Text

Review of Licensee Response to Design Codes,Design Criteria & Loading Combinations,Ginna Nuclear Power Plant,Unit 1, Supplementary Technical Evaluation Rept
	ML20077G001
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	07/29/1983
From:	Darwish M, Stilwell T, Wallo E; FRANKLIN INSTITUTE
To:	Persinko D; NRC
Shared Package
ML17308A081	List: ML17308A080; ML20077G001;
References
	CON-NRC-03-80-130, CON-NRC-3-80-130, TASK-03-07.B, TASK-3-7.B, TASK-RR SER-C5506-423, TAC-48881, TER-C5506-423, NUDOCS 8308030272
	Download: ML20077G001 (50)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:_. _ TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT REVIEW OF LICENSEE RESPONSE TO DESIGN CODES, DESIGN CRITERIA, AND LOADING COMBINATIONS (SEP, III-7.B) ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION R. E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 1 l NRC DOCKET NO. 50-244 FRC PROJECT C5506 NRCTACNO. 48881 FRC ASSIGNMENT 18 NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03-81 130 FRC TASK 423 Preparedby Franklin Research Center Author: T. C. Stilwell, The Parkway at Twen'isth Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 M. Darwish, E. W. Wallo FRC Group Leader: T. C. Stilwell Preparedfor Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Lead NRC Engineer: D. Persinko July 29. 1983 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United Statas Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, appa-ratus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights. Prepared by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Principal Author: TCS Y A'Pdt W & T -.. k J Grou oepartment[ireOr z/e /n oste:ILeader29 - 83 o.ie: o.te: 7 F3 m 4 [. b. . Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin institute The Bep Franen Penrmey. Ptuna.. Pt !9103 (21S) 4481000 M Copy Has Been Sent to PDR 3070302-%

TER-C5506-423 CONTENTS Section Title Page 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 DESIGN CODE CHANGES DESIGNATED SCALE A. 2 2.1 Shear Connectors for Composite Seams 2 2.2 Composite Beans or Girders with Formed Steel Deck. 2 2.3 Flange Stress in Hybrid Girders 3 2.4 Stresses in Unstiffened Compression Elements 3 2.5 Maximum Load in Riveted or Bolted Tensile Members. 4 2.6 Shear Load in Coped Beans. 5 2.7 Column Web Stiffeners at Frame Joints. 6 2.8 Lateral Support Spacing in Frames. 7 2.9 Brackets and Corbels 8 2.10 Special Provision for Walls 8 2.10.1 Shear Walls 8 2.10.2 Punching Shear. 8 2.11 Elements Loaded in Shear with No Diagonal Tension. 9 2.12 Elements Subject to Temperature Variations. 9 2.13 Columns with Spliced Reinforcing 9 2.14 Embedmonts. 9 2.15 Ductile Response to Impulse Loads. 10 2.16 Tan'gential Shear (Containment). 10 2.17 Areas of Containment Shell Subject to Peripheral Shear. 11 2.18 Thermal Loads. 11 2.19 Areas of Containment Shell Subject to Torsion. 12 2.20 Areas of Containment Shell Subject to Biaxial Tension. 12 2.21 Brackets and Corbels (On the Containment Shell) 12 p-Ob ranklin Research Center A Dhemen of The Fremen m ... ~ _,,, _ _ _..,,, _.., - < - - + ' ' * * " ' ^

e TER-C5506-423 I e CONTENTS (Cont.)

l Section Title Page 14 3 REVIEW MTHOD AND TABULAR PRESENTATIONS. y-4 TABULAR

SUMMARY

OF FINDINGS OF LICENSEE COMPLIANCE STATUS CONCERNING INLEM NTATION OF SEP TOPIC III-7.B 17 IMPACT OF DESIGN CODE CHAERR 33 5 REVIEW FINDINGS - LQhDS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS 33 5.1 Concrete Containment Shells i 34 5.2 Containment Liner. l 35 5.3 Spent Fuel Pool 36 5.4 Auxiliary Building (Concrete) 37 5.5 Auxiliary Building (Steel). 37 5.6 Control Building 38 5.7 Intermediate Building (Concrete) 39 5.8 Intermediate Building (Steel) 39 5.9 Cable Tunnel t 40 5.10 Screenhouse 41 5.11 Diesel Generator Building (Concrete) 42 6

SUMMARY

OF REVIEW FINDINGS. 43 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 44 8 REFERENCES. 9 l l iv UUUU Franklin Research Center A Dhemen of The FreM$n Wuuhar

TER-C5506-423 FOREWORD This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center under a contract with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cossaission (Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactors) for technical assiatance in support of NBC operating reactor licensing actions. The tech.11 cal evaluation was conducted in accordance with criteria established by the NBC. I i l l I I i v UO0d Franklin Research Center A Ohemen of The Fm m ,_-,y--w -,-.-w m-

TER-C5506-423 Summary Information concerning the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 supplied to the Nac by nochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) dealing with Topic III-7.B of NBC's Systematic Evaluation Program was reviewed. Topic III-7.B assesses the impact of perceived margins of safety of Seisaf a Category I structures that may result from changes in design codes ar.d from differencec between loads and loading combinations used for design rad those currently specified. The review was conducted by the Franklin Research Center with the objec-tive of assisting the NBC in the evaluation of RG&E's compliance status with respect to implementation of the Systematic Evaluation Program by appraising the technical content of the information submitted. The review found that RG&E has made a substantial enginsering effort toward resolution of Topic III-7.B concerns. Although open items were found to remain, these primarily relate to assessment of effects of design code changes when appraised for loadings associated with extreme environmental and faulted service conditions. IGEE plans to address these concerns in due l course as part of the Structural Reanalysis Program.

p. ~ '

vii nidin Research Center A Deiseen of The Fresen pusuman --,y-------- ,,,,.-_,.,.-,,-..._-,_..--,...-y ,c%, .-,-,..,-..r,. c _.,,_v_-., _%.._,-..w

i i i t I l TER-C5506-423 '.i 1. INTRODUCTION Current design criteria for nuclear power plant structures contain 'I requirements that were not in effect when older plants were designed and licensed. Consequently, one aspect (designa.ed Topic III-7.8) of the implementation of NBC's Systematic Evaluation Program requires licensees to review changes that have occurred in structural design criteria since their plant was built and also to review the loads and load combinations used for design of plant structures by comparing them with the loads and load combinations now specified for ::urrent construction. The licensee's objective is to assess the impact that these changes may have on margins of safety of Seismic Category I structures as they were originally perceived and as they would be perceived under current criteria. Upon completion of this work, licensees report their findings to the NRC. To assist in this review, the NRC provided licensees with plant-specific Technical Evaluation Reports (TERs) concerning these issues (e.g., Reference

1). The TERs listed design code changes and, on a building-by-building basis, the load and loading combination changes to be addressed in the licensee review. The items listed were ones judged to have the greatest potential to degrade the originally perceived margins of safety.

In May IS83, under contract NBC-03-81-130, the NBC retained the Franklin Research Center (FRC) to assist in its review of licensee findings. This report describes the review for the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 and summarizes Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation's (BGEE) compliance status with respect to the implementation of SEP Topic III-7.B. nklin Research Center A h af The Fm m

TER-C5506-423 2. DESIGN CODE CHANGES DESIGNhTED SCALE A l, Current structural design codes contain provisions that differ from, or l< did not appear in, the codes to which older plants were designed and con-structed. Changes that were judged to have the potential to significantly affect perceived margins of safety have been designated as Scale A. These changes are discussed item-by-item in this section of the report. 2.1 SEEAR CONNECTORS FOR COMPOSITE BEAMS Four major modifications to the 1963 AISC Code [2] related to the type, distribution, and spacing of shear connectors for composite Maas occur in the l' 1980 Code [3]. These modifications ares a. Permission to use lightweight structural concrete (concrete made with C330 aggregates) in composite designs b. Allowance of design for composite action in the negative acaent l region of continuous beams and provision of design guidance for including the longitudinal reinforcing steel in the negative moment resisting section Design requirements for the minimum number of shear connectors in c. regions of concentrated load d. Maximum and minimum spacing requirements in tsras of stud diameters. The first two modifications will not affect old designs because they were not allowed by the previous code. The new provisions concerning the number of t studs in the region near concentrated loads and the new limits concerning spacing of studs may adversely affect the margin of safety in older designs when checked against the new code provisions. These new requirements are of special concern in the case of composite beams subject to large concentrated loads, such as those associated with extreme environmental or critical accident conditions. 2.2 col @OSITE BEAMS OR GIRDERS WITH FORIED STEEL DECK The 1980 AISC Code (3] contains a new section covering stay-in-place 1 formed steel deck when used in a composite design. TheseprovisfoNsfor I l nklin Research Center A Ohemen af The Fm busame + - - - -.,m-e.-- -y. g., ,w-v-- -.m,, y ,m_ -7 .,,--p... p--.__-.,t-r r 7*'WW .'""-T*-'P- '"-""-'**'W*'-**-"vr-= g---wqoyy,.-

