ML20041D999
| ML20041D999 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1982 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Spangenberg F NORTHWEST ENERGY SERVICES CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203090774 | |
| Download: ML20041D999 (19) | |
Text
.
1
~ &..
~n m.
n y*_
DISTRIBUTION:
, Docket JIos.,502522/523 FEB 2 ISS2 LB #4 r/f G
DEisenhut 0 ELD Docket Nos: 50-522 EAdensam OIE (3) and 50-523 MMallory MDuncan bcc: TERA SHanauer NSIC Mr. Frank Spangenberg R
Assistant Project Manager - Nuclear RVo r
S (16)
Horth est Energy Services Company JKramer NRC PDR 2820 Northup Way fr Bellevue, Washington 98004 eld, MPA Ocar h.'
Spangenberg:
Subject:
Request for Additional Information - Skagit/Hanford Huclear Project In order that we may continue our review of your application for permits to construct the Skagit/ilanford Nuclear Prc, ject, Units 1 and 2, your response to the enclosed request for additional information is required. The itens marked with an asterisk in the enclosure reflect HRC staff positions in the revised Standard Review Plan NUREG-0800. These are provided to inforn ynu of the current SRP criteria. The Skagit/Hanford Operating License application will eventually be reviewed against the revised SRP. We encourage you to carefully consider the responses to the asterisked items.
To naintain nur licensing review schedule we require a coroletely adequate response to the enclosed request by March 5,1982. Please infern us within 7 days af ter receipt o' this letter whether or not you will De able to respond by March 5,1982.
Please contact the licensing project manager, Mike Mallory, at (301) 492-4449 if you desire additional discussion or clarification of the information requested.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirerents contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely, nNE p
h.bdGYCr U S_., g. r gga.
t
. i Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director 1 - q 3 3cy r.
cc-
^-
e for Licensing en gj g ng wr fA o
Division of Licensing v..o s
sg c,
so n
oo Enclosu re:
M
/ Q1'p As stated om g4 cc: See next page R
- NOTE: SEE PREVIOUS WHITE FOR LONCURRENCF b
omce >..DL:LB..#4...
..l.A:DL;1.B..#4..... SEE..........dizil.B..s.4.....o
- U SuaN=E ) ANNA.l. lory /hmc..qDuncan...... AESchauer....EANsam..~...dTec sco.....
.... - ~.. - -...
. - ~ ~. ~ ~ -..
OMn> -2/19/82-
.2}.19}82-......e}23J82-~ -Uh82-~~ -U$. M--..
--.-.- - -.~.
. ~. - ~. - -
Nac ronu sia no-eq Nnc caa OFFICIAL RECORD COPY \\
usam e-sum
w
.g D
Q o
y e
0 b
u DISTRIBUTION:
Docket Nos. 50-522/523 LB #4 r/f DEisenhut 0 ELD EAdensam OIE (3)
Docket Nos: 50-522 MMallory and. 50-523 MDuncan bec:
TERA SHanauer NSIC
\\
RTedesco TIC Mr. Frank Spangenberg RVollmer ACRS (16)
Assistant Project Manager - Nuclear JKramer NRC PDR Northwest Energy Services Company RMattson Local PDR 2820 Northup Ways RHartfield, MPA Bellevue, Washington 98004
\\
Dear Mr. Spangenberg:
\\
Subject:
Request for ditional Information - Skagit/Hanford fluclear Project
\\
In order that we may continue our review of your application for permits to construct the Skagit/Hanfor'd Nuclear Project, Units 1 and 2, your response to the enclosed request for additional information is required. The itens narked with an asterisk in th'e enclosure reflect NRC staff positions in the revised Standard Review Plan NUREG-0800. These are provided to inform you of the current SRP criteria. The 'S k a h*hYeh reviewed against the revised SRk. git /Hanfor@pp11 cation will eventually be We encourage you to carefully consider T.ne responses to the asterisked items.
To maintain our licensing review hedule we require a completely adequate 7 days af ter receipt of this letter \\ March 5,1982.
response ta the enclosed request by Please inform us within whet W or not you will be able to respond by March 5,1982.
Please contact the licensing project manager, Mike Hallory, at (301) 492-4449 if you desire additional discussion or clarlfication of the information requested.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requir\\
ements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB ' clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely, Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next pane
.DL.:LB,J.4,, l, AD.:M D.L.,,
o "" >..QL:LB..#.4.
