ML20023C164
| ML20023C164 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 05/04/1983 |
| From: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Booker J, William Cahill GULF STATES UTILITIES CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8305110616 | |
| Download: ML20023C164 (28) | |
Text
f o
~
DISTRIBUTION:
Document Control (50-458) gg 4 1g83 NRC POR L PDR NSIC PRC Docket Hos. 50-458/459 LR#2 Rdg.
EHylton EJWeinkam DRepka, OELD ACRS (16)
ELJordan, DEQA:IE Hr. William J. Cahill, Jr.
Jt1 Taylor, DRP:IE Senior Vice President Region IV, RA River Dend Nuclear Group Gulf States Utilities Company Post Office Box 2951 Beaumont, Texas 77704 ATTN: fir. J. E. Booker
Dear Mr. Cahili:
Subfect:
Draft Safety Evaluation Report - Strut.tural Engineering -
River Fond Station Units 1 and 2 Enclosed as Enclosure 2 are the structural engineering sections for the River Bend draft SER. Enclosure 1 provides a summary of open items and the scope of the review.
NRC Project Manager, Edward Weinkam, will contact you in the near future to arrange meetings and establish a schedule for resolution of these items.
Sincerely.
Ot!ginal sigted by A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
See next page 8305110616 830504 PDR ADDCK 05000450 E
- PDR,
.L.:.f.9.d/..P!.i...
D.L,;,
,,R,C,,,,
D omcir suR==. > E.W.c,tphe.e.thn..68.W.... c.e.t...
om >p.5.G /93......... 5/.$/92................................
NRC DORM M h04) NRCM Ono OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usceonm us.J.e
River Bend s
Mr. William J. Cahill, Jr.
Senior Vice President
~
River Bend Nuclear Group Gulf States Utilities Company Post Office Box 2951 Beaumont, Texas 77704 ATTN:
Mr. J.E. Booker cc:
Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire Doris Falkenheiner, Esq.
Conner and Wetterhahn Attorney at Law 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
355 Napoleon Street Washington, D. C.
20006 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802 Mr. William J. Reed, Jr.
Ian Douglas Lindsey Director - Nuclear Licensing Staff Attorney Gulf States Utilities Company Department of Justice Post Office Box 2951 7434 Perkins-P.oad Beaumont, Texas 77704 Suite C Batcn Rouge, Louisiana 70808 Stanley Plettman, Esquire Orgain, Bell and Tucker H. Anne P1ettinger Beaumont Savings Building 712 Carol Marie Drive Beaumont, Texas 77701 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70806 William J. Guste, Jr., Esquire Ms. Linda.B. Watkins Louisiana Attorney General Attorney at Law 7434 Perkins Road 355 llapoleon Street Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802 Richard M. Troy, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General in Charge State of Louisiana Department of Justice 234 Loyola Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Ross Brown Resident Inspector Post Office Box 1051 St..Francisville, Louisiana 70775
~
Gretchen R. Rothschild Louisianians-for Safe Energy, Inc.
1659 Glennore Avenue Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808 James W. Pierce, Jr., Esq.
P. 0. Box 23571 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70893 I
I t
n --
3[ f4F? l.
l'WM C LM ENCLOSURE 1
^
SUMMARY
OF STATUS AND SCOPE OF REVIEW RIVER BEND STATION UNIT #1 Section 3.3.1 Wind Loadings Review is complete; e open' items exist, s
l Section 3.3.2 Tornado Loadings Review is complete; no open items exist.
Section 3.4.2 Water Level (Flood) Design Procedures 4
The explanation of how a DBF! at 95.1 feet would result in water' pressures on the sides'of Category I structures to no more than elevation 70' feet is unclear.
Also, the consequences of water pressures on structures to elevation 95.1 feet were not explained.
Section 3.5.3-Barrier Design Procedures Review is complete; no open items exist.
Section.3.7.1 Seismic Input Review is Complete; no open items exist.
Seismic System Analysis and Section 3.7.2 Section 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis:
The foll,owing issues remain outstanding:
(1) Potential structural. effects on Category I structures due to potential failure of non-Category I structures.
04/19/83 1
R,1ver. Bend SFR Rothberg/B v
$3
~
(2) Details of the seismic analysis of the Radwaste Building (3) Justification of a static coefficient of 1.3 (vs. 1.5) for equivalent s,tatic load design basis.
Section 3.7.4 Seismic Instrumentation Program The applicant has yet not responded to the staff's inquiry concerning imple-mentation details of the seismic instrumentation surveillence scheme. (See question 220.44).
Section 3.8.1 Concrete Ccntainment Not applicable to this facility.
Section 3.8.2 Steel Containment The following issues remain outstanding: (1) Distortion / lamination potential inthecontainmentshellduetoweldingoftheringgirderfortIhecrane, (2) Comparison of the buckling criteria used by the applicant with staff criteria, (3) Comparison of the applicant's criteria with Reg. Guide 1.57, (4) Combination of dynamic loads in the shell analysis are not res'olved, and (5) Tables in appendix 6A are not complete, (6) Several computer codes used in the structural design were not verified and Wilson-GHOSH code was found to be in error.
Section 3.8.3 Concrete and Structural Steel Internal Structures
.The applicant has used ACI 318-71 for the design of concrete internal structures.
