ML20040F884
| ML20040F884 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna, Big Rock Point, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1982 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hoffman D CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040F885 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-02-02.A, TASK-03-02, TASK-2-2.A, TASK-3-2, TASK-RR LSO5-82-02-025, LSO5-82-2-25, NUDOCS 8202100427 | |
| Download: ML20040F884 (3) | |
Text
f*
U
.s 0
C~/
C O^
S'
$7
[
z ya February 03, 1982 N
t Docket No. 50-155 8
LS05-82 025
/;<3 g
O~/
L
~
t 9
QN A
Mr. David P. Hoffman E
Nuclear Licensing Administrator g
Consumers Power Company
'b I g gy 1945 W Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201
Dear Hr. Hoffman:
SUBJECT:
SEP LEAD TOPIC III-2, WIND AND TORNADO LOADINGS BIG ROCK POINT Enclosed is the draft evaluation for SEP Topic III-2, Wind and Tornado Loadings performed by the staff for the Ginna facility, which is the lead plant for this topic.
The approach taken by the staff was to re-analyze the structures and identify the loads at which various structural elements fail.
The staff analysis identified the limiting structural members and developed an ascending list of stmetural elenents in terms of resistance to wind and tornado loads. This is to be used in conjunction with SEP Topic II-2.A. Severe Weather Phenomena, during the Integrated Assessment to determine the need for facility modification.
When performing your reviews and preparing your Safety Analysis Reports for this topic you should identify sgructures, systems and components which do not meet current criteria of the 10- tornado loads and you should identify the wind and tornado loading which the as-built structures can withstand.
This will enable the staff to determine if a substantial increase in safety would result from backfitting.
I s
Sincerely, w On nnE O
Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief M~
8 Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 T. Sc og Division of Licensing 5
Enclosure:
88 As stated 5"
og cc w/ enclosure:
Ma.a.
See next page I
O A t/
wL1UudW REmch DCr ie1d,],,AD;h,A;DL.
'"c4.SEPB:D
..S.EP.B.:Q @.bhBhDL...
,0 R, B
.0R,BM g;PM,,,.,
!ainas
--> RPg,rsjnkg,:,p,RHermann WRusse11
,,_,3/s2 2/ /82
, f, 2
2/ a82,3,,,,,,,,, aggf82
""> S/M.2
,,j,y82 2
NRCFORM 318110,80l N R C M O24 0 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- " 'm-22S e2.
t
)
,,s-c'
/
Mr. John E. Maier Cc Harry H. Voigt. Esquire U. S. Environmental Protection Agency LeBoeuf. Lamb. Leihy and MacRae Region II Office 1333 New Hampshire Avenue. N. W.
ATTN: Regional Radiation Representative Suite 1100 26 Federal Plaza Washington. D. C.
20036 New York New York 10007 l
Mr. Michael Slade Herbert Grossman. Esq., Chairman
)
12 Trailwood Circle Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i
Rochester. New York 14618 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. D. C.
20555 Ezra Bialik Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau Wew York State Department of Law 2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 Resident Inspector R. E. Ginna Plant c/o U. S. NRC 1503 Lake Road Ontario. New York 14519 Director. Bureau of Nuclear Operations State of New York Energy Office i
Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Albany. New York 12223 Rochester Public Library 115 South Avenue Rochester. New York 14604 Supervisor of the Town of Ontario 107 Ridge Road West Ontario. New York 14519 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. D. C.
20555 Dr. Ricnard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D. C.
20555
'O W N*
M6 muW hea4m---
4 m,.
g og
s SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM TOPIC llI-2 R. E. GINNA TOPIC: III-2, WIND AND TORNADO LOADINGS I.
INTRODUCTION The safety objective of this review is to assure that safety-related structures are adequate to resist wind and tornado loadings including tornado pressure drop loading.
II.
REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria governing this topic is General Design Criteria 2, Design bases for protection against natural phenomena.
III. RELATED SAFETY TOPICS AND INTERFACES 1.
Tornado missiles are reviewed in SEP Topic III-4.A.
2.
Structures which are considered safety related are given in SEP Topic III-1.
3.
Wind and tornado parameters are given in SEP Topic II-2.A.
4.
Design Codes, Criteria and Loading Combinations are reviewed in SEP Topic III-7.B.
IV.
REVIEW GUIDELINES The currently accepted design criteria for wind and tornado loadings is outlined in Standard Review Plan, Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.8 and in Regulatory Guides 1.76 and 1.117. Codes and standards used for the review of structures at the Ginna plant are given in Section 5 of Enclosure 1 to this SER.