..LAIDL;ly.M....SH.k...r..
w v
"""^"4
.MMal. lory / hic.ED$can.
..Esch u r.f
..EMeos am..
..R.Te. des.cq.
' " >.un/dh
..u.ga2....
.... w.3m.
.2/..../a2......2z..g2.....
mac ronu aia no.ooi %cu oue OFFICIAL RECORD COPY ew m-2n24
_ _ _ =.
~_
SKAGIT Mr. Frank Spangenberg Assistant Project Manager - Nuclear Northwest Energy Services Company 2820 Northup Way Bellevue, Washington 98004 cc:
Mr. F. Theodore Thomsen Mr. Russell Jim Perkins, Coie, Stone, Olsen Tribal Councilman
& Williams Consolidated Tribes and Bands 1900 Washington Building Yakima Indian Nation
<=
Seattle, Washington 98101 P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, Washington 98948 Mr. Robert Lowenstein Lowenstein, Newman, Reis Robert Engelken, Regional Administrator
& Axelrad U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Suite 1214 Region V 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Washington, D. C.
20036 Walnut Creek, California 94595 4
Roger M. Leed. Esq.
Law Offices 1411 4th Avenue l
Seattle, Washington 98104 i
Mr. Lloyd K. Marbet c/o Forelaws on Board 19142 South Bakers Ferry Acad 1
Boring, Oregon 97009 4
Mr. Nicholas D. Lewis, Chairnan Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council 820 East 5th Avenue Olynpia, Washington 98504 Honorable Richard Sandvik Department of Justice 500 Pacific Building 520 Southwest Yamhill Portland, Oregon 97204 Coalition for Safe Power Governor Building - Suite 527 408 S.W. Second Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 J
l W
' REQUEST N R ADDITIONAL 1ilFORMATI0ll SKAGIT/HANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT STRUCTURAL EtiGIllEERIliG BRAfiCH 220.0 STRUCTURAL EtiGINEERIflG
+ 220.01 With respect to PSAR Section 3.5.4, missile barriers are de-(3.5.3) signed as described in BC-TOP-9A, which shows the ductility ratio 20 for flexture in steel barriers. The staff had approved BC-TOP-9 in 1974 taking exception for ductility ratio over 10.
The current staff position is included in SRP Section 3.5.3 Appendix "A" (Attachment 1).
Confirm that you have not used ductility ratio more than 10 or justify deviation from above mentioned SRP criteria.
Also, for columns with slenderness ratio more than 10, the -
current SRP requires ductility. ratio less than or equal to 1.0 while BC-TOP-9A mentions 1.3.
Confirm that you will use al) the ductility. ratios per SRP criteria or justify the deviation, and revise the PSAR sections accordingly.
220.02 Figure 3.7-3 and 3.7-4 show that more than 8 points of the (3.7.1) time history response spectra fall below the design response spectra for 1%, 2%, 5%, and 7% damping.
SRP Section 3.7.1 subsection II.1.b requires that no more than 5 points should fall below the design response spectra, Justify your deviation from the SRP position.
220.03 With respect to PSAR Section 3.7.1.2 you did not demonstrate (3.7.1) that the frequency interval for calculation of response spectra are small enouah that further reduction does'not result in more than 10% change in computed spectra.
This is one of the requirements of SRP Section 3.7.1.
Confirm that you wi,ll meet the SRP criteria and revise the PSAR accordingly.
220.04 With respect to PSAR Section 3.7.2.11, you have mentioned that (3.7.2) torsional effects will be considered in Category I structures using 3-dimensional models, or 2-dimensional models with static factors-to account for" torsional accelerations..
Confirm that the dynamic analysis method you use, will also have the con-sideration of rocking, and translational responses of the structures and their foundations.
220.05 In. seismic analysis methods for Category I structures you (3.7.2) have not mentioned the effect of differential support move-ment.
Confirm that your analysis methods will have the consideration of maximum relative displacements among supports of Category I structures, systems, and components. Also discuss the extent to which your analysis method. conforms with the applicable criteria of SRP Section 3.7.2.
s e.
Z
.g.
220.06 In PSAR Section 3.7.2.4, it is stated that for soil-structure (3.7.2) interaction elastic half space method will be used and a
" simplified finite element analysis" will be performed as a confirmation.
The words " simplified finite element analysis" are unclear to the staff.
Describe in detail the procedures, assumptions.and boundary conditions (specially affected by the site move amendment) that you intend to use in your finite element analysis. The current position of the staff abo t soil-structure interaction is outlined in REV 1 of SRP Section 3.7.2 issued in July.1981.