The current S.R.P. refers to ACI 349 as invoked by Reg. Guide 1.142.
Where the applicant's criteria differs from ACI 349/ Reg. Guide 1.142, such differences should be justified.
,Section 3.8.4 Other Category I' Structures The 'following issues remain outstanding:
(1) Question regarding seal material remains unanswered, (2) Question regarding interaction of Category I-and
-04/19/83' 2
River Bend SER ~Rothberg/B
t
[j (*, f f p
' f;l i
non-Category I structures is unanswered, (3) Analysis of spent. fuel pool liner for potential-heavy drop accident is incomplete, (4) Drawing of spent fuel racks has not,been provided, (5). Compressible material is not stated to be excluded from shake spaces, (6) Applicant has not justified deviations from ACI 349/ Reg. Guide 1.142.
Section 3.8.5 Foundations The following issues remain outstanding:
(1) Same comment as for Section 3.8.3 above applies regarding implementation of ACI 349/ Reg. Guide 1.142.
~
(2) Range of soil shear modulus must be clarified.
(3) Variations in Poission's ratio were noted and questioned.
(4). Reanalysis of standby service water cooling tower dynamic soil pressure analysis has not been documented as of'this writing.
l I
i 04/19/83 3
River Bend SER Rothberg/B q
r
+
v
i ENCLOSURE 2 RIVER BEND STATION 00CKET'HO. 50-458 DRAFT SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT 3.3.1 Wind Design Criteria All Category I structures exposed to wind forces were designed to withstand the effects of the design wind.
The design wind specified has a velocity of 100 cph based on a recurrence of 100 years.
The procedures that were used to transform the wind velocity into pressure loadings on structures and the associated vertical distribution of wind pres-sures and gust factors are in accordance with ANSI A58.1 and ASCE Paper 3269 as ap;repriate.
This document is acceptable to the staff.
The staff concludes that the plant design is acceptable and meets the recer endations of Standard Review Plan Section 3.3.1 and the requirements of General Design Criterion 2.
This conclusion is based-on the following:
The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 2 with respect to the capability of the structures to withstand design wind loading so that their design reflects 1.
appropriate consideration for the most severe wind recorded for the site
~
with an appropriate margin; 2.
appropriate combinations of the effects of normal and accident conditions with the effects of the natural phenomena; and 3.
the importance of the safety function to be performed.
.~
04/19/83' 1
River Bend SER Rothberg/C
The applicant has met these requirements by using ANSI A58.1 and ASCE paper No. 3269, which the staff has reviewed and found acceptab,le, to transform the wind velocity.into an effective pressure on structures and for selecting pressure coefficients corresponding to the structures geometry and physical configuration.
The applicant has designed the plant structures with sufficient margin to prevent structural damage during the most severe wind loadings that have been determined appropriate for the site so that the requirements of Item 1 listed above are met.
In addition, the design of seismic Category 1 structures, as required by Item 2 listed above, has included in an acceptable manner, load combinations which occur as a' result of the most severe wind load and the loads resulting from normal and accident conditions.
The procedures used to determine the loadings on structures induced by the design wind specified for the plant are acceptable since these procedures have been used in the design of conventional structures and proven to provide a conservative basis which together with other engineering design consideratica
~
assures that the structures will withstand such environmental forces.
The use of these procedures'provides reasonable assurance that in the event of design basis winds, the structural integrity of the plant structures that have to be designed for the design wind will not be impaired and, in consequence, safety-related systems and components located within these structures are adequately protected and will perform their intended safety functions if needed, thus satisfying the requirement of Item 3 listed above.
3.3.2 Tornado Design Criteria All Category I structures exposed to tornado forces and needed for the safe shutdown of the plant were designed to resist a tornado of 290 mph tangential wind velocity and a 70 mph translational wind velocity.
The simultaneous atmospheric pressure drop was assumed to be 3 psi in 2 seconds.
Tornado missiles are also considered in the design as discussed in Section 3.5 of this report.,
04/19/83 2
River Bend SER Rothberg/C
i j
Hb y r= 7 a
The staff concludes that the plant design is acceptable and meets the recommendations of Standard Review Plan 3.3.2 and the requirements of General Design Criterion 2.
This conclusion is based on the following:
The applicant has met the recommendations of Standard Review Plan 3.3.2 and the requirements of GDC 2 with respect,to the structure capability to withstand design tornado wind loading and tornado missiles so that their design reflects 1.
appropriate consideration for~ the most severe tornado recorded for the site with an appropriate margin; 2.
appropriate combinations of the effects of normal and accident conditions with the effects of the natural phenomena; and 3.
the importance of the safety function to be performed.
The applicant has met these requirements by using ANSI A58.1 and ASCE paper-No. 3269, which the staff has reviewed and found acceptable, to transform the
~
wind velocity generated by the tornado into an effective pressure on structures and for selecting pressure coefficients corresponding to the structures geometry and physical configuration.
The applicant has designed the plant structures with sufficient margin to prevent structural damage during the most severe tornado loadings that have been determined appropriate for the site so that the requirements of Item 1 listed above are met.
In addition, the design of seismic Category I structures, as required by Item 2 listed above, has included in an acceptable manner load
. combinations which occur as a result of the most severe tornado wind load and the loads resulting from normal and accident conditions.
