ML20035A988
| ML20035A988 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200001 |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1993 |
| From: | Son Ninh Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9303300313 | |
| Download: ML20035A988 (11) | |
Text
-
.l y
1 March 25,1993
-f Docket No.52-001
'I APPLICANT:
PROJECT:
Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) l t
SUBJECT:
MEETING
SUMMARY
OF FEBRUARY 22 THROUGH 25, 1993' j
On February 22 through 25, 1993, the Civil Engineering and Geosciences Branch staff and its consultant conducted an audit of the ABWR structural design at' the Bechtel Power Corporation (GE's consultant) offices in San Francisco,.
Cali fornia. The purpose of this audit was to review seismic analysis results and detailed design calculations, to resolve open and confirmatory items l
identified in the staff's draft final safety evaluttion report (DFSER), to i
provide GE with the staff review comments on the standard safety analysis l
report (SSAR) markups, and to discuss CE's response to the staff concerns identified in the previous audit report.
i
' is the meeting agenda, Enclosure 2 is a list of those who partici-pated in the audit, Enclosure 3 is a summary of the audit findings, Enclo--
l sure 4 is a status of open issues from the previous audit, and Enclosure 5 l
is a status of DFSER open and confirmatory items.
(Original signeu by)
{
Son Q. Ninh, Project Manager Standardization ~ Project Directorate Associate Directorate for Advanced Reactors and License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor. Regulation A
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
See next page DISTRIBUTION w/ enclosures:
-Docket File PDST R/F SNinh CPoslusny PDR PShea JNWilson RBorchardt DISTRIBUTION w/o enclosures:
TMurley/FMiraglia DCrutchfield WTravers GBagchi, 7H15
-1 EJordan, MNBB3701 DTerao, 7H15 ACRS'(11)
GGrant, 17G21 Slee, 7H15 JRichardson, 7D26 TCheng, 7H15 J0'Brien, RES j
LShao, RES BHardin, RES JMoore, 15918 HJanu a
0FC:
LA:PDST:ADAR PM:PDST:ADAR PM:P T:ADAR t PDST:ADAR NAME:-PShea M SNidhitz CPoslusny Ji i} son 03/3 /93
/;5/93 l
DATE: 03f$/93 03fg/93 5
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY:
GEAUDT.SQN i
{.] @t "[' '"[" * ~ [^ Y 9303300313 930325 PDR -ADOCK 05200001 A
PDR g
J
\\(
GE Nuclear Energy.
Docket No.52-001 cc:
Mr. Patrick W. Marriott, Manager Mr. Joseph Quirk Licensing & Consulting Services GE Nuclear Energy GE Nuclear Energy General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue 175 Curtner Avenue, Mail Code 782 San Jose, California 95125 San Jose, California 95125 Mr. Robert Mitchell General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125 Mr. L. Gifford, Program Manager Regulatory Programs GE Nuclear Energy 12300 Twinbrook Parkway Suite 315 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Director, Criteria & Standards Division Office of Radiation P.~ograms U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.
20460 Mr. Sterling Franks U. S. Department of Energy NE-42 Washington, D.C.
20585 Mr. Steve Goldberg Budget Examiner 725 17th Street, N.W.
Room 8002 Washington, D.C.
20503 Mr. Frank A. Ross U.S. Department of Energy, NE-42 Office of LWR Safety and Technology 19901 Germantown Road Ge mantown, Maryland 20874 Mr. Raymond Ng 1776 Eye Street, N.W.
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 Marcus A. Rowden, Esq.
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20004 Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq.
Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
1615 L Street, N.W.
Suite 1000 Washington, D.C.
20036 4
f Meetina Aaenda l
February 22 - Entrance meeting at 2 p.m.
February 22 - Discussion of GE's response to the staff concerns documented in i
the design audit report February 23 - Discussion of GE's response to the audit report concerns, the draft final safety evaluation report open and confirmatory items, and turbine building related issues i
1 February 24 - Review of seismic reanalysis results and detailed design calcu-lations, and discussion of the staff review comments on the revised standard safety analysis report February 25 - Staff caucus and exit meeting (2 p.m.)