Confirm that you will meet the SRP criteria, and revise the PSAR accordingly.
220.07 In seismic analysis methods for Category I structures you did not (3.7.2) address the accidental torsion.
Confirm that, in your seismic analysis, you will account for accidental torsion by taking an additional eccentricity of 15% of the maximum building dimension over and above the actual geometric eccentricity.. This is the requirement of SRP Section 3.7.2 subsection II.11.
220.08 PSAR Section 3.7.4 shows that triaxial response spectrum (3.7.4) recorders and triaxial time history monitors are provided at specific locations, meeting the requirement of SRP Section 3.7.4.
However, for control room operator notification you have mentioned that, whenever an acceleration time history is being or has been recorded, a visual annunciation will be made in the control room.
SRP Section 3.7.4 requires that triaxial time history monitor will readout peak acceleration in the control room and the response spectrum recorder will readout values at discrete frequencies.
Just the visual annunciation is not sufficient, confirm that you will meet the SRP criteria or justify the deviation.
220.09 PSAR does not mention the inservice. surveillance program for (3.7.4) seismic instruments. SRP Section 3.7.4 subsection II.5 re-quires that each seismic instru~ ~.t be demonstrated operable.
by.the performance of test operations at specified intervals.
Revise the PSAR to meet the SRP criteria or justify the deviation from same.
K 220.10 In your Amendment 23 of PSAR Section 3.8.1, concrete containment (3.8.1) was not included.
Please confirm that the site move does not affect your commitment in the PSAR including the design and analysis procedures of concrete containment, loads and loading combinations, structural acceptanc( procedures and the appli-cable codes, standards and specifications to-' comply with ASME Section III, Division 2 code and the related Regulatory Guides.
Also, please indicate that in the containment loads and loading combinatierts the LOCA/SRV related hydrodynamic loads in suppression sools manifested as jet loads and/or
, pressure loads will be considered.
6
', + 220.11 Provide an ultimate capacity analysis of the containment re-(3.8.1) spending to the internal pressure build-up due to accidents.
The guideline and the staff position on this subject is en-closed (Attachment 2).
t 220.12 Update and expand the list of Regulatory Guides that would be (3.8.1) applied to all Category I structures (e.g., R.G. 1.94, 1.115 (3.8.4) 1.117,1.122,1.136,1.142,...).
Address any exceptions and deviations from these Regulatory Guides and provide corraents and explanations.
t 220.13 In PSAR you have mentioned the use of 10 CFR 50 Appendix A, (3.8.1)
GDC 2, 4, 16, 50, etc. Why has GDC 1 been omitted? Include GDC 1 also and address its effect on your Quality Assurance Program.
W 220.14 PSAR Table 3.8-1 shows load combinations and load factors.
For (3.8.1) service load at construction stage you have not included the wind loads. The current SRP refers to the Table CC-3230-1 of ASME Section III Division 2 Code for load combinations. The construction load in this table includes wind.
Confirm that you will meet the SRP criteria and include the wind loads at construction stage and revise the PSAR section accordingly.
220.15 In your Amendment 23 of PSAR Section 3.8.3, concrete and steel (3.8.3) internal. structures of steel or roncrete containment, were not included.
Please confirm that the site move would not affect your commitment in the PSAR including the design of containment internal structures, loads and loading combinations, structural acceptance procedures and the applicable codes, standards and specifications to comply with ASME Sectiori III Division 1 and 2, ACI 349, AISC and related Regulatory Guides. For structures or structural components subject to hydrodynamic loads resulting from LOCA and/or.SRV actuation, the consideration of such loads should be included.
Please refer to the Appendix to fiUREG-800 SRP Section 3.8.1.
220.16 With respect to PSAR Section 3.8.4.1.2, you only discussed
- (3.8.4) wall s'eparation between the Auxiliary Buildirrg and containment structure. There are other Category I structures adjacent to containment.
Please indicate whether there are any wall separations between them.
If any, please specify how much is the wall separation.
Please provide this information and.the technical bases to verify that adequate separation is provided.
220.17 With respect to PSAR Section 3.8.4, you didn't indicate whether (3.8.4) masonry construction was utilized or not.
Enclosed is a copy of design criteria for safety-related masonry wall evaluation (Attachment 3).
Identify any difference in requirements of materials, testing, analysis, design and construction between m
SKAGIT/HAriFORD design; and staff position.
