ML20038C388
| ML20038C388 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1981 |
| From: | Adensam E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Parker W DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038C389 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112100551 | |
| Download: ML20038C388 (9) | |
Text
$
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket Nos. 50-413/414 OCT 9 0
- U LB #4 r/f DEisenhut RMattson EAdensam RHartfield, MPA Docket llos: 50-413 DHood 0FLD and 50-414 MDuncan Olt.(3)
SHanauer bcc: TERA RTedesco Local PDR Mr. %Iillian 0. Parker, Jr.
RVo11mer NRC POR Vice President - Steam Production TMurley NSIC/ TIC Duke Power Company ACRS (16)
P.O. Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Deer Mr. Parker:
Subject:
Request for Additional Information - Structural Engineering, Catawba Station, Units 1 and 2 Our review of your Final Safety Analysis Report for the Catawba Station has identi-j fied the need for additional information in the structural engineering area. The infornation requested is contained in Enclosure 1.
In addition, we plan to visit the Catawba site and conduct an audit at your offices in Decerter,1981.
Infor-nation pertainin'; to the audit procedures is contained in Enclosure 2.
Detailed l
guidelines and inforcation required during audit are contained in Enclosure 3.
You are requested to corplete the infortcation required in Enclosure 3 prior to the audit neeting.
Our review in other areas will be conpleted in the near future; and we will send you separate requests for additional inforcation related to those areas. If you require any clarification of this request, please contact the project manaaer Kahtan Jabbour, at (301) 492-7821.
Sincerely,
,k
' '}.
g g
ei 9 " gB I [3-
'6
/
ih phgg* 5 9
[/j Elinor G. Adensan, Chief Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing g/r 3
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
See next page 8112100551 811030 PDR ADOCK 05000 A
/
f DLLB.,#4,l(LA : D,L, Lp,, #,4
.,,0,Q(B 14' 1
omce >
sua,u. e >.3.J.abbs.url.tm..MUdrfan.....
..EA'ddnlam..
.10.gg81.
.10d.L81, 10ga81.
om>
sac 5onu m omeo> nacu om OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usw. im _m.co
<] ~.
e CATAWBA Mr. William O. Parker Vice President - Steam Production i
Duke Power Cog any P.O. Box 33189 i
Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 cc: William L. Porter, Esq.
North Carolina Electric Membership Duke Power Company Corp.
P.O. Box 33189 3333 North Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 P.O. Box 27306 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Debevoise & Liberman Saluda River Electric Cooperative, 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Inc.
Washington, D. C.
20036 207 Sherwood Drive Laurens, Scuth Carolina 29360 North Carolina MPA-1 P.O. Box 95162 James W. Burch, Director Raleigh, North Carolina 27625 Nuclear Advisory Counsel 2600 Bull Street Mr. R. S. Howard Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Power Systems Division Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Mr. Peter K. VanDoorn P.O. Box 355 Route 2, Box 179N Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 York, South Carolina 29745 Mr. J. C. Plunkett, J r.
NUS Corporation 2536 Countryside Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33515 Mr. Jesse L. Riley, President Carolina Environmental Study Group 854 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28208 Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General S.C. Attorney General's Office P.O. Box 11549 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Walton J. McLeod, J r., Esq.
General Counsel South Carolina State Board of Health J. Marion Sims Building 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201
--.-~
et e
s o
l.-
t ENCLOSURE 1 220.0 Structural Engineering 220.13 You have stated that a gust factor of unity is used for (3.3.1.1) determining wind forces. In support of this position you have quoted a requirement of ANSI A58.1 (Reference 2 of FSAR) code which requires that for buildings and structures with a height to minimum horizontal dimension ratio ex-i ceeding five should be dynamically analyzed to detemine the effect of gust factors. However, the above code does not state that the effects of. gusts on ordinary buildings and structures (height to width ratio not exceeding five) shall not be accounted for.-. In fact, the effective velocity pressure given in Table 5 (exposure C for present application) of the code accounts for the dynamic responses of ordinary buildings and structures to gusts. Provide justification for your apparent deviation from the code requirement.
