ML20042C129
| ML20042C129 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1982 |
| From: | Koester G KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| KMLNRC-82-182, NUDOCS 8203300241 | |
| Download: ML20042C129 (12) | |
Text
.
KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY T&C ELECTAC CCPAPANY GLENN L MOESTEF vitspassaotmt-Nyctaan March 26, 1982 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 4
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E, V y
Washington, D.C.
20555 N
f.
+.,
^;
- 7. {
n,
(
KMLNRC 82-182 g
'/
lf i.
Re:
Docket No. STN 50-482
($
3 71., q Subj: Additional Information s
- \\ ,,
Dear Mr. Denton:
J
,. c Kansas Gas and Electric Company representatives met with the NRC on March 19, 1982 to discuss seismic design margins in Wolf Creek structures and components assuming a Wolf Creek Site specific response spectra loading. During the meeting the Geotechnical Engineering Branch requested that some ad-ditional information be provided. Attached are responses to the NRC inquiries.
This information will be formally incorporated into the Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1, Final Safety Analysis Report in Revision 9.
This information is hereby incorporated into the Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1, Operating License Application.
Yours very truly,
, gjl Jf
! ff'(yfi&$N O GLK:bb Attach cc: Mr. J.B. Hopkins (2)
Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 300f Washington, D.C.
20555 s
Mr. Thomas Vandel Resident NRC Inspector
/ /
Box 311 Burlington, Kansas 66839 8203300241 820326 PDR ADOCK 05000482 A
PDR 201 N Market - Wichita, Kansas - Mail Address: PO. Box 208 i Wichita, Kansas 67201 - Telephone: Area Code (316) 2616451
OATH OF AFFIRMATION STATE OF KANSAS
)
) SS:
COUNTY OF SEDGWICK)
I, Glenn L. Koester, of lawful age, being duly sworn upon oath, do depose,
~
state and affirm that I am Vice President - Nuclear of Kansas Gas and Electric Company, Wichita, Kansas, that I have signed the foregoing letter of transmittal, know the contents thereof, and that all statements contained therein are true.
KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY By_
bff?
JA O
Gle"nn L. Koester Vice President - Nuclear E.D. Prothro, Assistant Secretary STATE OF KANSAS
)
) SS:
COUNTY OF SEDGWICK)
BE IT REMEM3ERdD, that on this 26th day of March, 1982
, before me, Evelyn L. Fry
,a Notary, personally appeared Glenn L. Koester, Vice President - Nuclear of Kansas Gas and Electric Company, Wichita, Kansas, who is personally known to me and who executed the foregoing instrument, and he duly acknowledged the execution of the same for and on behalf of and as the act and deed of said corporation.
IN WITNESS WI!EREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal the U
/?h'AcF~h['Be..gndyearabovewritten.
!'?.'h -
/
'goT O
p y,J Evelyn/L. Fry, Notary
,a e-
.' ' ~,,,
My Commission expires __ August 15, 1984 I
S NUi'i>S-w -
WOLF CREF.K_ __GENijRA'QN_G_ STAT LON NRC Inquiry (1):
UllS dam (include riprap on top, to elevation 1077.0, in l
your analysis).
A. pseudo - static; seismic coef ficient 0.12, 0.15.
B. dynamic FEM analysis for SSRS.
Response
A.
Pseudo - Static Analysis:
The results of stability analysis for the static condi-l tion and pseudo-static with seismic coefficients of 0.12g and 0.15g with riprap over the UHS Dam are shown in Table 1.
Also shown are the results from FSAR-Site Addendum Table 2.5-84 for static and pseudo-static analysis for the UHS Dam embankment without the riprap.
cover.
In all cases the factor of safety exceeds the recommended minimum of 1.2 for pseudo-static analysis.
The UllS Dam embankment properties were the same as used
^
for the PSAR analysis as given in FSAR-Site Addendum, Table 2.5-85 fo r the rapid drawdown, steady state and submerged condition analyses.
For the end of construc-tion, the soil properties were revised based on results of field density tests made during construction and on results ' of unconfined compression tests on specimens obtained from the constructed UHS Dam embankment.
As was discussed with the NRC, during a meeting on March 19, 1982 and a subsequent telecon on March 23, 1982, a Regulatory Guide 1.60 seismic response spectra anchored at 0.15g is acceptable for enveloping the SSRS; 20%
- g. will not be conside red for the UHS dam.
b
TABIE 1 FACIORS OF SAFETY UHS D"01 Cordition Embaricnnt Embanbent Min F.S.
RT. ads w/o Riprap
- w/ Riprap Required
- End of Const.
(See Rann&s)
Soil Para:neters Revised 07 2.45 2.94 1.4
'Ib c= 929 PSF & y,,,=113 ECF 0.123 1.48 1.30 1.2 To Correspond to Field,
0.15g 1.63 1.2 Density and Enixm' ment Speciman g Tests.