Provide justification
- for these differences or indicate your compliance with them. -
If no Category I masonry wall construction is planned, please so indicate and neglect the technical portion of this question.
s g.
4 9
AP220.18 With respect to PSAR Section 3.8.4.1."3, Fuel Building, discuss, (3.8.4) in detail, the design of spent fuel pool racks.
Enclosed is a copy of staff position on the " minimum requirements for design of spent fuel pool racks" (Attachment 4). Modify your.
analysis and design, if necessary, to agree with this position.
- F220.19 With respect to PSAR Sections 3.8.3.2, 3.8.4.2, and 3.8.5.2 (3.8.3) applicable codes standards and specifications, it is the staff's (3.8.4) position that ACI 349-76 code should be used io conjunction (3.8.5) with Regulatory Guide 1.142.
Indentify any deviations of Category I structural design from the requirements of the.
code and the Regulatory Guide and justify your deviations.
Attachments:
As stated e
}~
e)
I 5
4TTAGHMEFT t APPENDIX A STANDARD REVIEW PLAN SECTION 3.5.3 PERMISSIBLE DUCTILITY RATIO FOR OVERALL DAMAGE PREDICTION I.
INTRODUCTION In the avaluation of overall response of reinforced concrete and steel structural elements (e.c, missile barriers, columns, slabs, etc.) subjected to impactive or impulsive 'oads, such as impacts due to missiles, assumption of nonlinear response (i.e., ductility ratios greater than unity) of the structural elements is generally acceptable provided that the intended safety functions of the structural elements and those of safety-related systems and components supported or protected by the elements are maintained.
The following summarizes specific positions for review and acceptance of ductility ratios for reinforced concrete and steel structural elements subjected to impactive and impulsive loads.
II.
SPECIFIC POSITIONS 1.
Reinforced Concrete Members The technical position of the regulatory staff with regard to permissible ductility ratios is stated in Regulatory Guide 1.142.
Prior to publication of Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1242, the staff position regarding ductility will be provided to applicants on a case-by-case basis.
2.
Structural Steel Members a.
For tension due to flexure pd i 10.0 b.
For columns with slenderness ratio (1/r) equal to or less than 20 i 1.3 Pd Where 1 = effective length of the c. ember r = the least radids of gyration f
~ For columns with slenderness ratio greater than 20 l
d 5
.0 l
P c.
For members subjected to tension l
e g P I d
'y
= Ultimate stra,i,ii Where e
'y = Yield strain
^
8
(
1 S R P Sech 36l Rev. 1.
a ut.y 198:
SaseetA E 4.j Ultimate caoacity of concrete containment An analysis should be performed to determine the ultimate capacity of the containment.
The pressure-retaining capacity of localized areas as well as of the overall containment structure shculd be determined.
The analysis should be made on the basis of the allowable material strength specified in the Code.
However, if the actual material properties such as concrete cylinder ccmpressive strength, mill test results of reinforcing steel and liner plate, strength variations indicated by mill test certificates and other uncertainties are available, the lower and upper bounds of the containment capacity, may be established statistically.
The details of the analysis and the results should be submitted in a report form with the following identifiable information.
(1) The original design pressure, P,,
as defined in the Code, (2) Calculated static pressure capacity, (3) Equivalent static press are re sponse calculated from dynamic
- pressure, (4) The associated failure mode, (5) The stress-strain relation of the liner steel and reinforcing and/or prestressing steel and the behavior of the liner under the postulated leading conditions in relation to that of the reinforcing and/or prestressing steel, (6) The criteria governing the original design and the criteria used to establish failure; (7) Analysis details and general results, and (8) Appropriate engineering drawings adequate to allow verification of modeling and evaluation of analyses employed for the containment structure.
~:-
..f
.4 4
ArraycenT 5
, op4 APPENDIX A TO SRP SECTION 3.8.4 INTERIM CRITERIA FOR SAFETY-RELATED MASONRY WALL EVALUATION y
The purpose of "
1ppendix is to provide minimum design considerations and criteria for the review of safety-related masonry wall which will meet 'the design standards specified in subsection II of this SRP section.
1.
General Recuirements The materials, testing, analysis, design, construction, and inspection related to the design and construction of safety-related concrete masonry walls should conform to the applicable requirements contained in Uniform Building Code - 1979, unless specified otherwise, by the provisions to this criteria.
The use of other industrial codes, such as ACI-531, ATC-3, or NCMA, is also acceptable.