I 220.14 Your procedure for determination of applied wind loads on I
(3.3.1.2 structures is not detailed enough to perform our review.
3.3.2.2)
For example, it is not clear how you have accounted for variation of pressure with the height and how you have determined pressures on parts and portions. of the structures, in addition, the staff has not reviewed Reference 4 of FSAR which you have used to determine the pressure coefficients.
The staff accepts the procedure delineated in ANSI A58.1 code for transforming the wind velocity into an effective pressure to be applied to structures and parts and portions i
of structures. Pressure coefficients given in Section 6.4 j
of the ANSI code and ASCE paper No. 3269 (for shapes not 4
covered by the ANSI code) are acceptable.
Provide comparative discussion of your procedure with that of the ANSI A58.1 code. Identify deviations from the code and provide justification for these deviations. Also, assess the impact of such deviations.
220. 15 Discuss your procedure to determine dynamic effect of (3.4.2) flooding on nuclear servicewater structures. You have stated that the hydrostatic force.s. on Auxiliary and Reactor building are not considered because of the installation of permanent dewatering system. Are hydrocatic 1
forces considered for any other Category I structures?
If so, state how they were considered in design. Also, provide discussion of the procedure you used to account for buoyancy effect on Category I structures, if this is a consideration.
t i
4
.-r
,.,-,--_m
.'k e
- 2-220.16 The staff's position on review and acceptance of underdrain (3.4.2) sistem is indicated in Attachment 1.
Provide information for staff's review according to this attachment. Also, indicate whether your underdrain structures comply with the acceptance criteria or not. If not, justify any deviations therefrom.
220.17 Your use of the modified NORC formula for predicting (3.5.3.1) local damage is acceptable to the staff. However, for barriers providing protection against tornado generated missiles, indicate your degree of compliance with minimum thickness requirements as outlined in Attachment 2.
220.18 This section does not address steel and composite barriers.
(3.5.3.1)
If you have any steel and/or composite barriers, provide your procedures for local and overall damage prediction and criteria for design for staff's review.
220.19 Information provided in this section is not detailed enough (3.5.3.2) to perform our review. Discuss in detail, how and which procedures of Ref. 9 you have used to determine applied missile force time histories. Discuss the ductility values used for both concrete and steel barriers in your analyses.
The staff's position on allowable ductility ratios is contained in Attachment 3.
Indicate your compliance with the staff's position in this matter or provide justification for any deviations therefrom.
220.20 For conccete and bolted steel structures, you have used (3.7.1.3) damping values which are slightly greater than those given in Regulatory Guide 1.61. Provide the assessment of im-pact if you have to conform to Regulatory Guide 1.61 values.
Also, provide justification for use of higher values and correlation between stress levels and these values.
220.21 In Section 3.7.2.1.1.2 of the FSAR you have stated that the (3.7.2.1) mass of the equipment is lumped at the elevation at which it is supported and the structural connection between equip-ment and structure is considered rigid for the seismic analysis of the structure. Your decoupling criterion between system and subsystem is not clear from above statement. Provide clear definition of your decoupling criterion. One acceptable criterion is outlined in SRP Section 3.7.2 r---
o e,
a v-w,n
g 220.22 Clarify, whether or not, your lumped mass model of the (3.7.2.1) containment interior structure contains detailed represen-tations (stiffness, damping, and mass) of major equipment such as reactor vessels and steam generators. If not, provide justification for not doing so.
220. 23 Provide the description of your procedure used in modeling (3.7.2.1) the hydrodynamic phenomena for the buildings (e.g., Fuel Pool and' Fuel Handling building, Nuclear Service water Pump Structure) where this is a consideration.
220. 24 Describe your procedure to compute dynamic lateral earth
((3.7.2) pressure and hydrodynamic groundwater pressure during seismic event.