0 e
t t
i 7
b 8
e i
' list of Attendees
[
Name Oraanization Mon Tue Wed Thu 1
G. Bagchi NRC x
x x
x
.i D. Terao NRC x
x x
S. Lee NRC x
x x
x-S. Ninh NRC x
x x
x J. Richardson NRC x
T. Cheng NRC x
x x
x T. Lo NRC/LLNL x
x x
x i
N. Fletcher DOE x
x x
K. Mali DOE x
I M. Bohn DOE /SNL x
x i
A. James GE x
G. Ehlert GE x
x x
x B. Haaberg GE x
A. Liu GE x
x x
x N. Patel-GE x
E. Goldenberg Bechtel x
x P. Sawhney Bechtel x
x x
x R. Jagels Bechtel x
J D. Krisha Bechtel x
x x
E. Wong Bechtel x
x x
S. Tso Bechtel x
x B. Posta Bechtel x
x x
x T. McDonnel Bechtel x
x
-x K. Haugadi Bechtel x
x x
N. Duchon-Bechtel x
x x
F. 0staden Bechtel x
x x
x i
G. Barnes Bechtel x
x x-x S. Chandra Bechtel x
x x
J. Lee Bechtel x
x l
D. Deng Bechtel x
x i
S. Mamoon Bechtel x
C. Liu Bechtel x
l
~
r u..
i Summary of the Audit Findinas I
o As a result of this audit, both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff and GE Nuclear Energy (GE) have agreed on the technical resolution of all open and outstanding structural issues, including the seismic design of the turbine building (UBC Zone 3) and the development of seismic response spectra for the main steamline support points.
Further, an agreement was made on what standard safety analysis report (SSAR) changes are requested to support the resolution of these issues.
GE's detailed studies showed that the seismic response spectra in the turbine building can be conservatively represented by two times the ground response spectra generated at the main steamline penetra-tion of the reactor building for the anchor points at higher elevations of the turbine building. GE will also provide its criteria for the consideration of relative motion between the two buildings.
The highlights of this audit findings are summarized below.
Building Embedment Depths:
There are inconsistencies between the depths of embedment assumed in Bechtel calculations and the markup of the SSAR submitted by GE in its letter to NRC dated January 30, 1993. Since Bechtel calculations used the latest and correct information, GE will make its SSAR amendment consistent.
Wind Load Table:
During the previous audit, the staff bad indicated errors in its wind load table in Section 3.3 of the SSAR. However, the January 30, 1992, audit did not pick up all the corrections. The necessary corrections will be made by GE in a future amendment of its SSAR.
Vertical Seismic Time History:
The response spectra generated for the vertical component of the earthquake time history had 2 valleys in the 7-percent damped spectrum. Although the dips were less than 10 percent, the staff had a concern about the adequacy of energy distribution throughout the frequency range of interest.
GE will provide a power spectral density plot for the vertical time history of ground motion.
Potential For Containment Liner Tearing:
ABWR uses a unique liner attachment system. The NRC staff needs assurance that due to thermal loading and/or jet impingement effect on the containment liner does not tear at the point of attachment to steel imbeds cast in reinforced concrete. Due to thermal expansion, the thin liner plate would be subjected to large compressive stress and may develop tearing at the attach-ment points to the anchors. GE will include a discussion to address this issue in an amendment to the SSAR in Chapter 19, Appendix F.
t
4
-f
-z-l Building Response Spectra For Hydrodynamic Loads:
{
The layout of the steam relief valve (SRV) lines are not in the scope of the standard design; however, the amplitudes and frequency contents of hydrodyna-l mic loads are dependent on the volume and discharge location of'the SRV piping. Also, the piping design in general will be affected by the building response to the hydrodynamic loads. GE agreed to provide constraints for the SRV piping design and layout and to include selected building response spectra from the hydrodynamic loads.
t Hydrodynamic Loads:
l Hydrodynamic load distributions shown in Appendices 3B and 3H have discrepan-cies.