However, when the provis. ions of these codes are less conser-vative than the corresponding provisions of these interim criteria, their use should be justified on a case-by-case basis.
In new construction, no unreinforced masonry walls will be permitted.
For operating plants, existing unreinforced walls will be evaluated by the provisions of these criteria.
Plants applying for operating licenses which have already built unreinforced masonry walls will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
2.
Leaas and Load Combinations _
The loads and load combinations shall include consideration of normal loads, severe environmental loads, extreme environmental load, and abnormal loads.
S;,r:ifically, for operating plants, the load combinations provided in the plant's FSAR shall govern.
For operating license applications, the following load combinations shall apply (for definition of load terms, see SRP Section 3.8.4, subsection II.3).
(a) S_ervice Load Conditions (1) D + L-(2)
D+L+E (3)
D+L+W If thermal stresses due to T, and R, are present, they should be included in the above containment, as follows:
(la) 0 + L + T, + Rg (ib) D + L + T, + R, + E l
Rev. 0 - July 1981 l
t oF +
(Ic) D + L + T, + R, + W Check load combination for controlling condition for maximum 'L' and for no ' L'.
Extreme Environmental. Abnorma'1. Abnormal / Severe Environmental, and (b)
Aonormal/ Extreme Enviromental Conoitions (4) D + L + T,+ R, + E' (5) D + L + T, + R, + Wg (6) D + L + T, + R, + 1.5 P, j# -Y,) + 1.25 E
- Y (7) 0 + L + T, + R, + 1.25 P,+ 1.0 (Yr j + Y,) + 1.0 E' (8) D + L + T, + R, + 1.0 P + 1.0 (Y
+Y 3
r In combinations (6), (7), and (8), the maximum values of P,, T,, R,
3 Y, Y, and Y,, including an appropriate dynamic load factor, should j
r be used unless a time-history analysis is performed to justify other-Combinations (5), (7), and (8) and the corresponding structural wise.
acceptance criteria of should be satisfied first without the tornado missile load in (5) and without Y, Y, and Y,in (7) and (8).
When r
3 considering-these loads, local section strength capacities may be exceeded under these concentrated loads, provided there will be no loss of function of any safety-related system.
Both cases of L having its full value or being completely absent should be checked.
3.
Allowable Stresses Allowable stresses provided in ACI-531-79, as supplemented by the following modifications / exceptions, shall apply.
When wind or seismic loads (GBE) are considered in the loading combin-(a) ations, no increase in the allowable stresses is permitted.
Use of allowable stresses corresponding to special inspection category (b) shall be substantiated by demonstration of compliance with the inspec-tion requirements of the NRC criteria.
When tension perpendicular to bed joints is used in qualifying the
(c) unreinforced masonry walls, the allowable value will be justified by test program or other means pertinent to the plant and loading condi-For reinforced masonry walls, all the tensile stresses will tions.
be resisted by reinforcement.
For load conditions which represent extrese environmenta'., abnormal, (d) abnormal / severe environmentdl, and abnornal/ extreme environmental conditions, the allowable working stress may be multiplied by the r
factors shown in the following table:
.Rev. 0 '- July 1981
~
- l 3,74 Type of Stress Factor Axial or Flexural Compression 1
-2. 5 Bearing 2.5
[
Reinforcement stress'except shear 2.0 but not to exceed 0.9 fy A
Shear reinforcement an'd/or bolts
- 1. 5 Masonry tension parallel to bed joint
- 1. 5 Shear carried by masonry 1.3 Masonry tension perpendicular to bed joint for reinforced masonry 0
for unreinfoiced masonry 2 1,3
.a'-
Notes (1) When anchor bolts are used, design should prevent facial spalling of masonry unit.
(2) See 3(c).
4.
Desion and Analysis Considerations (a) The analysis should follow established principles of engineering mechanics and take into account sound engineering practices.
~
(b) Assumptions and modeling techniques used shall give proper r~
considerations to boundary conditions, cracking of sections, if any, and the dynamic behavior of masonry walls.
(c) Damping values to be used for dynamic analysis:shall be those for reinforced concrete given in Regulatory Guide 1.61.
(d) In general, for operating plants, the seismic analysis and Category I structural requirements of FSAR shall apply.
For other plants, corresponding SRP requirements shall apply.
The seismic analysis shall account for the variations and uncertainties in mass, materials, and other pertinent parameters used.
(e) The analysis should consider both in plane and obt-of plane loads.