The procedures utilized to determine the loadings on structures induced by the design basis tornado specified for the plant are acceptable since these proce-dures have been used in the design of conventional structures and proven to provide a conservative basis which together with other engineering design considerations assures that the structures will withstand such environmental forces.
04/19/83 3
River Bend SER Rothberg/C
s The use of these procedures provides reasonable assurance that.in the event of design basis tornado, the structural integrity of the plant structures that have to be designed for tornadoes will not be impaired and, in consequence, safety-related systems and components located within these structures will be 4
adequately protected and may be expected to perform necessary safety functions as required, thus satisfying the requirement of item 3 listed above.
3.4.2 Water Level (Flood) Design Procedures The maximum postulated design basis flooC level (DBFL) for the River Bend site is at elevation 95.1*.
Plant grade is approximately at elevation 94.5.
Plant structuresaredesignedtoadBFLatelevation70.0.
Normal ground water is at elavation 57.0.
The applicant has stated that the DBFL to elevation 95.1 will only cause the groundwater to rise 13 feet to elevation 70.0.
However such an explanation is not fully understood.
The site is essentially sand which should, offer little resistance to water penetration.
In addition, the applicant has not furnished information about the potential effects of flotation, overturning and structural loadings in the event that the maximum postulated DBFL of 95.1 feet occurs.
The applicant is required to resolve these discrepancies and furnish objective evidence of his position that a flood to elevation 95.1 will result in hydro-static forces on seismic Category I structurer, no higher'than elevation 70.
Alternatively, the applicant may show that flood water hydrostatic heads to
~
elevation 95.1, in combination with other applicable loads, will not produce any adverse effects on seismic Category I structures.
3.5.3
. Barrier Design Procedures The plant Category I structures, systems and components are shielded from, or designed for, various postulated missiles.
Missiles considered in the design
,of structures include tornado generated missiles and various containment internal. missiles, such as those associated with a loss-of-coolant accident.
"All elevations are given in feet above mean sea-level (MSL).
04/19/83 4
River Bend SER Rothberg/C q
p m
Ml*
p
{
i W i
Information has been provided indicating that the procedures that were used in the design of-the structures, shields and barriers to resist the effect of missiles are adequate.
The analysis of structures, shields and barriers to determine the effects of missile ' impact was accomplished in two steps.
In the first step, the potential damage that could be done by the missile in the immediate vicinity of impact was investigated.
This was accomplished by estimating the depth of penetration of the missile into the impacted structure.
Furthermo.e, secondary missiles are prevented by fixing the target thickness well above that determined for penetration.
In the second step of the analysis, the overall structural response of the target when impacted by a missile is determined using established methods of impactive analysis.
The equivalent loads of.nissile impact, whether the missile is environmentally generated or accidentally generated within the plant, are combined with other applicable loads ss is discussed in Section 3.8 of this report.
The str.ff concludes that the barrier design is acceptable and meets the recommendations of Standard Review Plan 3.5.3 and the requiremen.ts of Gener~al Design Criteria 2 and 4 with respect to the_ capabilities of the structures, shields, and barriers to provide sufficient protection to equipment that must withstand the effects of natural phenomena (tornado missiles) and environmental effects including the effects of missiles, pipe whipping and discharging fluids.
This conclusion is based on the following:
The procedures utilized to determine the effects and loading on seismic Category I structures and missile shields and barriers induced by design basis missiles selected for the plant are acceptable since these procedures provide a conservative basis for engineering design to assure that the structure or
' barriers are adequately resistant to and will withstand the effects of such forces..
The use of these-procedures provides reasonable assurance that in the event of design basis missiles striking seismic Category I structures or other missile shields and barriers, the structural integrity of the structures, shields and barriers will not be impaired or degraded to an extent that will result in a loss of required protection.
Seismic Category I systems and components protected 04/19/83 5
River Bend SER Rothberg/C t
l by these structures are, therefore, adequately protected against the effects of missiles and will perform their intended safety function, if needed.
Conformance with these procedures is an acceptable basis for satisfying in part the requirements of General Design Criteria 2 and 4.
3.7.1 Seismic Input The input seismic design response spectra (OBE and SSE) applied in the design of sei'smic Category I structures, systems, and components comply with the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.60, " Design Response Spectra for Nuclear Power Plants." The specific percentage of critical damping values used in the i
seismic analysis of Category I structures, systems and components are in conformance with Regulatory Guide 1.61, " Damping Values 'or Seismic Analysis f
^
of Nuclear Power Plants."
The synthetic time history used for seismic design of Category I plant structures, systems and components is adjusted in amplitude and frequency co,ntent to
~
obtain response spectra that envelope the re,sponse spectra specified for the site.
Conformance with the Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61 requirements provides reasonable assurance that for an earthquake whose intensity is 0.05g for the OBE, and 0.lg for the SSE, the seismic inputs to Category I structures, systems, and components are adequately defined to assure a conserv'ative basis for the design of such structures, systems and components to withstand the consequent seismic loadings.
The staff concludes that the seismic design parameters used in the plant structure design are acceptable and meet the recommendations of Standard Review Plan 3.7.1 and the requirements of General Design Criterion 2 and Appendix A to 10.CFR Part 100.