GE has committed to verify and confirm that the discrepancies have no
{
adverse safety impact.
Live Load Redcction:
I In its calculation of seismic loads from the live loads, Bechtel reduced the live loads on a global basis but did not provide any basis for the reduction and did not mention any criteria for local elements such as slabs and beams.
GE will update its SSAR to address this concern.
t C
,\\
F I
Status of Open Issues From Previous Audit.
In the previous audit report (letter from NRC to GE dated November 13, 1992 -
l A), a total of 35 audit findings (open issues) categorized into two groups were documented. These two groups are (1) issues related to the-seismic reanalysis of the seismic Category I structures, and (2) issues related to the design of reactor building, reinforced concrete containment.
vessel (RCCV), and control building. As a result of this audit, a number of-open issues were closed, and the remaining items are either open or converted to confirmatory items.
In this enclosure, an audit finding (or concern) is i
considered closed when the staff and GE have reached a technical resolution based on the information provided in writing. An audit finding is converted to a confirmatory item when the staff and GE verbally reach a technical resolution, but the necessary information has not been provided in writing.
Based on the definition stated above, the status of these items are as follows:
Seismic Reanalysis of the Seismic Cateaory I Structures j
(1) Closed (2) Confirmatory - from reviewing the revised design drawings and discussion with GE, the staff found that the subcompartment walls are t
not structurally tied with the RCCV shell.
GE agreed to provide descriptions regarding the gap between the subcom-l partment walls and RCCV shell, and the filled material in the standard safety analysis report-(SSAR).
(3) and (4)
Closed (5) Confirmatory - GE committed to provide clarification in the SSAR regard-ing the soil degradation curves actually used in the seismic reanalysis.
2 (6) Confirmatory - GE responded and the staff agreed that the concern of the potential failure of the reactor building stack against the seismic Category I structures is a combined license-item.
i (7) through (10)
Closed (11) Open -
The staff accepted GE's demonstration for validating its.
assumption of double symmetry of the reactor building in the two horizontal directions. However, in the frequency range around 20 Hz, there were significant exceedances of the vertical response spectra generated from the unsymmet-rical model over the vertical response spectra using the symmetrical model.
GE should include these exceedantes in the development of the seismic response envelopes and document the final results in the SSAR.
i
.i
i
~~
l (12) through (16)
-Closed Desian of Reactor Buildino. Reinforced Concrete Containment Vessel. and Control Buildino
.{
l' (1) Closed f
i (2) Confirmatory - GE committed to revise the SSAR to change the definition of importance factor "1" in Section 3.3.1 and Table 3.31, and the wind velocity pressure distribution in Ta-ble 3.3.2.
l (3) through (14)
Closed (15) Confirmatory - GE agreed to provide a description of the liner design in Section 3.8 and Appendix F to Chapter 19 of the SSAR.
(16) through (19)
Closed I
i k
E r
Status of Draft Final Safety Evaluatior, Report (DFSER)
Doen and Confirmatory Items As discussed in the Nuclear Regul,atory Commission (NRC) (DFSER - Enclo-l sure 4A), a total of 21 open items (01) and 16 confirmatory items (CI) were -
documented in Sections 3.7 and 3.8.
In response to these open and confirma-tory items, GE submitted'its revised standard safety analysis report (SSAR)
(markups of SSAR Sections 2.3.1.2, 3.7 and 3.8, and new Appendix 3H) on January 30, 1993, and new Appendix 3A to the SSAR on February 10, 1993, for the staff review.
For the resolution of these items, the staff defines-that:
-i 1.
An open item is considered closed if GE provided sufficient. basis for resolving this issue and the basis has been formally documented in the_
SSAR.
l 2.
An open issue remains open if GE has not provided a sufficient basis for resolving this issue, or the necessary information has not yet been provided.
1 3.