(f) Interstory drift effects should be considered.
(g) In new construction, no unreinforced masonry wall is permitted; also, all grout in concrete masonry walls shall be compared by vibration.
(h) For masonry shear walls, the minimum reinforcement requirements of ACI-531 shall apply.
(i) Special construction (e.g., multiwytne, composite) or other items not covered by the code shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for their acceptance.
..)
}-
(j) Licensees or applicants shall submit QA/QC information, if ava'ilable, for staf f review.
Rev. 0 - July 1981
4 In the event QA/QC information is not available, a field survey and a test program reviewed and approved by the staff shall be implemented to ascertain the conformance of masonry construction to design drawings and specificiations (e.g., rebar and grouting).
(k) For masonry walls requiring protection from spalling and scabbing due to accident pipe reaction (Y ), jet impingement (Y)), and missile r
impact (Y
, the requirements of SRP Section 3.5.3 shall apply. Any deviation *)from SRP Section 3.5.3 shall be reviewed and approved on a case-by-case basis.
5.
Revision of Criteria The criteria will be revised, as appropriate, based on:
(a) Design review meetings with the selected licensees and their A/E3.
(b) Experience gained during review.
(c) Additional information developed through testing and researches.
6.
References (a) Uniform Building Code - 1979 Edition.
(b) Building Cofe Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures ACI-531-79 and Commentary ACI-531R-79.
(c) Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings-Applied Technology Council ATC 3-06.
(d) Specification for the Design and Construction of Load-Bearing Concrete Masonry - NCMA August,1979.
(e) Trojan Nuclear Plant Concrete Masonry Design Criteria Safety Evaluation Report Supplement - November, 1980.
(f) Regulatory Guide 1.61, " Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants."
c-Rev. 0 t July 1981
~
~
l 0F G NrRcW M i APPENDIX D TO SRP SECTION 3.8.4 TECHNICAL POSITION ON SPENT FUEL POO'L RACKS Introduction The purpose of this appendix is to provide minimum requirements and criteria for review of spent fuel pool racks and the associated structures which would meet the design standards specified in subsection II of this SRP section.
(1) Description of the Spent Fuel Pool and Racks Descriptive information including plants and sections showing the spent fuel pool in relation to other plant structures shall be provided in order to define the primary structural aspects and elements relied upon to perform the safety-related functions cf the pool, the spent pool liner fuel, and The main safety function of the spent fuel pool, including the racks.
the liner, and the racks is to maintain the spent fuel assemblies in a safe ' configuration through all environmental and abnormal loadings such as earthquake, and impact due to spent fuel cask drop, drop of a spent fuel assembly, or drop of any other heavy object during routine spent fuel handling.
The major structural elements reviewed and the extent of the descriptive information required are indicated below.
The general arrangements and principal Support of the Spent Fuel Racks:
(a) features of the horizontal and the vertical supports to the spent fuel racks should be provided indicating the methods of transferring the loads on the racks to the fuel pool wall and the foundation slab.
All gaps (clearance or expansion allowance) and sliding conttcts should The extent of interfacing between the new rack system be indicated.
and the old fuel pool walls and base slab should be discussed, i.e.,
interface loads, response spectra, etc.
If connections of the racks are made to the base and to the side wa of the pool such that the pool liner may be perforated, the provisions for avoiding leakage of radioactive water of the pool should be indi-cated.
Postulation of a drop accident, and quantification Fuel Handling:
(b) of the drop parameters are reviewed by the Accident Evaluation Branch (AES); Structural Engineering Branch accepts the findings of the AEB review for the purpose of review of the integrity of the racks and the fuel pool including the fuel pool lines cue to a postulated handling accident.
system should be provided to facilitate this review.
(2) Applicable Codes, Standards, and Specifications Construction materials should conform to Section III, subsection NF of All materials should be selected to be compatible with the fuel Ref. 3.1.
pool environment to minimize corrosion and galvanic effects.
I'
+4 I
Rev. 0 - July 1981
~
- C
..c
.q, 2.0 f 6 Design, f abrication, and installation of spent fuel racks of stainless steel material may be performed based upon Subsection NF requirements of Ref. 3.1 for Class 3 component supports.
Z
-~
(3) Seismic and Impact Loads For plants where dynamic input data such as floor responses spectra or ground response spectra are not available, necessary dynamic analyses may The ground be performed using the criteria described in SRP Section 3.7.
response spectra and damping values should correspond to Regulato.ry Guides 1.60 and 1.61, respectively.
