ML20044A660

Forwards Requested Info Re Seismic Design of safety-related above-ground Vertical Liquid Storage Tanks,Per 900404 Ltr. All Stresses on Tank Roof Angle,Connecting Cylinder to Roof,Remain within Code Allowables Under Postulated Loads

ML20044A660
Person / Time
Site:	Callaway
Issue date:	06/25/1990
From:	Schnell D UNION ELECTRIC CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
ULNRC-2237, NUDOCS 9007020022
Download: ML20044A660 (6)

Text

I:31 Gutml $1tet Pc:t GHut ib id9

$t iowl M swun (J f(ti 114 t.st nso Jgj j June 25, 1990 [$Nff.nl

$3 U. S. Nuclonr Regulatory Comminnion ATTN Document Control Desk Mail Station PI-137 Wanhington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemoni ULNRC-2237 DOCKICT NUMBER 50-483 CAILAWAY P!, ANT SE10MIC DESIGN Olc SAFETY-RELATED ABOVE-Git 00ND

. _ _ , . _XERTJ CAh,..!.t! QU 1 D_ STORAGE _TbHKQ__. ,_.

Referencen: 1. NRC Roquent for Information lettor, J. N. linnnon to D. F. Schnol1, dated 5-23-89

2. ULNRC-2077 dated 9-21-89

3. NRC Roquent for Additionni Information lotter, S. V. Athavalo to D. F. Schnell, dated 4-4-90 Reference I requested information on the polemic design of the Callawny Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) which was subcoquently provided via Reference 2. The N110 Staff audit of the RWST donign calculations resulted in the additionni quontions rained in Reference 3.

The attachment providen the requented information.

If you havo any quantions regarding-the attachment, plonso contact un.

Very truly ouro, ,

k 5/ft?tVrt-Donald F. Schnell pr GGY/pkn Attachment

.. .. 0 9007020022 900625

{DR ADOCK 05000493 PDC l{\

STATE OF MISSOURI )

) SS CITY OF ST. LOUIS )

Alan C. Pasewater, of lawful ago, being first duly sworn

>.. upon. oath says that he in. Manager, Licensing and Fuela (Nuclear) for Union Electric Company; that he has read the foregoing document and ,

known the content thereof; that he han executed the same for and on behalf of said company with full power and authority to do so; and that the facto therein stated are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.

)

By

1. I - N'##'*

Alan C. Paenwater Manager, Licensing and Fuela Nuclear SUBSCRIQED and sworn to before me thic SS day of (>>&*t o , 1990.

f *

<Lt/wnk_/Q'sj.

HARtlAHA J FAFF N01ARY PUBLIC $1 Alt Of MIS $0VRI MY COMMISSION EXPtRI.S APRIL 22. 1993 ST. LOUIS COUNTY L

. Li  ;

r .

• L j "

i cci ' Gerald Charnof f, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts,& Trowbridge  :

2300 N. Street, N.W.  !

Washington, D.C. 20037 ,

Dr. J. O. Cermak < r CFA, Inc. . ,

4 Professional Drive (Suite 110) _ r Gaithersburg, MD'20879 j R. C. Knop .

Chief, Reactor-Project Branch 1 .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road '!

Glen Ellyn,';1111nois 60137 Bruce . Ba rtle tt Callaway. Resident Office. .

n-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  ;

RRM1 ..

Steedman, Minsouri 65077' 1 '

Anthony T. Gody, Jr. (2)

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation  ;

U.S. Nuclear Regulatoryacommission  !

1 White Flint, North, Mail 1Stop 13E21 1 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20052, i Manager, Electric Department. l Missouri Public Service Commission  ;

P.O. Box 360 'i Jefferson City, MO 65102- ,

Ron Kucera .!

Department of Natural Recources . 'i P.O. Box 176 Jefferson City, MO 65102 f

.b 4

-s

UhNRC - 2237

, Attcchm:nt Page 3 of 3 QUESTION 1:

During the audit, it.was discovered that the forces and stresses on the roof angle connecting the cylinder and the roof under the postulated seismic loadings were not available. Hence the adequacy of the angle-and the angle welds could not be verified. Provide information ,

(summarize results) related to the adequacy of the connection under the postulated neismic loads.  ;

RESPONSE

,, Foi9ec on the tank l roof altgin connecbing the . cylinde r. +.

and the roof, under the postulated nedsmic loadings ,

including the sloshing effects, were calculated. The angle and the connecting welds'were evaluated for these loads and were found to be structurally adequate. All-  !

stresses remain within the Code allowables under the ,

postulated seismic loads.