) TElkC5506-423 ) i i I formed steel decking, depending on the rib geometry and the direction of the riba relative to the beam, may affect the load capacity of the shear studs and the effective flange width of the assumed concrete compression flange. They provide for reduction factors, to be applied to t.he shear stud allowable capacity, which account for the structural irregularity introduced into the { composite slab. l f Composits beams with formed steel decks that were designed to the previous code could have less conservative margins of safety wnen compared to l present requirements, especially in c.tses where extreme loadings are to be considered. 2.3 FLANGE STRESS IN HYBRID GIRDERS The AISC Code section covering reduction of bending stress in the comp"ession flange was modified in the 1980 Code. The original flange stress reduction formula in the old code was needed to account for stress transfer which may occur in ordinary beam webs if the compression region should deflect laterally, thereby changing the bending capacity of the cross section. In hybrid girders, the amount of the loss of bending resistance resulting from this phenomenon will vary depending on the relative properties of the web and flange steel. A reduccd bending stress formula reflecting this interaction was introduced. In order to keep the formulation relatively simple, the reduc.d bending stress was made applicable to both flanges of the hybrid member. Beans or girders fabricated from plate where the flange and web steels are different could have lower margins of safety under the new code than were thought to exist under older code requirements where the ratio of web yield stress to flange yield stress is less than 0.45 and the ratio of the web area to flange area is low. 2.4 STRESSES IN UNSTIFFENED COMPRESSION ELEMENTS ~ New requirements provide stress reduction factors for unstiffened elements subject to compression with one edge free parallel to the compressive stress. ranidin Research Center A Dhemen of The Fransen insumme vr =-eamm-- ge e w ,p.- -,a-- ,-,y.--.,-.- mr.m .ie e-e.'w--er we w w-y rw-=---w w v m - w e -www=v'---g'3--Tv w-v--twyi-e%---=v*7 FW+ W-t-' W"^*"'&--w---w"-wM=w-wm'e'--*-"N

TER <5506-423 Previous code provisions allowed the designer to neglect a portion of the area of such elements. The new code requirements provide equations for var-ious elements based on the critical buckling stress for plates. The new analytical approach is more conservative for the steams of toes and less conservative for all other cases. Wiere structural toes are used as main members and the tee stem is in l I compression, the margin of safety for older designs checked under the new code could be significantly less than was thought under prior code requirements. Since bucking is a non-ductile type failure, these new requiraments are of special concern in the case of tee shapes subjected to the extreme environ-mental or critical accident conditions. 2.5 MhXIIEJM IDAD IN RIVETED OR BOLTED TENSILE MEMBER 3 ~ The 1980 AISC Code [3] introduces codes changes which affect the maximum l load permitted in tensile members. Two interacting code changes are involved in establishing this limit, and the mutual effects of both must be considered in assessing the impact of the new code upon the perception of margins of saf'ety in tension members. The two provisions involved concern: 1. the tensile area permitted to be used in establishing load carrying capacities 2. the allowable stresses to be used in conjunction with these areas. Both effects are taken into account in ranking this change. The potential magnitude of the mutual effects of the two changes is discussed below. The 1980 AISC Specification definition of " Effective Net Area" introduces a reduction coefficient which is to be applied to the traditional definition of net area. This essentially changes the design capacity of a tension member when compared to older versions of these specifications. First consider only r the effect of the critical area used for the design of a tension member as defined in the new code compared to the critical area used for the design of ~~ the same member as defined in the old code. Clearly, if all other factors are ranklin Research Center A(kneen of The husen bustas .-,n..~..---.,.,-..- .,,_c,.., . -.... -.... _..,....,....... _.. _ -. -.. ~.... -.

1 i TE1K 5506-423 equal, the new code is acra conservative. !However, all other factors are not I the same. The changes in allowable tensile stress definition (on the gross area and on the effective net area). which 'were introduced simultaneously with the new definition of effective net area modify the above conclusion. Ia addition, the traditional upper limit on the critical not area of 854 of the gross area (a requirement of the cid code) is no longer a requirement of the new code. Both of these changes interact with the new effective not area requirement. ~ A valid assessment of the effect of these changes is bent accomplished by If a comparison of the allowable load each code permits in tension members. one conside:s the allowable load on the effective not area, the value based on 4 the new code is a function of three variables: the new reduction coefficient, the net area,* and the ultimate tensile strength "of the steel. The allowable load based on the old code is a function of only two variables: the net area and the yield strength of the steel..First, form the load ratio of the allowable load defined by the new; code criteria to the allowable load defined by the old code criteria. Next, consider the ranges of all of the parameters mentioned above, this ratio will have defined upper and lower limits which are a function of the ratio of the. not areas, the new code not area reduction factor, and the ratio of the steel ultimate strength to the yield strength. I For all the steels allowed under the new code, this load ratio ranges from 1.5 to 0.69. For all the steels allowed under the old code, this load ratio ranges from 1.6 to 0.88. It is apparent that, for those steels with load ratios less than 1.0, the new code is less conservative than the old. The margin of, safety of some older designs therefore could be significantly lower when checked against the new code requirements. l l 2.6 SEEAR Iis.D IN COPED BEAMS The 1980 AISC Code (3] introduces additional control over the shear load permitted at beam end connections where the top flange has been coped.

In making this comparison, one must be careful to note that the not' area is not always the same under the old and new codes.

-S-ranklin Research Center A 00muuan af The Freemen trusiuse e e-----e w aa-----r e - - --- - -.. w e- ---w-,---m ww,

v

---vr--- - - -,,- = - - - <--m---e- --+-= ti ---e>-w-

g--------+rw r

TER-C5506-423 Web shear control in older codes did not distinguish between coped and uncoped beams or between shear allowed at connections and over the free span The shear (escept for requiring reinforcement of thin webs at connections). load allowed was given by: I allowable shear load = 0.4 (yield strength) (gross web section). The 1980 Code retains this limit, but introduces an additional requirement to protect against a failure mode associated with coped beams. For coped beams (and similar situations), a portion of the web may sever, failing along the perimeter of the connection holes. In particular, coped beam web connections where the fastener holes lie close to the butt end of the beam may be prone to sudt failures. This web " tear out" failure is actually a combination of shear failure through the line of fasteners together with tensile failure across the shortest path to the beam end. The failure surface turns a corner with shear failure along a line trending upward through the holes, combined with tensile failure across a more-or-less horizontal line running out to the beam end. The newly introduced shear limit is given as a function of the minimum net failure surface and the steel ultimate strength. Thus, the new requirements may or may not control a coped beam's allowable capacity in Whether or not it does depends on both the connection geometry and the shear. type of steel used. talen this requirement is controlling, coped beams designed by previous rules may be found, if checked against the new criteria, to have significantly smaller margins of safety than previously thought. 2.7 COLUsel WEB STIFFENERS AT FRAME JOINTS The more recent editions of the AISC code mandate which columns must be stiffened at locations where beams of girders are rigidly attached to the column flange and also establish requirements for the geometry of such web These requirements are introduced to preclude local crippling at stiffeners. such frame joints,

p. nklin Research Center A Dhaman of The FrueAn hughne

i 1EA-C5506-423 4, No such guidance was provided by AISC-63 (2]. 41 der codes (such as b AISC-63) left such matters to the designer's discretion. Consequently, there is ps, assurance that all such columns are adequately stiffened for current eccident and faulted loadings, ~.: 2.8 LATERAL SUPPORf SPACING IN FRAMES (PLASTIC DESIGN ISTROD) The 1980 AISC Code contains changed spacing requirements for lateral supports in portions of members in frames where failure mechanisms are expected to form at ultimate load. Members of such frames must not only be capable of developing a plastic hinge, but must also be stable enough to sustain moments larger than those computed on an elastic-perfect-plastic theory (because real steels work-harden at strains expected to occur at hinge locations). Previous lateral bracing Research on requirements were developed for a limited range of steels. high-strength steels has shown that, for certain ranges of slenderness ratio of the compression flange of such frame members, older specification bracing requirements were not sufficiently conservative. The new specification requirements make the slenderness ratio limits a function of the steel yield strength and the member curvature (as expressed by the ratio of the lesser bending moment at the ends of the unbraced segment to the plastic moment). The new spscifications are more conservative for (1) any segment bent in double curvature regardless of its steel specification and (2) very high-strength steel members. The adequacy of frame members bent in single curvature and constructed of steels whose yield strength exceeds 36 kai should be examined on a case-by-case basis. The new requirements may reduce the margins of safety thought to exist in: structures designed under the plastic requirements of older codes 1. elastica 11y designed structures sized to carry a smaller maximum 2. load than is now required by current accident and faulted load combinations. In this case, plastic logic may have to be. invoked to !3onconformKnce with justify the adequacy of exisiting structures. 000 Franidn Research Center A Dhaman af b hengen hughes w.w--- +m-y--. .,., -. -,,---yw,- g. -.,._,w.- -_g.,,,,,,99,, ,,_g - - - -mw-3,7 c.- -y-p, w_,,_,,. p--.,- - - --y-

i. 6 TEA-C5506-423 current bracing requirements may substantially restrict the capability of frame members to carry code-acceptable overloads. 2.9 BRACKETS AND COREELS d ACI 349-76 [4], Section 11.13 contains design requirements for short brackets and corbels which are considered primary load-carrying memberst no comparable requirements are provided in ACI 318-63 [5]. The requirements apply to brackets and corbels having a shear span-to-depth ratio of unity or less. They provide minimum and maximum limits on tension and shear reinforcement, limits on ultimate shear stress in concrete, and constraints on member geometry and location of reinforcement. Brackets and corbels designed under earlier codes may or may not satisfy the newly imposed limits. If they do not, they may be prone to non-ductile failure (which occurs suddenly and without warning) and may exhibit smaller margins of safety than those currently required. 2.10 SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR WhLLS 2.10.1 Shear Walls ACI 349-76, Section.s 11.15.1 through 11.15.6 specify requirements for reinforcing and permissible sheer stresses for in-plane shear loads on walls. The ACI 318-63 Code had no specific requirements for in-plane shear on shear walls. 2.10.2 Punching Shear ACI 349-76, Section 11.15.7 specifies permissible punching shear stresses for walls. ACI 318-63 had no specific provisions for walls for these stresses. Punching loads are caused by relatively concentrated lateral loads on the walls. These loads may be from pipe supports, equipment supports, duct supports, conduit supports, or any cther component producing a lateral load on a wall. ~ i I

p. " '

nidin Research Center A Osamen of The Fransen muunne _ _ _ _. ~. _. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _.. _ _. _ _ _.. _ _