This conclusion is based on the following:
The applicant has met the recommendations of Standard Review Plan 3.7.1 and' the relevant requirements of GDC 2 and Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 by appro-priate consideration for loads generated by the most severe earthquake recorded 04/19/83 6
River Bend SER Rothberg/C
O h5(
)
33 g
a for the site, as defined in FSAR Section 2.5, with an appropriate margin and considerationr for two levels of earthquakes--the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) and operating basis earthquake (OBE).
The applicant has met these requirements by the use of the methods and procedures indicated below.
The seismic design response spectra (0BE and SSE) applied in the design of seismic Category I structures, systems, and components comply with the recom-mendations of Regulatory Guide 1.60, " Design Response Spectra for Nuclear Power Plants." The specific percentage of critical damping values used in the seismic analysis of Category I structures, systems, and components are in conformance with Regulatory Guide 1.61, " Damping Values for Seismic Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants." The artificial synthetic time history used for seismic design of Category I structures, systems, and components is adjusted in amplitude and frequency content to obtain response spectra that enevlop the design response spectra specified for the site.
Conformance with the recom-mendations of Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61 assures that the seismic. inputs to Category I structures, systems, and components are adequately defined so'as to form a conservative basis for the design,of such structures, systems, and components to withstand seismic loadings.
3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis Combined with section 3.7.3 3.7.3 Seismic System and Subsystem Analysis The scope of review of the Seismic System and Subsystem Analysis for the plant
' included the seismic analysis methods for all Category I structures, systems and components.
It included review of procedures for modeling, seismic soil-structure interaction, development of floor response spectra, inclusion of torsional effects, seismic analysis of Category I dams, evaluation of Category I structure overturning, and determination of composite damping.
The review has included design criteria and~ procedures for evaluation of interaction of non-Category I structures with Category I structures and effects of parameter variations on floor response spectra.
The review has also included criteria 04/19/83 7
River Bend SER Rothberg/C
s and seismic analysis procedures for reactor internals and Category I buried structures outside the containment.
The system and subsystem analyses were performed by the applicant on an elastic and linear basis.
Modal response spectrum multidegree of freedom methods form the bases for the analyses of all major Category I structures, systems and components.
In applying the modal response spectrum method, governing response parameters were combined in conformance with one position of Regulatory.
Guide 1.92.
The absolute sum of the modal responses was used for modes with closely spaced frequencies.
The square root of the sum of the squares of the maximum codirectional responses was used in acccunting for three components of the earthquake motion.
Floor spectra inputs used for design and test verifi-cations of structures, systems, and components were generated from the time history method, taking into account variation of parameters by peak widening.
A vertical seismic system dynamic analysis is employed for all structures, systems and components where analyses show significant structural amplifica-tion in the vertical direction.
Torsional effects and stability,against overturning are c6nsidered.
The inertial effects due to an eartnquake upon buried systems and tunnels have been adequately accounted for in the analysis.
The principles used, to account for the effects of static resistance of the surrounding soil on buried system deformations, was based on the theory of structures on elastic foundations and.
they are acceptable.
J A coupled structure and soil model is used to evaluate soil-structure inter-action effects upon seismic responses.
The lumped parameter method is used for modeling of the structure.
The elastic half-space method is used for modeling of the supporting soil.
Translational, rocking, vertical and torsional soil spring constants are-included to represent the subgrade.
The staff concludes that the use of the seismic structural analysis procedures and criteria delineated above by the applicant provides an acceptable bases for-
'the seismic design which are in conformance with the requirements of item 3' listed b.elow.
04/19/83 8
River Bend SER Rothberg/C
i ts The staff concludes that the plant design is acceptable with exceptions as noted at the end of this sect'on, and meets the recommendations of Standard Review Plan 3.7.3 and the requirements of, General Design Criterion 2 and Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100.
This conclusion is based on the following:
the applicant has met the recommendations of Standard Review Plan 3.7.3 and the requirements of GDC 2 and Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 with respect to the capability of the structures to withstand the effects of the earthquakes so that their design reflects:
(1) Appropriate consideration for the most severe earthquake recorded for the site with an appropriate margin (GDC 2).
Consideration of two levels of earthquakes (Appendix A,'10 CFR'Part 100),
(2) Appropriate combination of the effects of normal and accident conditions with the effect of the national phenomena, and (3) The importance of the safety functions to be performed (GDC,2).
The use of a suitable dynamic analysis or a suitable qualification test to demon-strate that structures, systems, and components can withstand the seismic and other concurrent loads, except where it can be demonstrated that the use of an equivalent static load method provides adequate consideration (Appendix A, 10 CFR Part 100).
The applicant has met the requirements of item 1 listed above by use of the acceptable seismic design parameters as per SRP Section 3.7.1.
The combina-tion of earthquake resulted loads with those resulting'from normal and acci-dent conditions in the design of Category I structures as specified in SRP Section 3.8.1 through 3.8.5 will be in conformance with item 2 listed above.
The following issues remain outstanding:
(1) Question 220.32 (3.7.2.8A) remains unanswered.
According to amendment 7 of the FSAR, a response will be provided by June 1983.
The question is:
"Will the collapse of any non-Category 1 Structure impair the-integrity 04/19/83 9
River Bend SER Rothberg/C 9
Mqni l Ig7,
of any Seismic Category 1 structure or component?
