ML20039E354
| ML20039E354 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/07/1981 |
| From: | Nelson T LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| To: | Russell W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-A-0415, CON-FIN-A-415 SM-81-317, NUDOCS 8201070182 | |
| Download: ML20039E354 (5) | |
Text
~
R Lawrenca Livermore National Laboratory L
December 7,1981 SM 81-317 c) g Docket 50-409 4
FIN A0415
(
rec 3;,,gg %
9 Jay;g b8 Mr. William T. Russell, Branch Chief Systematic Evaluation Program Branch
. :a.n bhp M
c Division of Licensing 3'f
/
Office of Nuclear Reactor Reg.
s' / t c. J Washington, D.C.
20555
Subject:
PROGRAM PLAN REVIEW FOR LA CROSSE The enclosed document represents a summary of the program plan review for the subject plant. It is presented in the form of a checklist. Each applicable item is given two reviews. The first one is an " acceptance" review, to check if that particular item has been addressed. The second is an " adequacy" review, to judge if the proposed methodology to address the item is acceptable for the purpose of reevaluation. The numbers in the parentheses refer to comments that are listed at the end of the checklist.
The items marked yes in the "adeauate" column mean that there is no deviation from current criteria, which includes Regulatory Guides, Standard Review Plans and SEP criteria. If they are marked yes with a number in parentheses, they do not meet the letter of current criteria but are deemed adeauate for the reasons explained in the corresponding comment.
It should be noted that even if the methodologies are deemed adeauate from a review of the program plan, the application of the proposed methods must be reviewed in detail when the analysis results are submitted.
Additional data and comments regarding the program plans can be found in the previous submittals for each plant.
Sincerely, f
Thomas A. Nelson Project Manager Structural Mechanics Group Nuclear Test Engineering Division TAN /mg 0244m gy Enclosure
/ f O
74 An EqEd onxttmtyEnTAokw
- Lhwssityof Calfon Wa
- PO Bca ECB Lremore Caftma 94550
- Tekdo e (415)4224100
- Twx 910-386-8339 UCLLL LWR s
LA CROSSE REVIEW
SUMMARY
OF THE -SEISMIC REEVALUATION PROGRAM PLAN.
ITEM ADDRESSECT!
ADEQUATE 7
.I.
Soil and Foundation
.A.
Rock Site n/a n/a B.
Soil Site a
' Foundation Input yes yes o
Generation of time history yes yes (1) o o
Modeling technique yes' ~
yes o
Computer Codes no.
C.
Description of Foundation yes no (2)
~
D.
Free Field Input Spectrum yes yes (3)
II. Structural A.
List and Description of Category I yes (4)-
Structures or Structures Affecting Category I Systems or Components 8.
Modelino Technioues o
Damping
.yes (5) o
-Stiffness modeling yes yes o
Mass Modeling yes no (6) o Consideration of 3-D effects yes-no (6)-
C.
Seismic Analysis Methods o
Response Spectrum, time history yes yes or equivalent static analysis o~
Selection of 'significant modes yes no (7) o
. Relative displacements no o
Modal combinations no o
Three component input yes no (6) o.
Floor spectra generation' yes no.(5,8) o Peak. broadening no o.
Load combination yes-no (9)
' ITEM ADDRESSED?
ADEQUATE?
D.
' Analytical Criteric o
Codes and criteria, including yes yes AISC, ACI and NUREG/CR-0098 E.
Computer Codes o
Description and verification yes no (10)
III. Structural Inteority of Mechanical and Electrical Comoonents. Pipino and Supoorts A.
_ List and Description of yes (4)
Systems and Components B.
Modeling Technioues o
Eccentric masses yes no (11) o Mass distribution yes no (11) o Support flexibility.
yes no (11) o Spectra selected yes-no (12)
C.
Analytical Procedures.
o Damping yes no (13) o Span tables, dynamic analysis yes yes o
Overturning no o
3 component input yes
.no (14)-
o Support analysis D.
Analysis Criteria 0
ANSI B31.1 no 0
'_NUREG/CR-0098-no o
Load Combinations.
yes.
no (9)
E.
Computer Codes o
Description and Verification' yes yes
Comments 1.
In general, a time history whose spectrum which envelops the R.G.1.60 shape at 0.12g should be adequate for this site; however, justification and review will be recuired.
2.
The reactor building and stacks are supported on a pile foundation. No descriptions of the foundations for the turbine and waste disposal buildings are available.
3.
The original work done by Gulf United used a 0.12g R.G.1.60 spectrum.
This envelops the SSSP spectrum at 0.105g.
4.
NRC sta#f will determine the completeness of the list.
5.
The level of damping used should correspond to the stress level actually predicted for the structure. Full SSE damping may be used for structural evaluation; however, floor spectra should be generated with an appropriate structural damping.
6.
The data in Ref.1 indicate that 2-d models were employed. At a subseauent meeting with the NRC on May 19, 1981, it was stated that 3-d models would be used. If 3-d models are used, the methodology would be adeauate. Placement of masses must consider eccentricities of mass distribution, including effects of large equipment.
7.
Justification should be given for selection of such few modes, especially for the turbine building where only one mode was used.
8.
If a component support is located away from the center of rigidity, the effect of torsional response of the building should be included in the floor spectrum used to analyze the component.
9.
Only seismic load was mentioned. Other loads must be considered in conjunction with seismic loads such as dead load and operating loads.
- 10. It is not known if the computer codes mentioned have been officially verified.
- 11. Although it was stated that eccentric masses and support flexibilities were incorporated into all the finite element models, no details were presented to evaluate the suitability of support flexibility, eccentric masses or mass distribution.
- 12. Spectra for most of tha piping appear reasonable except for recirculation
. piping and mechanical and electrical eauipment which are not specified.
- 13. Damping is acceptable for the piping systems except the recirculation piping for which no damping was specified.
- 14. No discussion of Qualification of mechanical and electrical equipment supports or functionality is presented. Piping supports are to be analyzed.
- 15. The allowable piping stress in the ASE code is 2.4 S. However, for h
piping designed by ANSI B31.1, which limits stress to 1.8 S, the h
allowable stress of 2.4 Sh may not be justified.
References 1.
" Full Term License Application, LaCr)sse", Docket No. 50-409, Attachment II.
1 a
.