An open issue is converted to a confirmatory item, or a confirmatory item remains to be confirmed if the staff and GE have reached an agreement upon i
the resolution of this issue, but the resolution has not yet been formally documented in an SSAR amendment.
i As a result of the staff review of these submittals and discussion during this audit, and based on the definition stated above. the status of these issues is as follows:
P 01 3.7.2-1 The staff has reviewed the January 30, 1993, letter from GE which provided SSAR markups and concludes that this issue is a confirmatory item.
01 3.7.2-2 Remains open, because GE has not provided sufficient basis for the resolution of this concern. An agreement was made to reach resolution.
The staff concludes that this open item is now considered a combined license action item and requires an SSAR markup and subsequent amendment.
01 3.7.2-3 The staff has reviewed the February 10, 1993, letter from GE which provided SSAR markups and concludes that this issue is a confirmatory item.
01 3.7.2-4 The staff has reviewed the February 10, 1993, letter from GE which provided SSAR markups and concludes that this issue is a confirmatory item.
~.
.~
w
! 01 3.7.2-5 Remains open, because the staff identified a number of inconsis-l tancies of the building dimensions documented in the SSAR
~
markups, and new Appendices 3A and 3H.
GE should verify the accuracy of all building dimensions and document the final dimensions in the future amendment of the SSAR.
01 3.7.2-6 These two issues remain open. As a result of discussion on the 01 3.7.2-7 resolution proposed by GE, agreement was made to reach resolu-tion.
GE will formally document the analysis approach and the j
method for the design of the turbine building, and the method
~
for generating the seismic input to the analysis of the main i
steamline inside the turbine building in a future amendment.
OI 3.7.2-8 These two issues remain open because GE should (1) revise the 01 3.7.2-9 seismic soil-structure interaction analysis procedures for the shallow site conditions documented in the SSAR, and (2) provide clarification for the dynamic characteristics of the site condition to be analyzed. Agreement was made for GE to include -
I this information in a future amendment.
'i 01 3.7.3-1 The staff has reviewed the January 30, 1903, letter from GE i
which provided SSAR markups and concludes that this issue is a
~
confirmatory item.
01 3.8.1-1 The staff has reviewed the ABWR SSAR Amendment.~16 and concludes that this issue can be closed.
01 3.8.1-2 The staff has reviewed the ABWR SSAR Amendment 16 and concludes i
that this issue can be closed.
01 3.8.3-1 Remains open, because GE should clarify its position of using American liuclear Society /American Institute of Steel Construc-tion f4-690 Code for the design of steel structures in the SSAR.
GE agreed to provide an SSAR markup to clarify the position.
01 3.8.3-2 The staff has reviewed the advanced boiling water reactor (ABWR)
SSAR Amendment 16 and concludes that this issue can be closed-t 01 3.8.4-1 Remains open, because GE needs to revise the SSAR to document its commitment regarding the turbine building design. GE agreed to do so.
01 3.8.4-2 Remains open, because GE should provide the hydrodynamic load response spectra for the structural-design in the SSAR.
GE agreed to provide the information in a future amendment.
01 3.8.4-3 Remains open because the effect of local intense precipitation for the roof design of the safety-related structures should be included in the SSAR. GE agreed to provide this information in an amendment.
i
.1-
4 01 3.8.4-4 The staff has reviev.ed the January 30, 1993, letter from GE which provided SSAR markups and concludes that this issue-is a confirmatory item.
01 3.8.4-5 The staff has reviewed the January 30, 1993, letter from GE which provided SSAR markups and concludes that this issue is a confirmatory item.
01 3.8.5-1 The staff has reviewed the January 30, 1993, letter from GE which provided SSAR markups and concludes that this issue is a confirmatory item.
01 3.8.5-2 The staff has reviewed the ABWR SSAR Amendment 16 and concludes that this issue can be closed.
CI 3.5.I.4-2 The staff has reviewed the ABWR SSAR Amendment 23 and concludes that this confirmatory can be closed, CI 3.7.2-6 As result of the audit, the staff concludes that this confirma-tory can be closed.
Other confirmatory items documented in Sections 3.7 and 3.8 of the DFSER remain to be confirmed.
l l
i
-