~l 220. 25 For structures described in Section 3.7.2.1.1.2 demonstrate (3.7.2.1) that adequate numbers of masses or degrees of freedom in dynamic models are considered. A criterion acceptable to the staff is described in SRP Section 3.7.21I.1.a(4).
220.26 For calculating overall structural response you have used (3.7.2.1 the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method to combine 3.7.2.7) the modal contributions of all the modes considered. This procedure is acceptable to the staff except for the cases where there are closely spaced modes. Indicate, whether you have closely spaced modes in any of your Category I structures.
If so, provide justification for using SRSS procedure for this situation.
220.27 You have stated that all major Category I structures are (3.7.2.4) founded on solid rock and/or fill concrete extending to 1,
solid rock. Does this imply that there are some Category I structures not fcunded on rock like material and should be.
evaluated for soil-structure interaction? If so, state the structures and your procedures to account for soil-structure interaction effects.
220. 28 In generation of floor response spectra you have widened (3.7.2.5 the peaks by a t 10 percent shift in jeriod. However, 3.7.2.9)
Regulatory Guide 1.122 reccamend 115 percent shift in frequency.
Indicate your willingness to comply with this position or provide justification for not doing so, and provide tech-nical basis for your criterion.
i 220.29 Provide description of your procedure to account for three (3.7.2.5) components of earthquakes in generation of floor response spectra.
e
e s
g
. l 220.30 Provide description of the procedure used in allowing (3.7.2.5) for vertical flexibility of floors in generaticn of vertical response spectra.
220.31 In this section, you have stated that the earthquake (3.7.2.6) ground motions are assumed to act in one of the horizen-tal directions and vertical direction simultaneously.
It is not clear how you have combined the responses due to these two motions.
Is it by absolute sum: method or SRSS method? Also, provide a comparison of your method of combining two components of earthquakes with the currently acceptable procedure of combining all three components with SRSS method. This comparison need only be done for one structure which is essentially non-symetric; e.g., internal structure.
220.32 The present technical position of the staff requires that (2.7.2.11) the accidental torsion, based an eccentricity of minimum 5% of the base dimension, be included in the design of structures. This is in addition to that which results from the actual geometry and mass distribution of the building. Either indicate your willingness to comply with this positicn or provide justification for not doing so.
220.33 Describe how the effects of three components of earthquake (3.7.3.5) are accounted for in determining overturning moments.
220.34 From the description given in this section it seems that (3.7.3.5) your procedure for the use of equivalent static load method of analysis is not in conformance with the acceptance criteria given in SRP Section 3.7.2.II.1.b.
Provide a comparison of your procedure with the one given in above SRP section. Demonstrate your procedure through an example.
Justify any deviations from SRP criteria.
220.35 In general, the staff finds the procedure indicated in this (3.7.3.12) section acceptable for the buried systems sufficiently flexible relative to the surrounding and underlying soil.
However, provide the discussion on the types of waves and angles of incidences considered in your analysis for staff's review.
220.36 Discuss the visual signals provided to the control room (3.7.4.3) operators in the event of an earthquake. Also, discuss how the peak acceleration level experienced in the basemat is indicated to the control room operator.
i o
. 220.37 With respect to FSAR Section 3.8.1.2 Applicable Codes, (3.8.1)
Standards and Specifications for design of Category I structures, Regulatory Guide 1.15, 1.55, 1s94 and 1.142 are not listed in table 3.8.1-1.
Discuss and justify, if any, deviations from these guides in your C6tegory I
, structural design.
220.38 With respect to table 3.8.1-2 of FSAR, provide in a (3.8.1) tabular format the design moments, shears and the required reinforcements corresponding to various governing load combinations for:
(1) The Reactor Building' Cylinder wall ring Girder at the junction of dome.
(2) The Reactor Building Cylinder wall at the junction of foundation mat.