Site specific windspeed and tornado parameters were developed in Topic II-2.A and the apprcpriate values were identified for use as input to the wind and torando loading analyses. -Structures important to safety were analyzed in this topic to determine their capacity for withstanding these values from Topic II-2.A.
For those structures which do not meet the acceptance criteria, stuctural capacities were determined and limiting components identified. These capacities are given in terms of strength and corresponding windspeed.
V.
EVALUATION is a report entitled, " Wind and Tornado Loadings" presenting our contractor's findings concerning the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Fewer Plant. The report identifies limiting structural elements and their associated windspeed. No analyses were perfor ned for safety-related systems and components. Systems and comconents important to safety not housed within structures noted in this SER shculd be addressed by
-- - - l
\\
{
b
. the licensee. The main conclusions of the report are that the i
structural items found to be limiting generally are:
- 1) the unreinforced masonry walls, 2) certain steel members of the auxiliary building having long unbraced lengths and 3) the siding system. The results are summarized in Table 1 (below).
Table 1 Summary of Limitine Structural Elements 1 Cause of Windspeed Structure Element Failure 2 fmph)
Control Building Siding System 2
48 Column F'13 2
79 Col.nn F'13 1
125 Deer D 2
203 Diesel Generater Annex East Cencrete Wall 2
99 East Concrete Wall 1
157 Rcof Steel 2
182 North Concrete Wall 2
190 South Cencrete Wall 2
190 Inter:nediate Building Siding System 2
48 Facade Shadcwall Panel 1
Masonry Wall 64 2
67 Facade Ribwall Panel 1
86 Cross Bracing, Tacade Intact I
117 Cross 3 racing, Facade Destroyed 1
204 Auxiliary Building Low Feof Colu=ns QIIa,N'11a and Llla Section 1)
- he limiting element fer each structure is identified.
Additicnal elements which have been found to be inadequate are also listed.
that this table dces not imply that all inadequate elements have been Note identified or that entries are listed with respect to the most critical leading ecme'natien.
windcws, dcors, and roof decks. Structural details not included in this review are 2) 1-dynamic pret;ures 2-diffe:ential pressure.
listed for differential pressure failures.
Tangential windspeeds are e
\\
e l
l High Roof Siding System 2
48 l
Section Masonry wall 1
48 Roof Beams in Column Line Q3 1
89 Column Q7a 1
17 1 l
Siding Systear 4 Panel Clips 2
48 Shadowall Panels 1
64 Ribwall Panels 1
86 I
l l
l
- 3) The roof deck is assumed to previde minimal bracing for these beams. :f this bracing is discounted, then the beams exceed code allewable slenderness ratics for c:mpressien mer:ters.
- 4) Ratings for the siding system are not definitive but are estimates based on approxi:aate medeling.
0 e
9
- h*4-4 w
_____._.__._____-___m_
N 4
Current criteria for straight wind loading is given in Standard Review Plan 2.3.1 which references ANSI A58.1. Comparing the ANSI A58.1 requirements for Ginna to the original licensing basis results in comparable global wind forces; however, the ANSI A58.1 code results in higher local wind forces. Structural elements which do not meet these higher local forces were also found not to meet the original licensing basis. The original design basis for the Ginna plant was the New York State Building Code,1961 which is based on a 75 mph windspeed at elevation 30 feet.
Some structural elements have been identified which may not meet the original design basis. These items are the facade shadowall panels, ribwall panels and upper level masonry walls in the intermediate building, and lower level masonry wall and shadowall panels in the auxiliary building. Also in the auxiliary building, under design dead load plus live load, code allowable limits were exceeded for columns Qlla, N'lla, and the theoretical strength was exceeded for column Lila.
Analyses of the roofs of the diesel generator building, intermediate building and auxiliary building were not performed due to lack of information on the construction of these roofs. The intake structure was not analyzed.
It is of similar construction as the auxiliary building which was found to have low allowable windspeeds.
VI. CONCLUSIONS The existing design and construction of structures important to safety to resist wind and tornado loadings does not meet current licensing criteria of remaining within stress limits specified in Standard Review Plan 3.8 for tornado winds of 250 mph and differential pressures of 1.5 psi. Several structures, including those identified in Table 1 should be modified to provide adequate design margins for wind and tornado loadings. Some structures may not meet the original desian basis for less severe wind loadings, i.e., windspeeds less than 73 mph at elevation 30 feet as specified in the R. E. Ginna FSAR.
+h e-e e
s e
e,.,
,m.
=m,+
=w4
-.h eh-