If so,.is the non-i Category-1. Structure designed to Category 1 standards? Provi-de an explanation if necessary."
(2) Question 220.38 (3.7.2.16A) remains unanswered.
According to amendment 7 of the FSAR, a response will be provided by June 1983.
The question is:
" Provide a detailed, step-by-step explanation of the method for applying earthquake input to the radwaste building; i.e., clarify and expand the 1ast paragraph of this section."
(3) The applicant has referred to a particular paper by Gwinn and Goldstein,
" Equivalent Static Loads'from Amplified Response Curves," ASME Paper 74-NE-6, in his answers to questions 220.39 (3.7.3.1.1.1A) and 220.40 (3.7.3.1.1.1A).
Question 220.39 requested justification for using a static coefficient of 1.3 times peak acceleration rather than 1.5 as the Standard Review Plan recommends.
Question 220.40 asked for confirmation that a static analysis would always be conservative compared to dynamic a,nalysis.
The staff has not. yet obtained and reviewed the referenced paper and therefore notes that the issue remains open at this time.
3.7.4 Seismic Instrumentation Prooram The type, number, location and utilization of strong motion accelerographs to record seismic events and to provide data on the frequency, amplitude and phase relationship of the seismic response of the containment structure comply with Regulatory Guide 1.12.
Supporting instrumentation is being installed on Category I structures, systems and components in order to provide '
data for the. verification of the seismic responses determined analytically for such Ca,tegory I items.
The staff conludes that the seismic instrementation system provided for the plant is acceptable, with the exceptions noted below, and meets'the recommen-
.dations of Standard Review Plan 3.7.4 and the requirements of General Design Criterion 2, 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A and 10 CFR Part 50, 350.55a except as noted below.
This conclusion is based on the following:
04/19/83 10 River Bend SER. Rothberg/C.
n r-
t m
yrf The applicant has met the recommendations of Standard Review Plan 3.7.4 except that a seismic-instrumentation surveillance scheme has not yet been provided (see Question 220.44).
The requirements of 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A were i
met by providing the instrumentat. ion that is capable of measuring the effects of an earthquake, which meets the requirements of GDC 2.
The applicant has met the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, 550.55a by provi. ding the inservice inspection program that will verify operability by performing channel checks, calibrations, and functional tests at acceptable intervals.
In addition, the installation of the specific seism'ic instrumentation on the reactor contain-ment structure and at other Category I structures, systems, and components constitutes an acceptable program to record data on seismic ground motion as well as data on the frequency'and amplitude relationship of the seismic response of major structures and systems.
A prompt readout of pertinent data at the control room can be expected to yield sufficient information to guide the operator on a timely basis for the purpose of evaluating the seismic-response in the event of an earthquake.
Data obtained from such installed seismic instrumentation will be sufficient to determine that the, seismic analysis assumptions and the analytical mode,1 used for the design of the plant are adequate and that allowable stresses are not exceeded under conditions l
where continuity of operation is intended.
Provision of such seismic instru-mentation complies with Regulatory Guide 1.12.
3.8.1 Concrete Containment Not applicable to this facility.
3.8.2 Steel Containment 4
The containment consists of a free-standing steel shell located within a separate reinforced concrete reactor building.
The containment was designed, fabricated,. constructed and tested as a Class MC vessel in accordance with Subsection NE of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 1.
Loads include an appropriate combination of dead and live loads; thermal loads; seismic and loss-of-coolant accident-induced loads including pressure and jet forces.
-04/19/83 11 River' Bend SER Rothberg/C
-~f
s The analysis of the containment was based on elastic thin shell theory. -The allowable stress and strain limits are in accordance with.those de-lineated in the applicable sections of Subsection NE of the M ME Code,Section III, Division 1, for the various loading conditions.
, that the design of the steel containment is The staff concludes acceptable and meets the recommendations of Standard Review Plan 3.8.2 and the relevant requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, 550.55a, and General Design Criteria 1, 2, 4,'16, and 50 with exceptions as noted at the end of this section.
This conclusion is based on the following:
1.
The applicant has met the recommendations of Standard Review Plan 3.8.2 and the requirements of Section 50.55a and GDC 1 with respect to assuring that the steel containment is designed, fabricated, erected, constructed, tested and inspected to quality standards commensurate with its safety function to be performed by meeting the guidelines of regulatory guides and industry standards indicated below.
2.
The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 2 by designing the steel containment to withstand the most severe earthquake that has been estab-lished for the site with sufficient margin and the combination of the effects of normal and accident condition with the effects of environmental loadings such as earthquakes and other natural phenomena.
3.
The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 4 by assuring that the design of the steel containment is capable of withstanding the dynamic effects associated with missiles, pipe whipping, and discharging fluids.
4.
The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 16 by designing the steel containment so that it is an essentially leaktight barrier to prevent the uncontrolled release of radioactive effluents to the environment.
5.
The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 50 by designing the steel containment to accommodate, with sufficient margin, the design leakage rate, calculated pressure'and temperature conditions resulting from l
04/19/83 12 River Bend SER Rothberg/C
.1
l
~
accident conditions, and by assuring that the design conditions are not exceeded-during the full course of the accident condition.
