ML20040A522
| ML20040A522 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/19/1982 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Linder F DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE |
| References | |
| TASK-03-06, TASK-3-6, TASK-RR LSO5-82-01-046, LSO5-82-1-46, NUDOCS 8201210207 | |
| Download: ML20040A522 (3) | |
Text
l j
January 19, 1982 Docket No. 50-409 g 4 L505-82 046 4-9 RECE4VED
$ i Mr. Frank Linder, General Manager I
Dairyland Power Cooperative JAN 2 01N>
f Post Office Box 817 c) amE D P 2615 East Avenue South Icc Lacrosse, Wisconsin 54601 E
g A
G Dear Mr. Linder-
SUBJECT:
LACROSSE - SEP TOPIC III-6, " SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS" REVIEW OF LICENSEE'S SEISMIC PROGRAM PLAN AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMTION The attached enclosure is a summary of the review of the information (see references at the end of the enclosure) you provided regarding your program for seismic reevaluation of your plant facility.
It is presented in the forn: of a checklist indicating the adequacy of criteria and cethodology.
Unresolved questions are e>. pressed in terms of comments in the suckary.
It should be noted that even if the nothodologies are deemed adequate frou a review of program plan, the application of the proposed nethods i
I aust be revicued in detail when the analysis results are available.
l You are requested to submit the responses to questions included in the l
enclosure (excluding coarent tios. 3 and 4) within 45 days of your receipt i
of this letter.
If the response to any of these questions has been docket-l ed, you may respond to the question by identifying the specific reference l
submittals. Please refer to the tcpic nu 1>er in your response.
The staff will be contacting you shortly to schedule a nocting to facilitate our review of your seismic reevaluation results in order to meet the topic cospletion dates for your plant.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required Md:gla, b3 under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely, 640/
'E 4'
8 2 01210;Lo'7
/r6 psuasep(ss)
OhM
, g\\ $ Y A
- DL D06Echfield GLdi as \\)
q Dennis 11. Crutchfield, Chief
- Seeprevjtousyello(1/82 1/p/82 1/ /
Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 f
w for additional Di-VIGIGR-Of44C005409 l "y>l.. go nc urrence...........d.
. SEPB : DL.......SEP.BQL.S..
SEPB,;DEd,,,,p,,,dley, M P Lnc losure: hs state PYChen:dk*
RHermann
..hijtussell EDu
_J eewmw unaway
,;g;w - -
c 3/. 4.,gr vo ; 787 1> 787 l
j.
NRC FORM 318 0080) NRCM ONO OFFICIAL RECORD COPY i.
w, n,
p
,w q
g
.i 4'
g g
g QV Docket No. 50-409 LS05-82 Mr. Frank Linder, General Manager Dairyland Power Cooperative Post Office Box 817 2615 East Avenue South Lacrosse, Wisconsin M601
Dear Mr. Linder:
SUBJECT:
LACROSSE - SEP TOPIC III-6, " SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS" REVIEW 0F LICENSEE'S SEISMIC PROGRAM PLN4 AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The attached enclosure is a suranary of the review of the information (see references at the end of the enclosure) you provided regarding your program tor scismic reevaluation of your plant facility.
It is presented in the form of a checklist indicating the adequacy of criteria and nethodology.
Unresolved questions are expressed in terms of conrnents in the summary.
It should be noted that even if the methodologies are deemed adequate from a review of program plan, the application of the proposed methods nust be reviewed in detail when the analysis results are available.
You are requested to submit the responses to questions included in the enclosure (excluding conuent Nos. 3 and 4) within 45 days of your receipt of this letter.
If the response to any of these questions has been docket-ed, you may respond to the question by identifying the specific reference submi ttals. Please refer to the topic number in your response.
The staff will be contacting you shortly to schedule a neeting to facilitate our review of your seismic reevaluation results in order to neet the topic completion dates for your plant.
Si ncerely,
Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Dranch No. 5 Division of Licensing AD:SA:DL
Enclosure:
GLainas As stated 1/ /82
-w cc w/en'losure:
SEPB:DL SEPB:DL SEPB:DL M
ORB #5:BC omer >
c VT.EW....'
- PYC,
- RHermann,
.MRusse,1,],
RDud,]ey,,,,
DCrut@f,ield
-W
!!A/82.,,,,,,,!z.,/82,,
1,/.,. /c2,,
it 32.,..,
,1/,/,82.,,,
usc eowu m nemoisucu ouc OFFlCIAL RECORD COPY
" 'w-2n2
Mr. Frank Linder 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 ATTN: Regional Radiation Representative 230 South Dearborn Street O. S. Heistand, Jr., Esquire Chicago, Illinois 60604 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street, N. W.