Steady State Og 2.50 2.47 1.5 0.12g 1.57 1.53 1.2 0.15g 1.42 1.2 Subretged Og 4.67 3.71 1.5 0.12g 2.09 1.62 1.2 0.15g 1.41 1.2 Rapid Drawdown og 2.18 2.31 1.2
- FSAR Table 2.5-84, Section 2.5.6.5.4.2.1 and Section 2.5.6.3.4.2.2.1
i l
SNUPPS-WC 4
I B.
Dynamic FEM Analysis:
l-For a SSE of 0.15g, the seismic slope stability of the ultimate heat sink dam was evaluated, i
The finite element model, the soil properties, and the procedure described in FSAR Subsection 2.5.6.5.4.2.2.2 i
were used in the present analysis.
The artificial i
accelerograms for horizontal and vertical ground motions used in the previous analysis for 0.12g were scaled to-0.15g.
The-. computed factors of safety for va rious elements 4
are presented in Table 2.
The comparison of artifi-cial accelerogram and design response spectra for maxi-mum horizontal :tnd vertical ground acceletation of 15%
of gravity an.d 5% spectra damping, are shown in Figures 1 and 2.
i l
i k
(.
TABLE 2 COMPUTED FACTOP. OF SATETY FOR Tile f! NITE ELEMENT MODEL OF Ull5 DAM VERTICAL & !!ORIZOMTAL ACCELERATION: 0.15G Initial Vertical Initial Cyclic Induced 1 Normal Shear Shear Shear Element Stress Stress T o Strength Stress F.S=[f No.
00'(psf)
To (ps f)
Co. '_
Tf(psf)
_d(psf)_
d T
i 2
82.61 21.52 0.261 125.0 47.21 2.65 3
187.01 38.75 0.207 205.0 84.18 2.43 4
293.85 57.85 0.197 295.0.
133.96 2.20 5
403.42 76.58 0.190 370.0
(* )
(*)
6 517.00 83.34 0.161 430.0 234.54
.l.83 7
622.00 90.62 0.146 480.0 280.02 1.71 8
730.26 90.11 0.123 525.0 321.18 1.63 9
830.84 79.52 0.096 535.0 358.15 1.49 10 912.40 56.27 0.062 560.0 388.88 1.44 11 955.98 29.33 0.031 565.0 409.74 1.38 12 969.67 8.43 0.009 560.0 417.33 1.34 18 622.32 90.62 0.146 480.0 264.16 1.82 26 89.73 25.60 0.235 150.0 76.18 1.97 27 184.50 40.67 0.220 230.0 116.93 1.97 28 289.85 48.74 0.168 295.0 171.98 1.72 29 396.79 63.03 0.159 350.0 221.58 1.58 30 509.84 60.48 0.119 400.0 262.28 1.53 31 615.58 56.85 0.092 440.0 297.78 1.48 32 7.01.52 40.47 0.058 4,0.0 327.66 1,46 33 747.62 20.29' O.027 490.0 347.92 1.41 34 761.39 5.63 0.007 490.0 354.97
.1.38 39 509.84 60.48 0.119 400.0 255.70 1.56 46 89.19 22.43 0.252 135.0 110.10 1.23 MI:I 47 180.15 32.95 0.183 205.0 149.28 1.37 48 288.32 34.86 0.121 275.0 191.46 1.44 49 394.67 43.90 0.111 330.0 222.10 1.49 50 489.18 28.16 0.058 370.0 246.84 1.50 51 535.12 12.39 0.023 390.0 263.60 1.48 52 547.84 3.28 0.006 400.0 268.97 1.49 56 394.64 43.90 0.111 330.0 219.92 1.50 63 182.06 25.86 0.1 2 200.0 137.16 1.46 64 275.60 18.12 0.066 245.0 154.27 1.59 65 318.72 9.28 0.029 265.0 166.36 1.59 66 330.77 1.77 0.005 270.0 172.28 1.57 69 275.60 18.12 0.066 250.0 154.43 1.62 74 83.40 10.11 0.121 102.0 68.23 1.49 (1)
Induced shear stresses from output 'of Quad 4, Run 789 GC, I4 arch 8, 1932.
(*)
Not evalua ted.