For plants where dynamic data are available, e.g., ground response spectra for a fuel pool supported by the ground, floor response spectra for fuel pools supported on soil where soil-structure interaction was considered in the pool design or a floor response spectra for a fuel pool stpported by the reactor building, the design and analysis of the new rack system may be performed by t.:ing either the existing input parameters including the old damping values or The new parameters in accordance with Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61.
use of existing input with new damping values in Regulatory G1ide 1.61 is' not acceptable.
Seismic excitation along three orthogonal directions should be imposed simultaneously for the design of the new rack system.
The peak response from each direction should be combined by square root of the sum of the squares in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.92.
If
~
response spectra are available for a vertical and horizontal directions only, the same horizontal response spectra may be applied along the other horizontal direction.
Submergence in water may be taken into account. The effects of submergence are considered on case-by-case basis.
Due to gaps between fuel assemblies and the walls of the guide tubes, additional loads will be generated by the impact of fuel assemblies during a postulated seismic excitation. Additional loads due to this impact ef fect may be determined by estimating the kinetic energy of the fuel The maximum velocity of the fuel assembly may be estimated to assembly.
be the spectral velo ity associated with the natural frequency of the submerged fuel assembly.
Loads thus generated should be considered for local as well as overall effects on the walls of the rack and the support-ing framework.
It should be demonstrated that the consequent loads on the fuel assemoly do not lead to a damage of the fuel.
Loacs generated from other postulated impact events may be acceptable, if the following parameters are described:
the total mass of the impacting missile, the maximum velocity at the tima of impact, and the ductility ratio of the target material utilized to absorb the kinetic energy.
(4)
Loads and Load Combinations:
Any change in the temperature $$stribution due to the proposed modification should be identified.
Information pertaining to the applicable design loads and various combinations thereof should be provided indicating the thermal load due to the effect of the maximum temperature distribution through the pool walls and base slab.
Temperature gradient across the fhs @ - Alw 1981
3 6 F 6.
rack structure due to differential heating effect between a full and an empty cell should be indicated and incorporated ~in the design of the ' rack Maximum uplift fort.es available from the crane should be" structure.
indicated including the consideration of these forces in the design of the racks and the analysis of,the existing pool floor, if applicable.
The fuel pool racks, the fuei pool structure including the pool slab and fuel pool liner, should be evaluated for accident load combinations which include the impact of the spent fuel cask, the heaviest postulated load drop, and/or accidental drop of fuel assembly from maximim height.
The acceptable limits (strain or stress limits) in this case will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis but in general the applicant is required to demonstrate that the functional capability and/or the structural integrity of each component is maintained.
The specific loads and load combinations are acceptable if they are in conformity with the applicable portions of SP.P Section 3.8.4, subsection II.3, and Table 1.
(5) Design and Analysis Procedures Details of the mathematical model including a description of how the important parameters are obtained should'be provided including the follow-ing: The methods used to incorporate any gaps between the support systems and gaps between the fuel bundles and the guide tubes; the methods used to lump the masses of the fuel bundles and the guide tubes; the methods used to account for the effect of sloshing water on the pool walls; and, the effect of submergence on the mass, the mass distribution
~
and the effective damping of the fuel bundle and the fuel racks.
The design and analysis procedures in accordance with SRP Section 3.8.4, subsection II.4 are acceptable.
The effect on gaps, sloshing water, and increase of effective mass and damping due to submergence in water should be quantified.
When pool walls are utilized to provide lateral restraint at higher elevations, a determination of the flexibility of the pool walls and the If the capability of the walls to sustain such loads should be provided.
pool walls are flexible (hav.ing a fundamental frequency less than 33 Hert:),
the floor response spectra corresponding to the lateral restraint point at'~the higher elevation are likely to be greater than those at the base of the pool.
In such a case using the response spectrum approach, two separate analyres should be performed as indicated below:
(a) A spectrum analysis of the rack system using response spectra corresponding to the highest support elevation provided that there is not significant peak frequency shift between the response spectra at the lower and higher elevations; and (b) A static analysis of the rack system by subjecting it to the maximum relative support dispigcement.
j_
The resulting stresses from the two analyses above should be cctbined -
by tne absolute sum method.
a
~
Rev. 0 - July 1981
+8F6 In order to determine the flexibility of the pool wall it is acceptable for the applicant to use equivalent mass and stiffness properties obtained from calculations similar to those described in Ref. 4.1.