QUESTION 2:

During the audit, it was discovered that the conclunion of "no tension" in any part of the tank anchor bolts -

and foundation wan based on the une of an AISI formula, t which the staff considers inappropriato. Provide information (summarizo results) regarding the adequacy l of the affected tank areas under the postulated seinmic ,

l loadings- Specifically, the following items should be includads-

~ '

a. Adequacy of the anchor bol ts and the bolt- lugs (or -

chai rs ) .

b. Adequacy of the tank,shell in tension and'in compression.  :

c. Stresses in foundation media and the. adequacy of the reinforced concrete section'under the sump.

d. Potential for overturning of the tank and.the -

foundation.

e. Potential for sliding:of the tank and the foun-dation, i

The method of' combining the responses of the three d components of the postuinted earthquakes should be in- 1 accordance with the-FSAR commitment. -

E

ULHRC - 2237 Attachment Page 2 of 3 tlESPONSE:

In order to addrens i tema "a" thru "e", the method of combining the responnes of the three components of the pontulated earthquaken in discunned first.

The RWST neismic design calculation used the " component factor method", which is a special case of the square-root-sum-of-squaros-(SRSS) method, for combining the three componente of the postulated earthquakes. A nupplemental analysis hnn been provided in the cal-culation to compare this method to the SRSS method.

This nupplemental analynin demonstrates that the techniques uti14 zed provide more connervative t.osultn i than the SRSS method. Therefore, the method of com-bining the renponnon of the three components of the postulated earthqunken in in accordance with the FSAR commitments.

The following provides information and summarizen results of the evaluation of the affected tank avons under the postulated seinmic loadingn an upocifically noted in itemn "a" thru "e" abovos a) The analysin for determining the tank anchor bolt tennion van banod'on an AISI fo mula which yielded "no tension" in'the anchor bolt. This conclusion was seemingly in conflict with the foundation niab analynin which showed uplif t under the footing.

The analynis for determining bolt Lennion han been revined to use classical methodn in order to be connistent with the - foundation analysj s. The revised analynd t -results in uplif t on the tank anchor bolts. The analysin for transmitting shear and uplift loads from the tank to the foundation han been rovined- to include the bolt uplif t loads calculated by tho revised analycia. By utilir.ing- i static f riction between the tank bottom and the concrete footing, it has been demonstrated that tank sliding will not occur and, therefore,-the boltn will not experience' any shear loads. The boltn, including all components, have been eval-unted for the resulting uplift loadn and wero found to be structurally adequate.-

b) Based on the discussion provided above regarding combining the three componento of the pontulated earthquaken, the analynis for checking the ad-equacy of the tank shell,-an provided in the calculation, remainn vnlid. I t - nhould bo noted I

"

• ULNRC - 2237

? Att chm nt

, Page 3 of 3 that the tank shell design is governed by comp-ression, rather than tension, due to a much lower allowable stress in compression. The tank shell was found to be structurally adequate for all loading combinations, c) Additional analysis has been provided in the calculation for evaluating the tank foundation media, including the reinforced concrete section under the sump, for the leads from the seismic reanalysis. The calcula'*on conservatively evaluated the main foundation slab by assuming that all the load from the sump area was taken by the main slab and the sump section did not con-tribute any strength to the main einb. The reinforced concrete section under the sump was evaluated for its adequacy to span between the main slab areas. All reinforced concreto' sections of the main foundation alab and under the sump were found to be structtirally adequate and the stresses remain within the Code allowables, d) Based on the. discussion provided above regarding combining the three components of the postulated earthquakes, the analysis for checking overturning of the tank foundation as provided in the enl-culation' remains valid. The factor of safety against overturning is in accordance with the FSAR commitment.

e) Based on the dincCaolon provided aboyo regarding combining the three components of the postulated earthquakes, the analysis for checking sliding of the tank foundation as provided in the calculation remains valid. The factor of safety-against sliding is in accordance with the FSAR commitment.

q l

3-

. _ - . _ - _ - - _ _ _-