Ii j J l 5 TER-C5506-423 2.11 ELElerfS LCEDED IN MEAR NITE NO mammar TENSION (SEEAR FRICTION) The provisions for shear friction given in ACI 349-76 did not exist in ~ ACI 318-63. These provisions specify reinforcing and stress requirements for situations where it is inappropriate to consider shear as a measure of diagonal tension. 2.12 ELEBENTS SUBJECT TO TEMPERATUEE VARIATIONS The ACI 349-76 (4], Appendia A requirements for consideration of temperature variations in concrete were not contained in ACI 318-63. Thase new provisions require that the effects of temperature gradients and the difference between mean temperature and base temperature during normal operation or accident conditions be considered. The new provisions also require that thermal stresses be evaluated considering the stiffness and rigidity of members and the degree of reistraint of the structure. 2.13 COLUMNS NITH SPLICED REINFOICING L The ACI 349-76, Section 7.10.3 requirements for columns with spliced reinforcing did not exist in the ACI 318-63 Code. The ACI 349-76 Code requires that splices in each face of a column, where the design load s*.ress in the longitudinal bars varies from fy in compression to 1/2 fy in tension, be developed to provide at least twice the calculated tension in that face of l the column (splicas in combination with unspliced bars can provide this if applicable). This code change requires that a minimum of 1/4 of the yield capacity of the bars in each face of the column be developed by both spliced and unspliced. bars in that face of the column. 2.14 EMBRDMENTS Appendix B of ACI 349-80 provides rules for the design of steel embedmonts in concrete; the design of embedmonts is not specifically addressed in ACI 318-63. Current requirements of Appendix B are based upon ultimate sts,ength design using factored loads. The anchorage design is controlled by the ranklin Reneerch Center A Dhaman of The F#essen insmae

i TER-C5506-423 a i ht 1 ultimate strength of the N-nt steel. Ductile failure (i.e., steel yields 2 before concrete fails) is postulated. j Under the provisions of ACI 318-63, the design of embedmonts was left to the discretion of the designer. Working stress design methods were widely I used. Consequently, it is likely that original embedmont designs do not fully conform to current criteria. Review of such designs to determine the implications with respect to margins of safety is therefore judged a desirable precaution. 2.15 DUCTILE RESPONSE TO IMPULSE LOADS Appendix C to ACI 349-76 [4] contains design rules for structures which may be subjected tc. impulse or impact loads; no such provisions occur in ACI 318-63 [5]. The rules of Appendix C are intended to foster ductile response (i.e., steel yields prior to concrete failure) cf nuclear structures if and when they experience impulse or impact loads. For structures built to codes not ( containing such provisions, there is no assurance that sufficient design effort was directed toward proportioning members to provide energy absorbtion capability. Consequently, such structures might be prone to non-ductile, sudden failure should they ever experience postulated accident loadings such as jet impingement, pipe whip, compartment depressurization, or tornado missiles. 2.16 TANGENTIAL SHEAR (CONTAIIGEENTS) Paragraph CC-3421.5, Tangential Shear, of Section III, Division 2 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code [6] addresses the capacity of reinforced concrete containments to carry horizontal shear load. It provides code-acceptable levels of horizontal shear stress that the designer may credit to the concrete. No specific guidance in this matter exists in ACI 318-63. The provisions associate the allowable concrete stress in hor-isontal shear with the concrete properties, the manner in which lateral loads are ranklin Research Center A Dammen of The F useen ensehne m. %

TER-C5506-423 imposed on the structure, and the presence of sufficient reinforcement to assure that the assumed shear capacity of concrete can be developed. Sufficient diagonal reinforcement (or its demonstrated equivalent) is to be supplied to carry, without excessive strain, shear in excess of that permitted in the concrete. A asjor consideration here is the preservation of the structural integrity of the liner. r1 In containments constructed to older codes, such matters were lef t to the discretion of the designer, who any or any not have provided the horizontal shear capacity at controlled strains that the code currently requires. 2.17 AREAS OF CONTAI1 GENT SHELL SUBJECT TO PERIPHERAL SEEAR Concrete containment design is currently governed by the ASME Boiler and Pressure vessel Code. Section III, Division 2,1960 [6]. The provisions for peripheral (punching) shear appear in code Section CC-3421.6. These provisions are similar to the ACI 318-63 Code [5] provisions for slabs and, footings, except that the allowable punching shear stress in CC-3421.6 includes the effect of shell membrane stresses. For membrane tension, the allowable concrete punching shear stress in the ASME Code is less than that allowed by ACI 318-63. 2.18 AREAS OF CONTAI1GEENT SHELL SUBJECT TO TORSION Concrete containment design is currently governed by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 2,1980. Section CC-3421.7 of the code contains provisions for the allowable torsional shear stress in the concre te. Such provisions were not contained in the ACI 318-63 Code. The present allowable torsional shear stress includes the effects of the membrane stresses in the containment shell and is based on a criterion that limits the principal membrane tension stress in the concrete. l i ' I U Frenidin Research Center A Dsamen of The Fw m -P'--- N* 7--.e--vv-m--=-www-rw-.www-w--pr e Hv up-i-*t-we--y1-*ew-ww wewwm--3--em--w-$--e-Tw e-r wW=-rww-1wNw -gi 'wr= y se er ywe-- -rmt9T'

w

"--*N*=P F--T

TER-C5506-423 4 4 2 19 TEERMILL LQLDS ACI 349-76 Appendix A and AS8E B&PV Code, Section III, Div. 2, CC-3440 contains requirements for consideration of temperature variations in concrete 1 that are not contain'ed_in ACI 318-63. The new provisions require consideracion of the effects of thermal s gradients and of the effects depending on.the mean temperature distribution and the base temperature distribution during normal operation or accident conditions. The new provisions also require that thermal stresses be eval-usted considering the stiffness and rigidity of members and the degree of restraint of the structure. An assessment is to be made of the analytical methods used to determine thermal stresses as compared to current code-acceptable practices, e.g., those discussed in ACI 349.1R-80 and the commentary to ACI 349R-80. If the methods used for design produce st.ress results which are signifi-cantly different from those current procedures generate, perceived margins of safety could be affected. 2.20 AREAS OF COtrfAIletENT SHELL SUBJECT TO BIAXIAL TENSION Increased tensile development lengths are required by Section CC-3532.1.2 of Reference 6 for reinforcing steel bars terminated in areas of reinforced i concrete containment structures which may experience biaxial tension. For biaxial tension loading, bar development lengths, including both straight embedmont lengths and equivalent straight length for standard hooks, are j required to be increased by 25% over the standard development lengths required for uniaxial' loading. Nominal temperature reinforcement is excluded from i these special provisions. ACI 318-63 had no requirements related to this increase in development length. j 2.21 BRACKETS AND CORBELS (ON THE CONTAIISIENT SHELL) The ACI 318-63 Code did not specify requirements for brackets and Provisions for these componants are included in the ASME,, Boiler and corbels. v Pressure vessel Code, Section III, Division 2, Section CC-3421.8. These ranklin Research Center A OhangR af The PfacedR bumag -.. ~... -....

y.,-

e-.,--..,-9,g._ y,,-y- - - _,,,---.._, __. - - - - ,y--,- m. em-,,,,n ,y,,_,.-..,,-m---%me.-e-w --A.

TER-C5506-423 provisions apply to brackets and corbels having a shear-span-to-depth ratio of unity or less. The provisions spe~'if minimum and maximum limits for tension and shear reinforcing, limits on shear stresses, and constraints on the member geometry and placement of reinforcing within the seaber. 6 0 9 ranklin Research Center A DMmen of The Fw m

TER-C5506-423 k 0 1

3., REVIEN K5TBCD AND TABULAR PRESENTATIONS i

} The information relating to SEP Topic III-7.5 which was supplied to the [ NBC by Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation and made available for this review is contained in the following documents: J. E. Maler, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 1. Letter to D. M. Crut& field, Chief, Operating Reactor Branch No. 5, USNBC Structural Reanalysis Program, SEP Topics II-2.A, III-2,

Subject:

III-4.A, and III-7.B, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-244 April 22,1983 J. E. Maier, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 2. Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, Chief, Operating Reactor Branch No. 5, USNRC Structural Reanalysis Program, SEP Topics II-2.A, III-2,

Subject:

III-4.A, and III-7.B, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Docket N3. 50-244 May 19,1983 J. E. Maier, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 3. Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, Chief, Operating Reactor Branch No. 5, USNBC SEP Topic III-7.B, Design Codes, Design Criteria, and Load Subjects Combinations, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-244 May 27, 1983 Gilbert Commonwealth calculations for the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 4. Unit 1 on the following subjects: Integrity of structural walls against punching shear (5.6,

a. of Reference 3).