In meeting these design requirements, the applicant has used the recommendations of regulatory guides and industry standa-ds indicated below.
6.
At the staff's request, the applicant is performing,an analysis to determine
%%-.-r.~2. {- - d-% '
the containment ultimate capacity...
..u : - - W;_ :
The criteria used in the analysis,. design, and construction of the steel containment structure to account for anticipated loadings and postulated conditions that may be imposed' upon the structure during its service lifetime are in conformance with established criteria, and with codes, standards, and guides acceptable to the Regulatory staff.
These include meeting'the posi-tion of Regulatory Guide 1.57, and industry standard ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 1, Subsection NE.
The use of these criteria as defined by appiicable codes, standards, and guides, the loads and loading combinations; the design and analysis procedures; the structural acceptance criteria; the materials, quality control programs, and special construction techniques; and t' e testing and inservice surveillance requirements, provide reasonable assurance with exceptions as noted below the.t in the. event of earthquakes and various postulated accidents occurring within and outside the containment, the structure will withstand the specified design conditions without impairment of structural integrity or safety function.
A Category I concrete shield building protects the steel containment from the
' effects of wind and tornadoes and various postulated accidents occurring outside the shield building.
The shield building is covered in Section 3.8.4.
The following issues remain outstanding:
(1)
Regarding the polar crane support, the staff is concerned about procedures to assure that distortation and/or. lamination of the shell in the area
- where the polar crane support is welded to the shell are adequate..Such 04/19/83 13 River Bend SER Rothberg/C
n E
procedures and the margins against distortation and lamination should be addressed in detail in the FSAR for all potential occurrences.
(2) The answer to the staff's question 220.49, which requested a comparison of the applicant's criteria for the containment factors-of-safety against buckling with the staff position, is inadequate.
An adequate response is not contained in the referenced section of the FSAR noted in the applicant's response to question 220.49.
(3) The answer to the staff's question 220.51 (3.8.2.3.1), which asked for a numerical comparison of how much the guidance of the Regulatory Guide 1.57 was exceeded, is unresponsive.
The specific data asked for was not provided.
(4) The answer to the staff question 220.52 (3.8.2.4.1), regarding methods of combining dynamic loads for the containment, is unresponsive.
The refer-enced section of the FSAR does not contain the information yhich the ~
staff requesi.ed.
(5) The tables in Appendix 6-A are incomplete.
This item also applies to Section 3.8.3 regarding internal structures.
(6) From the Design Audit conducted in May,1982 it was learned that not all of the computer codes used for the River Bend calcul'ations were verified in accordance with methods outlined in S.R.P Section 3.8.2, II, 4, c.
It has since been noted that the Wilson-GHOSH Code was in error.
Potential consequences should be noted, if any exist.
3.8.3 Concrete and Structural Steel Internal Structures The containment -interior structures consist of reinforced concrete and steel
~ framed walls, compartments and floors.
The major code used in the design of concrete internal structures was ACI 318-71.
The staff has asked the applidant to indicate the extent of this compliance with the requirements of ACI 349 as outlined in Reg. Guide _1.142 at both the acceptance review stage (question
~
220.8) and in the staff's FSAR review (question 220.58).
In each case the 4
04/19/83 14 River Bend SER Rothberg/C
J.
DMFT applicant has responded that he has complied with the requirements of ACI 318-71 as he committed to do in his construction permit application.
The. staff's position is that material deviations from the current SRP requirements to design applicable structures in accordance with ACI 349/ Regulatory Guide 1.142 must be justified.
Steel internal structures were designed, fabricated, and inspected in accordance with the ASME " Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Subsections NE and NF" and the AISC, " Specifications for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings" and ANSI N45.2.5.
a With the exception noted above' the staff concludes that the design of the containment internal structures is acceptable and meets the relevant requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, 550.55a, and General Design Criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, and 50.
This conclusion is based on the following:
1.
The applicant has met the requirements of Section 50.55a, and GDC 1 with respect to assuring that the containment internal structures are designed,
~
fabricated, erected, constructed, tested and inspected to quality standards commensurate with its safety function to be performed by meeting the guidelines of Regulatory Guides and industry standards indicated below.
2.
The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 2 by designing the containment internal structure to withstand the most severe earthquake that has been established for the site with sufficient margin and the combinations of the effects of normal and accident conditions with the effects of environ-mental loadings such as earthquakes and other natural phenomena.
3.
The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 4 by assuring that the design of the internal structures are capable of withstanding the dynamic effects associated with missiles, pipe whipping and discharging fluids.
4.
The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 5 by demonstrating that structure systems and components are not shared between units or that if j
shared they have demonstrated that sharing will not impair their ability to perform their intended safety function.
04/19/83' 15 River Bend SER Rothberg/C l
Q r""
i i
U I
5.
The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 50 by designing the containment internal structures to accommodate, with sufficient margin, the design leakage rate, calculated pressure and temperature conditions resulting from accident conditions and by assuring that the design condi-tions are not exceeded during the full course of the accident condition.
In meeting these design requirements, the applicant has used the recommenda-tions of Regulatory Guides and industry standards indicated below.
The applicant has also performed appropriate analysis which demonstrate the ultimate capacity of the structures will not be exceeded and establishes the minimum margin of safety for the design.