220.39 Discuss the extent to which you CCrnply with ACI 349 (3.8.1) code in conjunction with Regulatory Guide 1.142 for the design of Category I structures. Identify de-viations of your Category I structural design from the rnuirement of the code and the Regulatory Guide and justify your deviations.
220.40 With respect to FSAR table 3.8.2-1 Containment Vessel (3.8.2)
Loading Combinations, provide in a tabular format the stresses corresponding to various governing _ loading combinations at the key locations such as:
(1) At the junction of steel shell and dome.
(2) At the junction of steel shell and foundation mat.
220.41.
With regard to the stability analysis of the steel con-(3.8.2) tainment shell under LOCA condition, you concluded that the buckling factors of safety calculated for the Catawba containment vessel are conservative. Please discuss:
(1) Your rationalefor using the method of analysis from reference 4, 5 and 6 of FSAR.
(2) The load and load ccmbinations that have potential of buckling the containment vessel and how each load or load comoinations is applied to the vessel.
(3) The buckling factors of safety for both the stability of the overall shell, and the stability of the individual shell panels.
s O
- 1 220,42 Provide the steel containment capacity analysis in (3.8.2) regard to pressure built up due to hydrogen burning.
The guideline and staff position on this subject is enclosed (Attachment 4).
220.43 Provide analysis details of the ice condenser floor and (3.8.3) the lower support structures. Demonstrate that the app.licable code provisions are fully met in your design.
220.44 In FSAR Section 3.8.3.4.4 you stated that the crane wall (3.8.3) was analyzed as a space frame. Provide more analysis details, such as computer code, governing loads and load combinations, critical design forces and the design of reinforcing bars.
220.45 With respect fo FSAR Section 3.8.4.1, Spent Fuel Building, (3.8.4) describe in detail your design and analysis of spent fuel building structures and fuel pool racks. Enclosed is a copy of staff position on "the minimum requirements for design of spent fuel pool racks" (Attachment 5).
Indicate compliance with this position or justify deviations therefrom.
220.46 In FSAR Section 3.8.4.4 you stated that masonry construction (3.8.4) is designed and reinforced to remain functional under the applicable loading conditions. Enclosed is a copy of design criteria for safety-related masonry wall evaluation (Attachment 6). Identify any difference in requirements of materials, testing, analysis, design and construction between Catawaba design and the staff position. Provide justification for these differences or indicate your compliance with them. Provide a general description of the masonry walls at Catawaba indicating number of walls, usage, buildings in which they are located, types (e.g.,
single wythe, double wythe), construction practices, loads and load combinations. W general design pro-cedures. Provide sample calculations for each different type of wall.
220.47 Refer to FSAR Section 3.8.4.LB Nuclear Service Water System (3.8.4) structures, it consists of standby Nuclear Service Water pond dam, Intake structure, pump structure, and discharge structure. Discuss in details your technical basis for the design and analysis of the reinforced intake structure, and the discharge structure.
4
.4
- 220.48 With respect to FSAR Section 3.8.5 Foundations, you (3.8.5) didn't provide sufficient information on the analysis and design of Reactor Building Foundation mat, such as the design moments, shears, reinforcement and.the stability analysis. You are requested to provide details in regard to:
(1) Analysis results on the design moments and shears at various critical sections of foundation mat.
(2) Design of foundation mat reinforcement requirement at the junction of concrete reactor building wall; at the junction of crane wall, and at the junction of reactor vessel cavity wall.
(3) Stability analysis of Category I foundations against
~~
sliding and overturning due to earthquakes, winds, tornados and against floatation due to floods. In-dicate that the factors of safety comply with those of the SRP Section 3.8.5,II.5.
(4) Demonstrate the applicable code provisions are fully met in your design.
220.49 You have stated that the development of design response (3.7.1 spectra for Catawba does not follow the procedure out-3.7.2) lined in Regulatory Guide 1.60. Provide the assessment of the impact, if you were to use the design response spectra in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.60.
e
-