Specific example: Main steam penetration under postulated LOCA. b., Integrity of elements loaded in shear with no diagonal tension (5.3, Attadment 3 of Reference 3). Specific example: Shear capacity of beam pockets supporting the intermediate building floor. Development length of lapped splices in columns (5.1, Attachment c. 3 of Reference 3). Specific examples Column group which includes control room column. d. Coped beams (4.2.6 of Refereace 2). Specific example: Integrity of roof beams (if coped) under extreme environmental load. y-ranklin Research Center A Denman of The Frenten trushee

TER-C5506-423 e. Steel embedmonts (4.2.9 of Reference 2). Specific example: Frame columns under low roof of the auxiliary building. Before undertaking licensee report reviews, F11C prepared tabular forms to be used as a working tool during the review process and also to document the review work and its findings when the review was ccapleted. These tables are intended to: 1. establish a systematic and comprehensive review procedure 2. standardize, as much as possible, the review process for all licensees 3. present a relatively ccapact overview of each licensee's SEP Topic III-7.B compliance status. Two such forms were prepared, one related to design code changes and the other to the differences between loads and load combinations used for design and loads and load combinations current today.* The form sheets provide space to summaarize key information reported in licensee responses. Certain items (such as descriptions of Scale A code changes, conclusions, and comments) frequently are not adaptable to abbreviated susmary. Por such items, the form sheets refer the reader either to sections of this TER where the matter is developed more fully or to an extended note list compiled on separate sheets. The note list, although detached from the main table in order to allow a fuller discussion, accompanies each table and should be rege-ded as an integral part of it. The form sheet consists of four major columnar sections which: 1. identify each Scale A iten 2. state the action that the licensee took or the logic that the licensee presented to resolve the item 3. provide an assessment of engineering conclusions that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence provided l

The tables for load and load combinations do not appear in this report because B(ME plans to address these matters fully and in due course as part of their

" Structural Reanalysis Program." However, for each Seismic Category I structure, B(ME listed currently appropriate load combinstions; tisis is I discussed later. A ouiio a e.,ch c nie, A Osamen af The Frunnen insener 9 yg .p--y ---+m---r-y -sW m-sy.e ,s-.i.->w, yye-e-.1-eg-----wegw--y.gr-- e---+wp---.w=w-- _ie-ep-- m=------v--+-r--wve- +

TER-C5506-423 4. summarise the licensee's compliance status with respect to the item. -{ Items listed on the tables are designed code changes (or itemized load 'i ( combinations) designated Scale A. This list is drawn directly from TER-C5257-322, the earlier report on this topic [1]. Licensees may choose to address potential concerns stemming from Scale A items in two ways-1. generically, i.e., on an overall basis which resolves the concern for all planc structures collectively, or 2. on a stracture-by-structure basis. The form sheets are compiled in a manner matching the licensee's approach, with one form sheet containing generically treated matters and with structure-specific form sheets for each structure-specific matter. Form sheets susmarizing the review findings concerning the licensee's compliance status with respect to the implementation of SEP Topic III-7.B aspects related to design code changes follow in Section 4. A discussion of the review findings concerning the licensee's compliance status with respect to load and load combination changes is presented in Section 5. i ? I i 4. ( A U u Franklin Research Center l A onumm er m numm v.ans. ,--n-

TER-C5506-423 4. TABULAR

SUMMARY

OF REVIEW FINDINGS OF LICENSEE COMPLIANCE STATUS COICERNING IMPLEMENTATION OF SEP TOPIC III-7.B IMPACT OF DESIGN CODE CHANGES Form sheets sununarizing the review findings concerning technical aspects with respect to the implementation of SEP. Topic III-7.B as related to design code changes follow. 1 l l l l 17-l g 000firanklin a .rch center ~~~ --g --,y-, g w r--,-

I FLAarre Ginna SUMMAEr OF LICENSEE COMPLIANCE STATUS - STRUCTUltEs A11 steel structuree j g INFACT OF DESIGN CODE CHANGES Sheet 1 of 11 j 3 3E g,5 CODE CHANGE CITED AA SCALE A. LICENSEE'S ACTION TO RESOLVE IN TER-5257-322 POTElfflAL CONCEfel EVAIA3ATION OF LICENSES'S ACTION LICSNSEE STATUS 18 SUFFICIEarr 18 METNOD EVIDENCE SitTUS IIITIB BEFEltENCED CODES DESCRIPTION OF 3 AND PARAGRAPH CODE CMANGE SEFEMNCE VALID AND REPCstrED TO CONCImSIONS BESPSCT TO ftMrflIER

T (See indicated FAGE APPROPRI-JUSTIFT CON-ABID COBSEIrFS TNIS C005 ACTIOll i

4 A CURnEttr DESIGN poport Section) DOCUBStar IIUMBER _APPauhCW ATE 7 CIESICBIS7 iSES II0rEl CBAIIGR MOUISSD { { AISC 1900 AISC 1961 l 1.11.4 1.11.4 Shear connectors Def. 2

p. 4-2 Calculations and con-Tee Tea C-1 Desolved Isome in composite App. A struction drawings were beame 2.1) reviewed for the use of -

ehear co.mectors for co.posite i a. h 1.!!.S Coeyosite beams pet. 2

p. 4-2 Calculations and con-Tee See teotes' C-2 CE for Further inves-or girders with App. A struction drawings were 1&2 loads shown tigation on draw-required for formed steel reviewed for compoette deck 2.2) beams with steel deck-ings.

C and D service h conditione. ing. Selected beams ao were analysed for loads t I shown on the drawinge. l 1.10.6 1.10.6 Mybrid girdere Bef. 2

p. 4-3 Construction drawinge Yes Yes C-3 Isot app!!- Isone cable 2.33 App. A and specifications were reviewed for the sais-tence of hybrid girders.

1.9.1.2 1.9.1 Compreeston pet. 2

p. 4-3 The plant structural Yes See IIotes C-4 CE for Further inves-l and App.

elements having App. A model was reviewed to 1&2 norme1 tion required C width /thicknese determine where tee sec= operating for C and D ratio greater tions were used in com-load com-service cond!- than specified pression. 11tese were binations. tions. in 1900 Code evaluated under norma! 2.4) operating load combina-tions. g Tension members, pet. 2

p. 4-4 poing the formulas and Tee Yes C-5 pesolved soone 1.f4.2.2 I

when load is App. A allowables for each transmitted by code, the structural bolts or rivets capacity of a generic g, un 2.5) design esemple was O computed and compared. i6 The Licensee has not yet considesed thle code change in conjunction with current accident and f aulted service loading conditions. y l Notess 1. Par agragh 4.1 in Aps,endia A of pef erence 2 states, "The ef fects of seismic loads are not a part of the code comparison of this resort.' i 2. I

a. c=n c= DM FIAstra G!nna S3 SupetARY Or LICENSEE COMPLI ANCE STATUS -- STRUCTUREe All steel structur6a INPACT OF DESIGN CODE CHANCES Sheet 2 of Il g ?" CODE CHANGE CITED AS SCALE A LICENSEE'S ACTIOct TO RESOLVE IN TER-5257 322 POTEnfTI AL CONCERN EVAIDATIOes OF LICENSEE *8 ACTIOel LICaseSEE STATUS y IS SurrICIEtrF [., RErEREHeED COoES DESCRirriON Or IS serTNoD EviDENc3 STArUS N TN AND PARAGRAPH CODE CHANGE RErERENCE VALID AND REPORTED TO 0M1015 RESDECT TO FURTtIER (See Indicated FAGE APPROPRI-JUSTirY Elli-AND COpetE88TS TNIS GIDE ACTIOII CURRENT. DESIGN Report Caction) DOCUMENT NUMBER APPROACE ATE 7 CIDSIONSF iSEE 300rE) CHA40GE REOUIRED AISC 1900 AESC 1961 1.5.1.2.2 seae end connec-Ref. 2

p. 4-5 Steel fabrication draw-Yes See teotes C-6 OE for Further inves-i tion with top App. A ings were reviewed for 1&2 loads shown tigation flange coped, if major members with isheet 13 on the required for subject to shear bolted connectione and construc-C and D service

$2.6) coped top flanges. tion draw-conditione. I Lightly loaded girts, ings. g platforms, stelt stringere, etc. were not i I included. I The block sheer capacity of each beam was com-l pared withs

1. loado shown on the construction drawinge I

2. the shear capacity of the bolts, or

3. the manimum allowable load for the beam span.

1.15.5.2 Column web Ref. 2

p. 4-6 Construction and fabri-Tee 86e Isotes C-7 OE for Further inves-through stiffeners for App. A cation drawings were 1&2 original tigation 1.15.5.4 connections reviewed for use of ISheet 1) applied required for g

carrying moment moment connections, loads. C and D service Y or restrained Only screenhouse roof conditions. i member connec-t eams were so designed. tion (2.7) These were checked us 0 against the AISC 1980 Code using the original f m applied loads. M 63 O e

a. e 4

i c=- } <-=2 D *TI 1 3 3 E no yX3 'Ip g3

r rIANr. canne O

StsetARY OF LICENSEE ODNPLI ANCE STATUS -- STRUCTURES All steel structures 3$ INPACT OF DESIGN CODE CNANGES Sheet 3 cf 11 CODE CHANGE CITED AS 6CALE A LICEMSEE'S ACTION TO ItESOLVE IN TER-5257-322 POTEstrIAL CONCERN EVAIDATION OF LICENSES'S ACTIOgg LICEBISEE STA1138 IS SUFFICIENT REFERENCED CODES DESCRIPTIOIB OF IS 8sT1000 EVIDEasCE STATUS titTIB AND PApACRAPN CODE CNANCE REFERENCE VALID AND REPOIITED TO COeICIA3SIOIS BSSreCT TO FURTHER l (See Indicated PAGE APPROPRI-JUSTIFT COII-AIID CGOElf78 TIIIS (X)DS ACTIOel cuppEter DISIGN Report Stction) DnCtetENT NtetBER APPROACM ATTP CLUSIONS7 ISES IIOTE) Cunar:r 33g01330 b AISC 1980 AISC 1963 O I 2.9 2.s Spacing of Re f. 2

p. 4-6 Avellable calculations Yes See amates C-8 Os for all atm action lateral supporto App. A and the Cinna FSAR were 162 loadings required unless of members reviewed for evidence of (Sheet 1) when reac-pleetic logic i

designed using plastic design methods. t!one is subsequently i plastic design roasta used to justify j methode (2.0) elastic at the Integrity bene of the esteting oupports. structures j under Scale A loading com-bine t t on. If i so, Licensee-stated con-1 cluetone east be reeseelned. t 5, t tn O Ch 96 N Su s e