The criteria used in the design, analysis, and construction of the containment internal structures to account for anticipated loadings and postulated conditions that may be imposed during the structures during their service lifetime are in conformance with established criteria, with codes, standards, and specifications acceptable to Regulatory staff.
These include meeting the positions of Regulatory Guide 1.1,0, 1.15, It55, 1.57, 1.94 and 1.142 and industry standards ACI-349 (see exception above),
ASME, "ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 2, Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containments," ASME, " Boiler Pres-sure Vessel Code,Section III, Subsections f4E and t1F," AISC, "Specifica-tions for'the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings and ANSI t?45.2.5.
The use of these criteria as defined by applicable codes, standards, and specifications, the loads and loading combinations; the design and analysis pre 'dures; the structural acceptance criteria; the materials, quality control programs, and special construction techniques; and the testing and in-service surveillance requirements provide reasonable assurance that, in the event of earthquakes and various postulated accidents occurring within the. containment, the interior structures will withstand the specified design conditions without impairment of structural integrit'y or the performance of required safety functions.
04/19/83 16 R.iver Bend SER Rothberg/C
l t
)
l 3.8.4 Other Cateoory I Structures These structures are the auxiliary building, shield building, fuel building, diesel generator building, standby service water cooling tower and basin, standby service water pump house, and piping and electrical tunnels housing safety related systems.
Category I structures other than containment and its interior structures are all of structural steel and/or con' crete.
The structural components consist of slabs, walls, beams and columns.
The major code used in the design of concrete Category I structures was the ACI 318-71, " Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete."
For steel Category I structures, the AISC, "Specifica-I tion for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings,"
is used.
The following issues remain outstanding with regard to Category I structures outside containment:
(1) Question 220.48 (3.8) regarding description of seal materials remains -
unanswered.
(2) Question 220.32 regarding the potential effects of collapse of non-Category I structures on Category I structures remains unanswered.
This item is also referred to in SER Section 3.7.2/3.
(3) The analysis of the spent fuel pool liner for a heavy drop accident is not complete (see question 220.60).
(4) Drawings of the fuel building spent fuel racks have not been provided (see question 220.64).
(5) The applicant stated during the design audit of May,1982 that the compressible material in the shake space between the buildings would be removed prior to completion of the plant.
There is no statement to this effect in the FSAR.
(6) The. staff's previously stated exception, as noted in Section 3.8.3 above, regarding the use of ACI 318-71 rather than ACI 349/ Reg. Guide 1.142 appli'es.
04/19/83 17 River Bend SER Rothberg/C
With the exception of the issues noted above the staff concludes that the design of safety-related structures other than containmerkt or containment interior structures is acceptable and meets the relevant requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, 550.55a, and General Design Criteria 1, 2, 4, and 5.
This conclusion is based on the following:
1.
The applicant has met the requirements of 50.55a and GDC 1 with respect to assuring that the safety-related structures other than containment are designed, fabricated, erected, constructed, tested, and inspected to quality standards commensurate with its safety. function to be performed by meeting the guidelines of Regulatory Guides and industry standards indicated below.
2.
The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 2 by designing the safety related structures other than containment to withstand the most severe earthquake that has been established for the site with sufficient margin and the combinations of the effects of no mal and accident condi-tions with the effects of environmental loadings such as earthquakes and other natural phenomena.
3.
The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 4 by assuring that the design of'the safety-related structures are capable of withstanding the dynamic effects associated with missiles, pipe whipping and discharging fluids.
4.
The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 5 by demonstrating that structures, systems, and components are not shared between units or that if shared they have demonstrated that sharing will not impair their ability to perform their intended safety function.
5.
The applicant has met the requirements of Appendix B because their quality assurance program provides adequate measures for implementi~g guidelines n
relating to structural design audits.
The criteria used in the analysis, design, and construction of all the plant Catejory I structures to account for anticipated loadings and 04/10/83 18-River Bend SER Rothberg/C
postulated conditions that may be imposed upon each structure during its service Mfetime are in conformance with established. criteria, codes, standards, and specifications acceptable to the regulatory staff.
These include meeting the positions of Regulatory Guide 1.10, 1.15, 1.55, 1.69, 1.91, 1.94, 1.115, 1.142, and 1.143 and industry standards ACI-349 (see exception above) and AISC, " Specifications for the Design, Fabrica-tion, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings."
The use of these criteria as ' defined by applicable codes, standards, and specifications, the loads and loading combinations; the design ahd analysis procedures; the structural acceptance criteria; the materials, quality control, and special construction techniques; and the testing and inservice surveillance requirements provide reasonable assurance that, in the event of winds, tornadoes, earthquakes, and various postulated acci-dents occurring within the structures, the structures will withstand the specified design conditions without impairment of structural integrity or~
the performance of required safety functions.
3.8.5 Foundations Foundations of Category I structures are described in Section 3.8.'5 of the SAR.
Primarily, these foundations are reinforced concrete of the mat type.
The major code used in the design of these concrete mat foundations was ACI 318-71.
Our previously stated exceptions regarding the use of this docu-ment by the applicant are contained in SER Section 3.8.3 above.
