If by analysis, describe whether static or dynamic, s'ngle or nultiple-axis analysis was used.
Provide natural freq.ncy (or frequencies) and the danping value used in the analysis.
?.. Indicate whether the equipment has met the cualifiation requirements or whether modification is required.
- 3. Indicate the system in which the equipment is locateo and whether the equipment is required for
a) hot stand-by b) cold shutdown c) both d) neither 4.
Location of system or component, i.e., building and elevation.
5.
Seismic input'(inoicate the spectra or acceleration used).
6.
Indicate whether it is within the sc. ope of NSSS or B0P.
V.
STAFF REVIEW PROCEDURES A) Based on the licensee's SAR and the pertinent reports referenced therein, the staff and available contractor or consultants will conduct the reviews. The staff review procedure will be different from that of Group I plants in that the review of Group 11 plants will be similar to an Operating License review.
B) The staff will conduct a site raview of the qualification methods, procedures, and results for a list of selectec' safety related structures, systems, and conponents and their supporting structures. The intention is also to observe the field conditions a'id installations of structures, systems, and conponents, based on which judgments can be made as to the validity of the mathematical modeling enployed in the evaluation prograr., with respect te the configurations and the boundary conditions.
C)
In the evaluation of structures, the staff will review at least the following:
1.
Adequacy of site ground response spectra and synthetic time histories input to structures for SSE.
2.
Adequacy of structural mathematical model.
t
no 3.
Possible effect of such parameters as damping, soil-structure interac-tion, torsion, and overturning.
i 4.
Normal, seismic and seismic related loadings, load combinations, stresses, and deformations.
5.
Adequacy of floor response spectra.
6.
Relative motions which might influence piping entering buildings, or spanning between buildings, tilt, or interaction effects.
D)
In the evaluation of systens, components, and their supports, the staff will review at least the following:
1.
Adequacy of the inputs to each system or component unde SSE loading.
2.
Adequacy of the analytical model and assumptions used to sinulate the field installation conditions.
3.
Structural integrity of the systens, components, and their supports.
E)
In conducting the reviews, depending on the circumstances, the staff ney want to perform some independent evaluations such as confirmatory analyses or consultant's view to enhance the overall review evaluations.
From among the list of selected safety related structures, systems, and componnets to be reviewed, the staff will conduct an independent confirmatory analyses for the following:
1.
Containment building and other buildings deemed desirable.
2.
Some piping systems.
3.
Some mechanical and clectrical equipment.
F) After eacn site visit, the staff will issue a trip report, which will identify findings, conclusions and follow-up itens.
G) At the conclusion of review, the staff will issue a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for the Topic III-6.
d
.m
3 y
MFETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION Docke t NRC PDR Local PDR ORB Reading J01shinski SVarga TIppolito RClark JStolz DCrutchfield HSjith RCaruso JShea OELD OI&E (3)
ACRS (10)
NSIC CTERA,
EAd:nsam TCheng P. Y. Chen R. Hermana KHerring WRussell JBurns RLL 8
f?!f
~
ig-x ys 8
I b l\\
_.)
o.'
JU:; 2 91981
'12
~
~
u.s. mg5;r,auron 4~
r
- 'hs, \\ G