W >,i 33E rialrre clane (5' SUfeuPY OF LICENSEE C00eLIAICE STATUS - STRUCTURE 8 All concreta structurae p;U INFACT OF DESIGN CODE CHAICES Sheet 4 of 11 3 [:T O CODE CNANGE CITED AS SCALE A LICENSEE'S ACTIOtt TO MSOLVE 3g,, IN TER-5 257-322 PortarfI AL C(asCERN EVAIAEAT1000 OF LICENSEE'S ACT1000 LICEtens STATUS IS SUFFICIENT Q S nETuoD EVIDENCE erATUS w Tu mere uMCED codes DEsCairfloM Or AND PARAGRAPN CODE CNANGE BEFEllEtCE VALID AND MPORTED TO CONCLUSI0tsS MSPgCT TO FUstruER (See Indicated PAGE APPHOP R2-JUSTIFT C000= AND C0ftMNFS TWIS CODE ACTl000 CupFENT DESICM poport Section) DUCUBENr tdOHsER AP P ROACM ATE 7 CLUSIOseS7 ISEE 98DrEl CHANGE SEQUIMD g ACI 349-76 ACI 311-63 11.13 short brackets pet.3

p. 17 Ccmcrete out!!ne draw-Tee Tea C-9 Desolved geone and corbels Inot Sect.

ings and available on the contain-5.2 original calculations ment shelli 12.9) Att. 3 were reelewed to deter-y mine where brackets and P 1 corbels were used. l Twelve corbete were I found. Significantly j loaded corbete having elsalar geometry were gr ouped. A corbel from eacts group ljudged to have the worst load) was evaluated for compliance with ACI 349-75 config-uratton requiromente. If all requirements were met, the capacity of the corbel was calculated in accordance with ACI 349-76. If a corbel did not conform to config-uration requiremente, the concrete sheer 4, stresses was computed, g taking no credit for g reinforcing. us o th I b. N tas

a PRANTs Ginna StactARY OF LICENSEE COMPLI ANCE STA1US -- ST90CTURE: A!! concrete structures e IMPACT OF DESIGN CODE CHANGES Sheet 5 of 11 i, >qh CODE CHANCS CITED AS SCALE A LICENSEE'S ACTION TO DESOLVE } gE IN TER-5257-322 Pottstf f AL CONCERM EVAIDATIOW OF LICENSES'S AMION LICENBEE STATUS g3 IS SUFFICIEarF i f 23 DEFERENCED CODES DESCRIPTION OF IS IWTN00 EVIDE88CE STATUS titTE AND PARAGRAPN CODE CHANGE REFERENCE VALID AND REPORTED 10 (D01CIDSIOt3 RESPECT TO FUeTNER (See Indicated PAGE APPSOPRI-JUSTIFY CD08-A81D C0petENTS Tills CODE ACTIOct g, 3 CURREDrF DESIGN Report Section) DOCUDElrF NUMBER APP 90AC4 ATE 7 CLUSIOGEE7 (SEE 000TE) CglAssGE RgGUIRED

T Q

ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 3{3 11.16.1 Shear walls used Bef. 3

p. 20 A total of 107 shear Yes Yes C-IS Resolved SGER has com-i 4

j l through ae primary load-Sect. walls was identified. escept for sitted to mete j 11.16.6 carrytra members 5.4.1 The walls in each bella-diesel modificationa i { (2.10.1) Att. 3 ing were taken se a generator to the diesel group, and further clas-building. generator sified as either inte-butiding. rior or esterior. One i wall representative of I each claestitcation was evaluated. For the controlling load com- ,t, bi-uon, i-,iane er-4 PJ tical, in-plane horison-I tal, and lateral loade l on the wall were evalu-ated to code provietone. (Shear wa!!e in the acreenhouse were evalu-4 t ated by comparison with aust!!ary building walle.1 i 11.16.7 ~~ Punching ahear Def. 3

p. 22 toad sheets from the Yes Yes C-11 Desolved Isono A

l stress for walle Sect. Ginna Selenic Upgrade l2.10.2) 5.4.2 Progree were reviewed to Att. 3 determine punching toede from pipe and equipment supporte. For p@ sup-porte, the most severe loads found were applied e.g 3, to the thinneet wall, N } using a 6-in aquete area f of application. The O M capacity of the wall calculated in accordance o with the ACI 349-76 pro-Eh violone was determined. [ Equigeant punching loads to W were individually treated.

E a > *11Bj 3 E IL 3 FIJurra Ginna gy a

SUMMARY

OF LICENSEE COITLI AFCE STATUS - STRUCTURES All concrete structures IMPACT OF DESIGN CODE CHANGES Sheet 6 of 11 i y3 t r CODE CHANGE CITED AS SCALE A LICENSEE'S ACTION TO RESOLVE f IN TER-5257-322 PorENTIAL CONCERN EVALUATION OF LICENSEE'S ACTION LICENSEE STATUS l IS SUFFICIENT 1 I REFERENCED CODES DESCRIPTICBI OF IS NETNOD EVIDENCE STATUS NITN AND PARAGRAPH CODE CNANGE BEFEREICE VALIO AND SEPORTED TO CONCIJJSIONS RESPECT TO FURTWER isee Indicated PAGE APPIBOP RI-JUSTIFY CON-AND COISEIFFS TNIS CODE ACTIOtt CURDENT DESIGN Report Section) DOCUIElfr HUMBE R APPROACE ATE 7 CLUSIONS7 ISEE IIryrE) CMAIC.E RSQUIMD ACI 349-76 ACI 310-63 11.15 Structural met. 3

p. le moview of concrete out-Yes Yes, but C-12 OE for rurther inves-alements loaded Sect.

line drawings and avail-see Ilote loads tigation may be I in shear where 5.3 able calculations C-11 and stated in required for U lt is inappro-Att. 3 revealed 203 shear-fric-status com-esemple C and D service i priate to con-tion conditions from a ment given in conditions. sider shear as a variety of beam and slab Reference measure of diag-supports and other sit-5.b. onal tension nations. Simtler con-(shear friction) figurations were grouped (2.11) together in 15 catego-ries. Taking credit only for reinforcement meeting ACI 349-76 pro-violons, the sheer capacity of one member (the most heav!!y loaded) of each group was determined. This capacity uas checked against a code-required factor of safety or q ifalling this) against M actual failure. Y t 4#5 Us O th 8 b DJ tal i e

PLANTS Ginaa <= SUIsthitt OF 8.ICENSEE COIeLIAICE STATUS - STDUCTUIISI All concrete structures a em IIeFACT OF DESIGN CODE CNANGES Sheet 7 of 11 q I= E3 CODE CIIANGE CITED AS SCALE s LICEIISER'S ACTION 10 PESOLVE I fM IN TElt-5257-322 PorENTIAL CONCERII BVAIAIATICII OF LICENES'S ACTICII LICEBISEE SFATUS ld IS SurrICIBarr 88 SEFERENCED CODES DESCRIPTICII Or IS 887N00 EVIDENCE STATUS IftTS AND PARAGRAPH CODE CNAle;E BEFEMICE VALID AND BEFOltfED TO COIICLUSIOIIS IESPECT TO FUltTIIER Th (See Indicated PAGE f.?PROPRI-JUST!PV COII-AND CONIEurtS 78038 CODE ACTICII Ig se CURRENT DESIGN Iteport Sectioni DOCUIstrT IIUMBER APPRDACM ATE 7 CIESICIIS7 185E IIDfE) CHAsIGE 350U3330 3 ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 j Appendte A Concrete regione Ref. 3

p. 23 In buildings where a Yes Yes C-13 pesolved IIone subject to high-Sect.

poselble thermal differ-temperature time- $.5 orentist condition of dependent and Att. 3 consequence could occur, poettion-depen-drawings and calcule-dont temperature Lions were reviewed to vartettons (2.123 detesmine thermal cond!- tiene. Sis situatione were found. Of these. g DJ the cable tunnel condi-f klon was judged to be the worst case and eval-usted. Using the moet severe loading combina-tion, the moments in the cable tunnel were detes- ] mined and compared to l the corresponding moment capacittee. 7.10.3 005 Column with met. 3

p. 15 Drawings and calcula-Yes Yes for the C-14 OE for Further inves-sp!!ced rein-Sect.

tions were reviewed to loads con-loads con-Ligation m y be forcement subject 5.1 determine columns with sidered in sidered in required for to stress rever-Att. 3 opliced reinforcings 57 the compu-the report. C and D service sat 12.13) were found. All use lap tationt but the conditions. splices at the bottom of report does the column. Dese were not clearly Q grouped. according to state that their reinforcing all estreme I detalle and sises, into load casee nine categottee. One have been ge heavily loaded colven conaldered un f rom each group was for all Q chosen for evaluation to column g A to ACI 149-76 prowl-groups. eions. D e splice U T 1 1 e

'I b PLANTA Cinna m STRUCTURES All concrete structures StDetARY OF LICENSEE COMPLI ANCE STATUS -- Sheet 8 of Il IMFACT OF DESIGN CODE CHANGES 3 'l E GI J 2" CODE CHANGE CITED AS SCALE A LICENSEE'S ACTION TO RESOLVE EVAIA3ATION OF LICEstSEE'S Action LICEsssEE STATUS !I m POTEstfl AL CMecERM ,l IN TER-5259-3,22 IS SurrICIENT N IS MET 8800 EVIDENCE STATUS WITM REFERENCED CODES DESCRIPTION OF VALID Ate REPOttTED TO CDOICIJ3SI005 RESPECT TO FURTIIER i! lf h AND PARAGRAPH CODE CHANGit REFERE80CE j' R lSee Indicated FAGE APPROPRI-JUSTIFY C000- AIID CCDetENTS 7518 G)DE ACTIOes

CUppENT, DESICH__ Report Section)_ DOCtDtRNT NLDeDER _

APPROACE ATT7 CLUS trues? lSEE genyE) CggAgggE REQUIRED ACI 349-76 ACI 118-63 i capacity was calculated. 7.10.3 It the ep!!ces did not

I (Cont.)

have the miniere required spilce length to fully develop the i bar, splice capacities e6 were reduced in propor-tton to their longth. i y Appendle B Steel embedmont Ref. 2

p. 4-7 From a total population Yes See Isotos C-15 Os for Further inves-

.4 m I used to transmit Sect. of 194 columns, 46 1&2 normal tigation may be load to concrete 4.2.9 (having concrete anchor-(Sheet 13 design required for loads assing C and D service age) were selected as a current conditions, (2.14) stattatical sample for load evatuatlon. These combine-column anchorages were

tione, checked for ductile fallute and other requirements of the ACI 349-80 Cbde.