In addition, the following issues, which were reported from the structural
. design audit conducted in May 1982 remain outstanding:
(1) The design range on the soil shear modulus was taken to be 18 ksi i 1/3 (12 to 24 ksi).
The test values showed the average soil shear modulus to be 24 ksi.
This value should have spread 1/3 to account for scatter.
Therefore the design soil shear modulus should have varied between 16 to 32 ksi, not 12 to 24 ksi.
04/19/83~
19 River Bend SER Rothberg/C
\\
(2) The values of Poission's Ratio for soil appeared to be inconsistent; that is, in scme cases a value of 0.5 was used and in othpr instances a value of 0.3 was used.
(3) Dynamic soil pressures were not included in the mathematical model of the standby service water cooling tower.
Thus these pressures were also not included in the detail design of the walls of the structure.
Since the audit, Stone and Webster has recalculated the stresses in the walls using dynamic soil pressures.
They found the walls to be satisfactory.
This is because a large construction surcharge load has compensated for the required dynamic soil pressures.
The staff's understanding of the resolu-tion of this matter should be confirmed, in writing, by the. applicant.
With the exceptions noted above the staff concludes that the design of the seismic Category I foundations are acceptable and meets the relevant requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, 550.55a, and General Design Criteria 1, 2, 4, and 5.
This conclusion is based on the following:
1.
The applicant has met the requirements of Section 50.55 and GDC 1 with respect to assuming that the seismic Category I foundations are designed, fabricated, erected, constructed, tested and inspected to quality standards commensurate with its safety function to be performed by meeting the guidelines of Regulatory Guides and industry standards indicated below.
2.
The applicant has met the requirements of GCD 2 by designing the seismic Category I foundation to withstand the most severe earthquake that has been established for the site with sufficient margin and the combinations of the effects of normal and accident conditions with the effects of environmental loadings such as earthquakes and other natural phenomena.
3.
The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 4 by assuring that the design of seismic Category I foundations are capable of withstanding the dynamic effects associated with missiles, pipe whipping and discharging fluids.
04/19/83~
20 River Bend SER Rothberg/C
n.
g ni'kB
~
4.
The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 5 by demonstrating that structuro systems and components either are not sharpd between units or that if shared they have demonstrated that sharing will not impair their ability to perform their intended safety function.
The Criteria used in the analysis, design, and construction of all the plant seismic Category I foundations to account for anticipated loadings and postulated conditions that may be imposed upon each foundation during its service lifetime are in conformance with established criteria, codes, standards, and specifications acceptable to the Regulatory staff'.
These include meeting the positions of Regulatory Guide 1.142 and industry standards ACI-349 (see ex'ception above) and AISC, " Specification for Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structual Steel for Building."
The use of these criteria as defined by applicable codes, standards, and specifications; the loads and loading combinations; the design and analysis procedures; the structural acceptance criteria; the materials 3 cuality control, and special construction techniques; and the testing and
~
in-service surveillance requirements provide reasonable assurance that, in the event of winds, tornadoes, earthquakes, and various postulated events, seismic Category I foundations will withstand the specified design concitions without impairment of structural integrity and stability er the performance of required safety functions.
~
04/19/63' 21 River Bend SER Rothberg/C a
"m I[
~
l i L BIBLIOGRAPHY Section 3.3 - Wind and Tornado Loadings 3.3-1
" Wind Forces on Structures," Final Report of the Task Committee on Wind Forces of the Committee on Load and Stresses of the Structural Division, Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 345 East 47th Street, New York, New York,10017, Paper.No. 3269, Vol.126, Part II, 1961, p. 1124-1198.
- or -
3.3-1 "American National Standard Building Code Requirements '
~ for Minimum Design Loads in Buildings and Other Structures,"
American National Standards Institute, A58 1972.
Section 3.5 - Miss'ile Protection 3.5-1 A. Amirikian, " Design of Protective Structures," Bureau of Yards and Docks, Publication No. NAVDOCKS P-51, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., August 1950.
3.5-2 Williamson, R.A., and Alvy, R.R., " Impact $ffect of Fragments l
Striking Structural Elements," Holmes and Narver, Revised Edition, 1973.
i Section 3.7 - Seismic Design 1
3.7-1 USAEC Regulatory Guide 1.60, " Design Response Spectra for Nuclear Power Plants."
3.7-2 USAEC _ Regulatory Guide 1.61,." Damping Values for Seismic Analysis of Nuclear Power Plants."
3.7-3 USAEC Regulatory Guide 1.12, " Instrumentation for. Earthquakes."
04/19/83 22-RIVER BEND SER
^'
y^
Section 3.8 - Design of Category I Structures
.e American Instit'te of Steel Construction, " Specification for u
1-
~
Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings," 101 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y.
10017,. Sixth Edition, 1969.
American Concrete Institute, " Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete'(ACI 318-1971)," P.O. Box 4754, Redford Station, Detroit, Michigan 48219.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, "ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,"Section III, and Addenda United Engineering Center, 345 East 47th Street, New York,' New York 10017.
y American Concrete Institute, " Code Requirements for Nuclear -
Safety Related Concrete Structures, ACI 349," Box 19150,
'?'
Redford Station, Detroit, Michigan 48219.
i y
s
\\
F:
h-t 9
4 e
04/19/83 23.
RIVER BEND'SER
-)