Should the funda-mental frequency of the pool wall model be higher than or equal to 33 Hertz, it may be assumed that the response of the pool wall and the corresponding lateral support to the new rack system are identical to those of the brse slab, for which appropriate floor response spectra or ground response spectra may already exist.
(6) Structural Acceptance Criteria The structural acceptance criteria are those given in the Table 1.
When buckling loads are considered in the design, the structural acceptance criteria shall be limited by the requirements of Appendix XVII to Reference 3.1.
For impact loading, the ductility ratios utilized to absorb kinetic energy in the tensile, flexural, cc:::pressive, and shearing modes should be quanti-fied. When considering the effects of seismic loads, factors of safety against gross sliding and overturning of racks and rack modulus under all probable service conditions shall be in accordance :ith SRP Section 3.8.5, subsection 11.5~.
This position on factors of safety against sliding and tilting need not be met provided any one of the following conditions is met:
(a) it can be shown by detailed nonlinear dynamic analyses that the ampli-tudes of sliding motion are minimal, and impact between adjacent rack modules or between a rack module and the pool walls is prevented
.~
provided that the factors of safety against tilting are within the values permitted by SRP Section 3.8.5, subsection II.5.
r (b) it can be shown that any sliding and tilting motion will be contained within suitable geometric constraints such as thermal clearances, and that any impact due to the clearances is incorporated.
The fuel pool structure should be designed for the increased loads due to the new and/or expanded high density racks.
The fuel pool liner leak tight integrity should be maintained or the functional capability of the fuel pool should be demonstrated.
(7) Materials, Quality Control, and Special Construction Techniques The materials, quality control procedures, and any special construction technicues should be described. The sequence of installation of the new fuel racks, and a description of the precautions to be taken to prevent damage to the stored fuel during the construction phase should be provided.
If connections between the rack and the pool liner are made by welding, the welder as well as the welding procedure for the welding assembly shall be qualified in accordance with the applicable code.
,.[
r;._
I Rev. O - July 1981
t S'F L TABLE 1 LOAD COMBINATION ACCEPTANCE LIMIT D+L Level.A service limits 0+L+T o
D + L + T, + E Level B service limits D + L + T, + E 0 + L + T, + Pf Level D service limits D + L + T, + E' D+L+F The functional capability d
of the fuel racks should be demonstrated Limit Analysis:
1.7 (D + L)
XVII 4000 of ASME ASME Code Section III
- 1. 3 (0 + L + T,)
1.7 (D + L + E)
~
- 1. 3 (D + L + E + T,)
1.3 (D + i. + E + T,)
1.3 (D + L + T, + P )
f 1.1 (D + L + T, + E')
Notes:
1.
The abbreviations in the table above are those used in subsection II.3.a of this SRP section where each term is defined except for T which is 3
, defined here as the highest temperature associated with the postulated abnormal design conditions.
2.
Deformation limits specified by the Design Scecification limits shall be satisfied, and such deformation limits should precluce camage to the fuel assemblies.
l 3.
The provisions of NF 3231.1 of Reference 3.1 shall be amended by the requirements of paragraphs c.2.3 and 4 of Regulatory Guide 1.124 entitled
" Design Limits and Lead Comoinations for Class 1 Linear-Type Component t
Supports."
istheforcecausedbythgaccidentaldropoftheheaviestloadfrom 4.
F d
the maximum possible height and P is upward force on the racks caused by postulated struck fuel assembly. 7 Rev. 0 - July 1981
= -
~
b of $2 VI.
REFERENCES 1.
Regulatory Guides Seismic Design Classification i
1.29 Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power 1.60 Plants 1.61 -
Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants Design Basis Tornado for Nuclear Power Plants 1.76 1.92 -
Combining Modal Responses and Spatial Components in S.eismic Response Analysis 1.124 -
Design Limits and Loading Combinations for Class 1 Linear-Type Components Supports 2.
Standard Review Plan Section Seismic Design
- 3. 7 3.8.4 -
Other Category I Structures 3.
Industry Codes and Standards 1.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 1 2.
American National Standards Institute, N210-76 3.
American Society of Civil Engineers, suggested Specification for Structures of Aluminum Alloys 6061-T6 and 6067-T6 4.
The Aluminium Association, Specification for Aluminum Structures 4.
Other 1.
Briggs, John M., " Introduction to Structural Dyanmics," McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1964.
e C3*
' 7 9-Rev. D - July 1981
..