If code requirements were met, e the anchorage was deemed acceptable. Il not, the ultimate capacity of the i anchorage was compared i to the normal design load combinations. Appendis.C Elements subject This item will be addressed in the Structural Upgrade Frogram. to imptusive and impactive loads, o f. whose fatture must be precluded a N (2.15) 84

e E

='

> 33 B/ PEAlfra Glana x 3 E SiseIARY OF LICEstSEE CDerLIAICE STATUS - ST9UCTU Ma All concrete structures IIIPACT OF DES!GM CODE CBAIIGES Mneet 9 of 11 E3 g'I b CODE CHANGE CITED AS SCALE A LICEstSES'S ACTICII TO 3ESOLVE IN TER-5257-322 POFElefl AL COIICEIul EVAIAIATICII W LICuaINE'S ACTICII LICWWE STATUS IS SUFFICIEart en E ItEFEllENCED C0bES DESCRIPTICII 0F IS 8ETes0D EVIDESICE SEA 198SETE AND P AllAGRAPM CODE CRIABIGE SEPE8EBCE VALID ASID M POIITED TO COICIAISICIIS MSPET TO FUEr5ER f (See Indicated PAGE APPIIOPSI-JUSTIPT Cole-Ase CopemIffS TEIS CGIE ACTICII CUemEerf DESIGN Seport Section) DUCUBEarr 30teIBE R APPROACM ATE 7 CLUSICe187 1885 IIDtEl CEASIGE 15003I30 AseE 86PV ACI 318-63 6 Code 4 Section III } Div 2, 1980 CC-3421.5 Containment Def. 3

p. 2 mesolved in ma transmitting TER-C5257-322 to Icos traneeltting Sect.

(Sectiosi 1.2, Attachment 3 of poterence 33 g so fnplane shear 1.2 p 12.16) Att. 3 CC-3421.6 1707 Region of the met. 3

p. 24 A total of 126 yonetra-yee Yes C-16 mesolved sem furtIner containment shell Sect.

tiene see identitled, action subject to 5.6 and grouped by sleeve required. periphural sheer Att. 3 dienster into ten cate-l l. 1,, , ort... S .r -

t.,

n_ tions for othere a *uoret case

penetration from each group was chosen and the she11 capec!ty of these penetratione mes evaluated. Actual factors of safety were calculated and compared ta es** factor of safety required by the code.

CC-34ht.7 921 Degion of con-met. 3

p. 26 Structural droutnge were yee Yes C-17 pesolved Iso festiner subject to 5.7 penetrations editch rely action tainment shell sect.

reviewed to identify required. un torsion (2.18) Att. 3 upon concrete capacity g to reelet torsion. Only a the main steam and feed-I mater ett.tiu,. we e e found to be so designed. t.s

D *11 3 FIAirts Cinna { st994ARY OF LICENSEE COMPLI ANCE STATUS -- STRUCTURES All concrete structures s5-INPACT F DESIGN CODE CHANGES Sheet 10 of 11 y= 4 CODE CHANGE CITED AS SCALE A LICENSEE'S ACTION TO RESOLVE i g :7 IN TER-5257-322 POTENTI AL CONCEeN EVAIDATIOes OF LICENSEE'S ACTIOsl LICENBEE STATUS gn IS SUFFICIENT [@ pErERENCED CODES DESCRIPTION OF IS NETHOD EVIDENCE STATUS MITU AND PARACRAPH CDDR CMANGE REFERENCR VALID AND REPORTED *TO COIICIAIS100EB RESPECT TO FURTMER g (See Indicated PAGE APPROPut-JUSTIFY COII-AND USENE88TS TEIS CODE ACTIO91 CURRErre DESIGe Report section) DOCrJMDFF IsuMBER APPROACM ATE? CLUSIONS? iSEE Isoft) CNAIIGE REQUIRED ASME B&PV ACI 310-61 Code Section III Div 2, 1900 CC-1440 Elemente subject Isot Per resolution ib), ic) to transient addressed, of -# [ thermal loading inst le CR-2544 q 12.10) conaldered findlage. B in NUREJ/ CR-2500. CC-3532. Acess of contain-Ref. 3

p. 27 Containment concrete Yes Yes C-IS 08, for Licensee should 1.2 ment shell sub-Sect.

drawings were examined load com-provide assur-ject to blaulat 5.9 to identify the areas bination ance that all tension (2.19) Att. 3 where main reinforcing conaldered. containment bare are terminated. service loade Nine areas were found were considered where the main reinfore-in thle evalm-ing bare in the well and tion. done are terminated and seven additional aream { where supplementary bare are terminated. Thir-I teen of the 16 areas j were individually evalu-g ated. The tensite M . development lengths 9, required for the con- -I tro;1ing load combina-La tion were compared to the development lengthe ch provided. [ 94 La

f m > T3 t 33 a=

X3 j

{ i se %g ^

Y O

= FIAarfs r!nne 3 SLD94ARY OF LICENSEE COMPLIANCE STATUS = LTRUCTURBs All ComCrete structures INFACT OF DESI28 CODE CHA00GES Sheet th of 11 CODE CHANGE CITED AS SCA12 4 LICENSEE *8 ACTIOtl TO RESOLVE IN TSR-5257-322 POTENTIAL COIGCERet BVAIA3ATICII OF LICBaSER'S ACTIOes LIC3MSRE STATUS IS SUFFICIENT i IS 857910D EVIDEssCE STATUS tritar j REFEltENCED CODES DEtiCRIPTIOtt OF AND PARAGRAPH CDDE CHANGE REFEREseCE VALID AIS REPORTED TO @tCIApSIOGE RESPECT TO pm (See Indicated PAGE APPROPRI-JUSTIFY EXIti-ABID C0BetENTS TtlIS CODE ACTIOII N CURRENT DES ICBI Report Section) DOctpqENT DMstBER _ APPROACil ATE 7 CLUSIONSF (SEE 90075) CIIARIGE REQUIRED g l CD ASME BsPV ACI 318-61 CoSe Section III Div 2, 1980 too tirachete Ikane CC-3421.0 Br ackets and Ref. 3

p. 27 Drawings and calcula-i corbeta in con-Sect.

tions for the contain-or corbete tainment shell 5.s ment shell were reviewed vers found (2.21) Att. 3 to determine where in the com-corbels were used. talement shell. i' t UI O M b8

) l TER-C5506-423 NOTES: In the following notes, the Licensee's conclusion is presented first, followed by the reviewer's comments, if any, in brackets. C-1. The review showed that the steel beam section was adequate to carry the applied loads and that composite action was not relied upon. C-2. The analysis showed that composite design was not required for these beams and the Licensee surmised that the existing shear connectors were provided to preclude lateral torsional buckling in the top flange. C-3. sae review showed n'o use of hybrid girders in plant structures. I C-4. The review showed that, under neraal load combinations, none of the tee section failed the code check for members in compression. C-5. The results of the generic review showed that, for the structural materials used in the Ginna plant, the AISC 1963 Code provides a more conservative design. [For this design code change, the conservatism or nonconservatism of the 1963 AISC code is material dependent. For the Ginna plant, where all structural members are of A-36 steel, the conclusion that the 1963 AISC Code 'is mort conservative is correct. However, this is not necessarily true of plants which also use other construction materials, particularly the higher strength steels.] C-6. In all cases, it was found that the beam capacity was controlled by one of the three other loading limits cited and not by the block shear capacity. [ Positive evidence that coping will not reduce safety margins is provided for those beams which pass comparison tests 2 and 3. For such beams, the critical section controlling beam capacity is not through the coping but elsewhere. Determination of coping acceptability by test 1 shows that safety margins (although smaller than formerly perceived to be) are still code acceptable for the loads that the Licensee considered, i.e., normal operating conditions. In any case, since to date only normal operating loads have been considered in the Licensee's review of this item, any structural concern about the acceptability of coped members at the Ginna plant is relegated to the review of member acceptability under the portion of the III-7.B topic devoted to loads and load combinatioWs.] 29-ranklin Research Center A Osnmen of The Fransen humane ,-w,.,,w-, n-m t_ mw&,y %gi,, .--we-.,,-,.,--,,,vi,,,-yy-,r- --.r-w w mm mg,.-y p,,-- pc- -.--m--

TER-C5506-423 C-7. It was determined that no column web stiffeners are required to safely carry the original applied loads. C-8. No evidence was found of plastic design methods being used. C-9. Evaluation of the twelve corbels showed: Six of seven corbels supporting primary structural elements met a. code requirments. One did not conform with the minimum reinforcing requirements but its stresses were too small to be of concern. b. The five corbels which support secondary elements did not comply with the code requirements for reinforcing. However, 1 all five have insignificant stresses. C-10. The evaluation showed: The shear walls in the auxiliary building, intermediate a. building, control building, containment interior structures, and screenhouse met the code requirements. b. The shear walls in the diesel generator building did not meet current code criteria because of the new code provision for in-plane shear. C-11. The evaluation found that, in all cases, the walls met the code required factor of safety for punching shear. C-12. The results showed: that Six groups representing 26 conditions had safety factort. a. were equal to or greater than the code-required factor of safety, considering only code-satisfying reinforcing. Five groups representing 108 conditions met the code-required b. factor of safety, considering code-satisfying reinforcing plus l taking credit for any additional well-anchored reinforcing l installed. Two groups representing three conditions met the code-required c. factor of safety for shear stresses in enreinforced concrete. d. One group representing six conditions (beam pockets for beam supporting the intermediate building floor) had an actual f factor of safety less than the code requires, but greater than unity against ultimate failure. l

p. -- nklin Research Center A Dnemen r4 The Frereen truumme

---.----,,-,.,,-----w ,,.n, -, - -,,,, - -, - - - - - - - - - - - -, - -, - - + - - - - - - - - - -~-w