Mr. John H. Buck Washington, D. C.
20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Mr. R. E. Shimshak Washington, D. C.
20555 La Crosse Boiling 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 Comissicn La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 Washington, D. C.
20555 La Crosse Public Library Dr. George C. Anderson i
800 Main Street Department of Oceanography La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Resident Inspectors Office Mr. Ralph S. Decker Rural Route #1, Box 276 Route 4, Box 190D Genoa, Wisconsin 54632 Cambridge, Maryland 21613 Town Chairman Thomas S. Moore Town of Genoa Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Route 1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Genoa, Wisconsin 54632 Washington, D. C.
20555 Chairman, Public Service Comission Mr. George R. Nygaard of Wisconsin Coulee Region Energy Coalition Hill Farms State Office Building 2307 East Avenue Madison, Wisconsin 53702 Lacrosse, Wisconsin 54601 Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairnes Atomic Safety and Licer,ing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Frederick Milton Olsen, III 609 North lith Street Lacrosse, Wisconsin 54601
{
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
\\
b La December 7, 1981 SM 81-317 Docket 50-409 FIN A0415 l
Mr. William T. Russell, Branch Chief Systematic Evaluation Program Branch Division of Li. censing Office of Nuclear Reactor Reg.
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 "adecuacy" review, to judoe 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 "adecuate" column mean that there is no deviation from current criteria, which includes Regulatory Guides, Standard Review Plans and SEP criteria.
If thev pre marked ves 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 he noted that even if the methodolonias arc deemed adecuate from a review of the program plan, the application of the preposed methods must he 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, Thomas A. Nelson Project Manager Structural Mechanics Group Nuclear Test Engineering Division TAN /mg 0244m Enclosure C L3 P E C f 92Gicj:l().122.
i l
y a
i LA CROSSE REVIEW
SUMMARY
OF THE SEISMIC REEVALUATION PROGRAM PLAN
)
l l
ITEM ADDRESSED?
ADEQUATE?
I I
I.
Sojl and roundation A.
Rock Site n/a n/a i
B.
Soil Site o
Foundation Input yes yes j
o Generation of time history yes yes (1) o Modeling technioue yes yes o
Computer Codes no 1
d C.
Description of Foundation yes no (2)
D.
Free Field Inout Soectrum yes yes (3) i II. Structural 3
l A.
List and Description of Category I yes (4)
_ Structures or Structures Affectino Catecorv I Systems or Components o
emping yes (5) 1 J
o Stiffness modeling yes yes j
t
]
o Mass Modeling yes no (6) o Consideration of 3-D effects yes no (6)
C.
Seismic Analvsis Methods o
Response Spectrum, time history yes yes or eauivalent static analysis
}
o Selection of significant modes yes no (7) i 4
o Relative displacements no o
Modal combinations no i
o Three component input yes no (6) 1 o
Floor spectra generation yes no (5,8) o Peak broadening no o
Load combination yes no (9) 1 1
m-
-_.--m__
x-.
y--
l ITEM ADDRESSED?
ADEQUATE?
j D.
Analytical Criteria o
Codes ar.d criteria, including yes yes AISC, ACI and NUREC/CR-0098 E.
Computer Codes o
Description and verification yes no (10)
III. Structural Inteority of Machanical ann Electrical Comporents, Pipino and Supports A.
List and Description of yes (4)
Systems and Components B.
Modelino Tect"ioues 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.
Analvsis Criteria o
ANSI E31.1 no o
ASME BAPV code yes no (15) o NUREG/CR-0098 no o
Load Combinations yes no (9)
E.
Computer Codes o
Description and Verification yes yes
l l
l l
Comments 1
1.
In general, a time history whose spectrum which envelops the R.G.1.60 shape at 0.120 should be adecuate for this site; however, justification and review will he 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 staff will determine the completeness of the list.
5.
The level of dampinp 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 subsecuent 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 adecuate. Placement of masses must consider eccentricities of mass distribution, including effects of large eculpment.
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 flexibiilty, eccentric masses or mass distribution.
- 12. Spectra for most of the piping appear reasonable except for recirculation piping and mechanical and electrical eculpment which are not specified.
- 13. Damping is acceptable for the piping systems except the recirculation piping for which no damping was specified.
i l
' 14'. 'No discussion of aualification of mechanical and electrical eauipment supports or functionality is presented. Piping supports are to be analyzed.
- 15. The allowable piping stress in the AShE 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 "r ll Term License Application, Lacrosse", Docket No. 50-409, Attachment 1.
u II.
,