4 Figure 1 "B!!
S'li s.o 2.o 1.o o.s O
o.os o.o2 o.oi o.cos
.., //\\/\\
[xb bb A k.* /4g^)<'\\ ^
'NP
/
12
- k- -k#
!\\
1o.0 V
/N s.o g
\\
/
/,
/ / N A-% A
\\/N-2
)
y.O
\\
l.0
!J--
h Q,
p
/
s o.5
/
is
's
\\,
^/
h
/
A /N.- NN
,^
- N6j ^[
/\\ [/d /\\ d h/\\ d d
\\#
\\
\\
\\
-/
\\_ / \\
/
o.oS
'.0
^
0. :'
o.ti 1.0 20 U
10 0 20 0 L0.0 100.0 200.0 iHC0tlE!!CY. cps Canaparicon or Art it'ici.it Acc.derceiram ani! Doulgn nonponco :pectra l'or Itixliium !!criacntal. fit.nout Accole:i.ition of 151 ot Gravi ty.inil 5% cpectra ti. :nping
r 1
Figure 2 "s!i
"!:1 s.o 20 i.o o.s o.os o.02 o.oi o.00s bb bb 20 o
/
(@f h A/\\
S/
'\\.,
/ 'N
/
\\ e,
'N
/
~ /'NXXr, ^ ^ /N A
s s.o o
d b
g
/'N f
/'N /%&
z/x 2.o O
10 A d NOgdM' /\\
d k
'\\
/h
/
/ \\
_/
d \\
/ \\
/
/\\
\\
e o('
/N/x
/N /N /:\\g'x'
\\
\\
^
\\
\\
\\
/ \\- /
o.1 A N/\\ d N/\\ d d
.o.Os 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 G.0 10 0 20.0 50 0 100.0 200.o l'Hl.titlEf1CY, Cl'S Comri.ori r,csn of At t a ficial Accoli.ro.ar.im ant! Duulun Ituus onno : pes:tret For itak tnum Vert.ical Gauian<l Acceler.stion et 15% ot' Gravity anct 5% Spectra Daniping 1
r-S N U I'l'S -W
^
~
WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION NRC Inquiry (2):
UllS Slopes
-pseudo-static analysis - seismic coefficient 0.15.
Response
The results of pseudo-s tatic. analysis with a seismic co-efficient of 0.159 is shown in Table 1.
These results are shown in addition to static and pseudo-static with 0.12g seismic coef ficient analyses presented in FSAR-Site Addendum,
. Tabic 2.5-57 which was revised in ' response to NRC Question 241-20.
~
These results are shown for the ESWS Intake Channel, howeve r; they also apply to the UIIS reservoir in that the intake channel slopes between elevation 1,070 and 1,065 are 3:1, whereas the steepest side slope in the UllS Reservoir between elevation 1,070 and 1,065 is 6.7%
(15:1).
The slopes between elevation 1,070 and natural grade are both 5:1 for the intake channel and UllS reservoir, however; existing grade adjacent to the intake channel is higher so that the resulting height of slope is greater.
The results of the " Wedge Analysis" for Ulls slopes with a seismic coefficient of 0.15g is shown in Table 2.
This also shows results previously presented in FSAR-Site Addendum, Table ~2.5-56.
All of the results show that the factor of safety fo r a seismic coefficient of 0.15g exceeds the minimum requirement of 1.2.
The same soil parameters were ustd for the addi-tional analysis with a 0.15g seismic coefficient as was used for the previous analysis.
As was discussed with the NRC during a meeting on March 19, 1982 and a subsequent telecon on March 23, 1982, a Regulatory Guide
- 1. 60 ' seismic response spectra anchored at 0.15g is acceptable for enveloping the SSRS:
20%
g.
will not be considered for ~ the UllS slope.
f'
-a
c-- -
3 s.
TAllLE I RESULTS OF SLOPE STABILITY MIALYSIS FOR ESWS INfAKE OIANNEL EXCAVATED SLOPES
. Condition Effective Stress
'Ibtal Stress Required F.S.
Param2ters Parameters 5:1 Slopes Suberged-Lake @ 1087 5.91 1.5 Subn2rgal + 0.12g 2.16 1.2 Submerged + 0.15g 1.84 1.2 Rapid Drawdown 2.82 1.2 End of Const (Short-2.86 1.5 term)
End of Const -(LonJ-3.37 3.14 1.5 term)
End of Const +.12g 1.86 1.74
~1.2 End of Const '+.15g 1.67 1.55 1.2 3:1 Slopes Subunyxl-Lake 1070 7.13 1.5 Subn2rgul + 0.12g 3.37 3.88
'1.2 Subn2tged + 0.15g 3.02 3.44 1.2 Enl of Const (Short-5.69 -
1.5 term)
En:1 of Const (LonJ-5.02 5.97 1.5 term)
M
TABLE 2 RESULTS OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS EUR UlIS ErtWATFD SLOPES USING WEDGE ANALYSIS Computed Minimun Re'uired Minimum Conlition Factor of Safety Factor of Safety End of Construction 7.8*
1.4 Stealy State 5.3*
1.5 Stealy State plus SSE (0.12g) 3.5*
1.2 (0.15g) 3.20 1.2
- FSAR-Site Akhnlun, Table 2.5-56
r WOLF Clji:Ml; Gl:NMRATING STATION NRC Inquiry (3) :
Seismic Category I Buried Pipes and Electrical Duct Banks Comment on dynamic stability for SSRS loading.
Response
The following section will be added to the Wolf Creek FSAR.
2.5.4.5.3.6 Seismic Analysis Section 3.7 (B). 3.12 of the SNUPPS FSAR addresses the seismic analysis of buried piping and tunnels (such as the electrical duct banks).
These corrponents were designed to remain func-tional after a seismic event which is determined by the SNUPPS design envelope (SNUPPS FSAR Table ]. 2-] ).
The SNUPPS seismological design paramators are an OBE of.12g and an SSE of
.2g.