TER-C5506-423 i e [ Computations for the beam pockets for beams supporting the floor at elevation 271 ft in the intermediate building were examined during of the review. This was one of several sample calculations arbitrarily chosen by the reviewers and provided l by the Licensee to serve as examples typical of computations made by the Licensee in support of its conclusions. It was noted that the loading combination used in this computation was the most severe of the operating loads (which included the e operational basis earthquake). However, a more severe loading would appear to occur under accident conditions (for example, a load combination including the safe shutdown earthquake). If the same procedure used for the check computations made by tae Licensee were applied to the latter loading, it appears that the beam pockets would exhibit a factor of safety less than 1. However, the C. heck computation is conservative. It ralies on the shear capacity of the concrete alone and takes no credit for additional shear resistance provided by existing bearing plate anchors and other reinforcement that may also be present.] One group representing two conditions met the code required e. of factor of safety assuming an in-situ concrete strength (f'c) This 3300 pai, as opposed to the 28-day strength of 3000 pai. in-situ strength is judged to be reasonable. [The reviewers concur that it is reasonable to expect a l long-term strength increase of at least this much.] f. The results for the screenhouse show the safety factors are greater than those required by the code, C-13. The factor of safety found for the cable tunnel was greater than I the code requires. Based on this " worst case, the remaining five t elements were judged to meet the current code requirements. l l C-14. The evaluation found all concrete columns examined met the code required factor of safety. C-15. Results of the evaluations Of the 46 column anchorages evaluated, 22 did not meet the ACI a. 349-80 Code, b. Of the 22 that did not meet the code, 5 anchorages were unacceptable for the applied loads. Using statistical projection, at a 95% confidence level,,po more than 27% of the population of 194 column anchorages would have I unacceptable margins of safety for normal load combinations. ( 1 As rankun Research Center A Osnman of The Fw buemme . - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ ~ ~ _ ~ _ _. _ _. _ - - ~, _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _, _

TER-C5506-423 C-16. The results of the evaluations For penetration groups with 6-in,12-1/2-in, and 14-1/4-in a. diameter sleeves, the code-specified punching shear capacity of the concrete exceeded the ultimate axial load of the pipe penetration. I b. For penetration groups with 24-in and 54-in diameter sleeves, the shell capacity was judged to be adequate, since no significant punching shear loads were identified. At equipment and personnel locks, significant punching shear c. loads occur under containment internal pressure only. Under the abnormal loading condition (1.5 Pa), adequacy against punching failure local to the penetration was demonstrated by calculations. d. For the groups with 10-in and 24-1/4-in diameter sleeves, the shell capacity was shown adequate. For the 29-in and 45-1/4-in diameter sleeve groups (feedwater e. and mainstream penetrations), the shell was found not to meet j the current code-required factor of safety using pipe rupture loads from the original plant design calculations. However, the actual factor of safety is greater than 1.0. C-17. A torsional shear stress check was not required. C-18. In all of the 13 areas evaluated, the provided tensile development lengths exceeded ASME Code requirements. l 9 i

p. -

nklin Research Center A Dhannen cd The Framen enemmae

TFh C5506-423 5. REVIEN FINDINGS - LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS This section presents, on a structure-by-structure basis, the review I findings concerning the Licensee's compliar.co status with respect to the loads and load combination aspects of SEP Topic III-7.5. 5.1 CONCRETE CONTAIW err SEEL18 The reviewers concur with the RGEE conclusion (see Page 10, Attachment 3, l Reference 9) that the following set of loads is, as reduced by building-specific considerations, a proper loading combination under current criteria. 1. D + L + F + Pv + To + Ho 2. D + L + F + Pv + To + P.o + Ro 3. D + L + F + PV + To + W + Ro 4. D + 1.3L + F + PV + To + 1.5Eo + Ro 5. D + 1.3L + F + Pv + To + 1.5W + Ro 6. D + L + F + PV + To + Ess + Ro 7. D + L + F + PV + To + Nt + Ro 8. D + L + F + 1.5Pa + Ta + Ra 9. D + L + F + Pa + Ta + 1.25Ra 10. D + L + F + 1.25Pa + Ta + 1.25Eo + Ra 11. D + L + F + 1.25Pa + Ta + 1.25W + Ra

12.

D + L + F + To + Bo

13.

D + L + F + To + W 14. D + L + F + Pa + Ta + Ess + Ra + Yr + Yj TER-C5257-322 had cited load combinations 7, 8, and 14 as Scale A,. f RG&E has demonstrated in Section 1, Attachment 2 of Reference 3 that load ccabinations 7 =d S =y be reed fra= #cala A, classification. This conclusion is based on the results of SEP Topics II-2 and III-6. Based on the conclusions drawn in NUREG/CR-1821 (substantiating the seismic adequacy of the containment to withstand SSE censidered as acting alone) and the findings of NUREG/CR-2580 (where seismic stresses were considered in combination with other loadings), the Scale A rating may also be removed from load combination 14.

The Licensee's response references a single load combination (designated as License No.12) representing the combined load combinations 12"and 13. rankun Research Center A Dhamun af The Fm tumme w - - - - - -y w7 r-w--wtw w-

w--

w- --'mi-r-e-

'w r'-w--'wo--------w-w w-ww-r-m*'wy

m

mw-

.wm.

w----mes----

TER-C5506-423 5.3 COWrAIlesirf LINER Based on the information provided by RG&E (section 2, Attachment 2, Reference 3), the following set of loads appears to be a proper loading combination under current criteria when reduced by plant-specific I considerations. 1. D + L + F + To 2. D + L + F + To + Eo 3. D + L + F + To + W 4. D + L + F + To + Eo 5. D + L + F + To + W 6. D + L + F + To ' Est 7. D + L + F + To + Nt 8. D + L + F + Pa + Ta + Ra 9. D + L + F + Pa t Ta + Ra 10. D + L + F + Pa + Ta + Eo + Ra 11. D + L + F + Pa + Ta + W + Ra

12.

D + L + F + Ea + To + Eo

13. D + L + F + Ea + To + W 14.

D + L + F + Pa + Ta + Ess + Ra Load combinations 7, 8, and 14 are cited in TER-C5257-322 as scale A,. Although the concrete shell and liner form an intergral structure and are currently designed to the same code provisions, the liner was given individual attention in the Topic III-7.5 study because of the special considerations associated with it. Primary among these considerations is maintenance of I liner integrity. Loading cases 7, 8, and 14 are retained as' scale A, pending: 1. Resolution under Topic III-6 of effects associated with pipe reactions occurring under accident or faulted service conditions. 2. Resolution of concerns for done liner integrity raised in NUREG/CR-2580. l

See footnote on page 33.

p. ~

l 00 rankHn Research Center A Onamen of The reuseen buenam ~ ~. -.

TER-C5506-423 + 0 1 l 5.3 SPENT FUEL POOL (CONCRETE) l The reviewers concur with the RG&E conclusion that the following set of loads is, as reduced by building-specific considerations, a proper load combination under current criteria. 1. 1.4D + 1.7L 2. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.9E0 3. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W 4. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L) 5. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.9Eo) 6. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W) 7, 1.2D + 1.9EO 8. 1.2D + 1.7W 9. D+L+Ess 10. D + L + Nt 11. D+L 12. D + L + 1.25Eo 13. D + L + Ess TER-C5257-322 had cited load combinatic ns 10 and 13 as Scale A,. RG&E has demonstrated in Secticn 3, Attachment 2 of Reference 3 that. load combinations 10 and 13 may be removed from the list. This was based on the Licensee's response concerning loading case 10 which states: "It was shown in the SER's for SEP Topics III-2 and III-4.A, that the Spent Fuel Pool would not be affected by wind and tornado"(including missile) loadings." Concerning loading case 13, the Licensee stated: "The spent fuel pool was shown to be adequate to withstand SSE loads, per N'":EG/CR-1821. Temperature variations as the result of failures in the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling system were considered, and found acceptable, in the NBC's SER for SEP Topic IX-1, ' Fuel Storaga', dated January 27, 1982." The original analysis of the spent fuel pool treated earthquake loadings using static equivalent forces; current practice requires dynamic analysis. However, because the pool is a massive structure and because of its location, it is expected to respond to secthquake loads without appreciable amplification or structural deformations. Consequently, it seems reasonable to expect that static and dynamic treatment should not produce widely divergent r sults. ranklin Research Center A Chuman of The Fransen huanne

TER-C5506-423 On this basis, for Topic II-7.B objectives, the review finds that pool adequacy has been demonetrated. 5.4 AURILIARY BUILDING (CONCRETE) l The reviewers concur with the RG&E conclusica that the following set of loads is, as reduced by building-specific consideratior.s, a proper loading combination under current criteria. 1. 1.4D + 1.7L 2. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.9Eo 3. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W 4. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7R0) 5. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7Bo + 1.9Eo) 6. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7B0 + 1.7W) 7. 1.2D + 1.950 8. 1.2D + 1.7W 9. D + L + Bo + Ess 10. D + L + Ro + Nt 11. D+L+Ra 12. D + L + Ra + 1.25Eo 13. D + L + Ra + Esa TER-C5257-322 had cited load combinations 10 and 13 as Scale A,. The A, classification for both of these loading combinations is retained pending: 1. resolution of issues,related to masonry walls, and 2. establishment of embedmont strength needed to ensure that all columns can wi:.nstand loadings found during SEP seismic review and alco from tornado loadings at wind magnitudes satisfying SEP objectives. BG&E syates that loading combination 13 reduces to loading combination 9, a case treated in the original analysis of the auxiliary building. Except for regions local to pipe penetrations or pipe s;:pports (or the like), this equivalency does exist. However, it should be made clear that absence of a Scale A citation of a previously analyzed load combination does not necessarily reflect tacit agreement that existing analytical results are in full accord with current criteria. It merely indicates that some other loading combination was deemed likely to be more significant.

p. - - A ranklin Research Center AOhemenofTheF 6 hughee

s. . - ~.... TER-C5506-423 5.5 AUXILIARY BUILDING (SThEL) Based on the information provided by RG&E (Section 5, Attachment 2 of Reference 3), the following set of loads appears to be a proper loading combination under the current criteria. 1. D+L 2. D+L+E 3. D+L+W 4. D + L + Ro 5. D + L + Ro + E 6. D + L + Ro + W 7. D + L + To + E' 8. D + L + Ro + Nt 9. D+L+Ra 10. D + L + Ra + E 11. D + L + Ra + E' TER-C5257-322 had cited load combinations 10 and 13 as Scale A,. The A, classification for both of these loading combinations is retained pending results from the BG&E Structural Reanalysis Program. 5.6 CONTROL BUILDING The reviewers concur with the BGEE conclusion that the following set of loads is, as reduced by building-specific considerations, a proper loading combination under current criteria. I l 1. 1.4D + 1.7L 2. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.9Eo 3. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W 4. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L) 5. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.9Eo) 6. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W) 7. 1.2D + 1.9Eo 8. 1.2D + 1.7W 9. D + L + Ess 10. D+L+wt 11. D+L 12. D + L + 1.25Eo 13. D + L + Ess TER-C5257-322 had cited load combinations 10 and 13 as Scale A. v The east wall of the control building incorporates masonry block Although this wall is reinforced and has received analytical construction. 37-nklin Research Center A Ohtman of The FrerWORingEhme y.- p. _s_ ,-.c .+-h- ' '"""N-* 'e"' 3' +

TER-C5506-423 attention,, criteria acceptable to the NBC are not available as a basis for establishing its acceptability. Consequently, the Scale A, rating has been retained for both loading cases 10 and 13. 5.7 INTERMEDIATE BUILDING (COICRETE) The reviewers concur with the RG&E conclusion that the following set of loads is, as reduced by building-specific considerations, a proper loading combination tmder current critaria. 1. 1.4D + 1.7L 2. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.9E0 3. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W 4. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7Ro) 5. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7Bo 1.9Eo) 6. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7 Ao + 1.7W) 7. 1.2D + 1.9Eo 8. 1.2D + 1.7W 9. D + L + Ro + Esa 10. D + L + Ro + Wt 11. D + L + Ra

12.

D + L + Ra + 1.25Eo

13.

D + L + Ra + Ess TER-C5257-322 had cited load combinations 10 and 13 as Scale A,. The A, scale ratings for load combinations 10 and 13 are retained pending resolution of issues relating to l

1. the wind load magnitude in compliance with SEP objectives, and

2. the structural integrity of the intermediate building's masonry block walls.

( " Current requirements that the effects of an instantaneous guillotine pipe break be considered in these load combinations have been waived. The Licensee stated: "As noted in SEP Topic III-5.B, an inservice inspection program has been instituted by RG&E, and accepted by the N;C, which would prevent full diameter breaks in the steam and feedwater piping systems. Thus, only crack breaks in the main piping, or full-diameter breaks in the small branch lines, need to be postulated. The :nodifications implemented by RG&E as a result of the review of postulated piping failures ;in the intergediate building (e.g., jet shields and missile barriers) consider the effects of the resultant piping dymanic loads." nklin Research Center A Denman of The Fraseen Weemme

TER-C5506-423 5.8 INTERBEDIATE BUILDING (STEEL) Based on the information provided by RGEE (Section 8, Attachment 2, Reference 3) the following set of loads appears to be a proper loading combination under current criteria. 1. D+L 2. D+L+E 3. D+L+W 4. D+L+Ro 5. D + L + Ro + E 6. D + L + Ro + W 7. D + L + Ro + E' 8. D + L + Ro + Wt 9. D + L + Ra

10.

D + 1. + Ra + E

11.

D + L + Ra + E' Load combinations 8 and 11 are cited in TER-C5257-322 as Scale A. A Scale A, rating is retained on load combination 8 pending determina-tion of the wind speed magnitude deemed necessary to comply with SEP objec-tives. A Scale A, rating is also retained on load combination 13 based on the l following consideration. NUREG/CR-1821 found the intermediate building column system, as presently constructed, to be " marginally acceptable" under SSE. Modifica'tions to the intermediate building are currently ar.ticipated in order to provide structural integrity under tornado. Assurance should be provided that such modifications also enhance the structure's earthquake resistance or at least do not detract from it due to an altered dynamic response. 5.9 CABLE TUNNEL The reviewers concur with the RG&E conclusion that the following set of loads is, as reduced by building-specific considerations, a proper loading combination under current criteria. l

See footnote for corresponding items for intermediate building concrete atructures (Section 5.7).

l _nklin Resear_ch._Cen.ter ~ - _. a _ r z.a.-,. _. _ _ _ _ _,.

TER-C5506-423 )

1. 1.4D + 1.7L

2. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.9Eo

3. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W

4. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L)

5. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.950)

6. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W)

7. 1.2D + 1.950

8. 1.2D + 1.7W

9. D + L + Ess

10. D + L + Wt

11. D + L + Ta + 1.5Pa

12. D + L + Ta + 1.25Pa + 1.25Eo

13. D + L + Ta + Pa + Ess TER-CS257-322 had cited load combination 13 as scale A,.

Based on conclusions reached in NUREG/CR-1821, the Scale A rating for g loading combination 13 may be removed, and the structural integrity of the cable tunnel may be considered demonstrated. 5.10 SCREENHOUSE u The reviewers concur with the RG&E conclusion that the following set of loads is, as reduced by building-specific considerations, a proper loading combination under current criteria. 1. 1.4D + 1.7L 2. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.9Eo 3. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W 4. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L) 5. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.9Eo) 6. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W) 7. 1.2D + 1.9Eo 8. 1.2D + 1.7W 9. D + L + Ess 10. D +-L + Wt 11. D+L

12. D + L + 1.25Eo
13.

D + L + Ess TER-C5257-322 had cited load combinations 10 and 13 as Scale A,.

Alternative methods of achieving safe shutdown are proposed under SEP Topic III-5.B in the event of postulated pipe breaks in the screenhouse_.

V ranklin Research Center A Ohemen of The Fransen m em m-y,, e w ,-m,, ,,-,-,,-w.

i 9 1 TER-C5506-423 A Scale A ranking is retained for load combination 10 pending q x resolution of wind speed magnitudes deemed satisfactory to assure compliance with SEP objectives under tornado loadings. The Licensee observes the equivalence, when reduced by building-specific considerations, of load combination 13 (ranked Scale A ) and load combination 9 (for which an original analysis was made). The original analysis was based on representation of earthquake loading by an equivalent static g loads current criteria presume dynamic methods of analysis. The Scale A, ranking is retained pending demonstration that the original analytical methods are adequately conservative. 5.11 DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING (CONCRETE) The reviewers concur with the BG&E conclusion that the following set of loads is, as reduced by building-specific considerations, a proper loading combination under current criteria. 1. 1.4D + 1.7L 2. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.9Eo 3. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W 4. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L) 5. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.9Eo) 6. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + l~.7W) 7. 1.2D + 1.9Eo l 8. 1.2D + 1.7W 9. D + L + Ess i 10. D + L + Wt I 11. D+L 12. D + L + 1.25Eo 13. D + L + Ess TER-C5257-322 had cited load combinations 10 and 13 as Scale A. The Scale A, rating is retained for load combination 10 pending resolution of tornado wind speed magnitudes deemed necessary to comply with SEP objectives. I The Scale A, rating may be removed from load combination 13 based on conclusions stated in NUREG/CR-1821. l i hranklin Research Center A Dhmen of The Fransumiinnumme '~ ~ -.. -~. ~ ~ ~ ' * " .... ~~~ Ef

..a TER-C5506-423 6. StBOUutY OF REVIEW FINDINGS r l Number of Scale A and Scale Ax Rankings for Unresolved Items for Ginna Seismic Category I Structures i Scale A Code changes ACI 318-63 vs. AISC 1963 ACI 318-63 ASMt B&PV vs. vs. Sect. III AISC 1980 ACI 349-76 Div. 2 1980 Issues Raised by 8 Sa 6 TER-C5257-322 Resolved 3 3 4 Remaining 5 5 2 Planned Resolution per Structural D 5 5 2 Reanalysis Progran Scale Ax ' Load Combinations 7,, I 23 Raised by TER-C5257-322 7 Resolved 16 Remaining Planned Resolution ( per Structural (All structural elements exc2pt masonry D 16 Reanalysis Program walls) 6 (Masonry walls only) open Issues Appears in TER-C5257-322 as seven items. The Licensee provided rational as two separate items. a. treatment of code shear provisions (Section 11.16) Presumes that RG&E ccncurs with general recommendations (see Section 7 of and that SEP structural acceptance criteria satisfactory to b. l this report) NBC are adopted in the Structural Reanalysis Program. . nklin Research Center A Dhemen of The FmInsmuse - - ~ - - ,,-,--,e--,w, n,,a-, e

i I l TER-C5506-423 1 4 7. CONCLUSIONS AND REColcemDATIONS The raview disclosed that aochester Gas and Electric Corporation has uncertz, ken a substantial engineering effort responsive to the objectives of Topic III-7.B and that aGEE has supported its findings concerning Ginna Unit 1 with a considerable body of analytical evidence developed during the course of its review of this topic. A number of items were found to be unresolved and these are cited in sections of this report dealing with the review findi.ngs. ~ The remaining items primarily relate to the assessment of effects that currently defined loads and loading combinations for extreme environmental and faulted service conditions may have on perceived margins of safety in building structures that are determined to be essential to safe shutdown, especially when these are taken in conjunction with Scale A design code changes. RGEE plans to address these items in due course under their structural reanalysis program. All plant modifications that may be found necessary to comply with the objectives of the Systematic Evaluation Program are to be constructed to current design codes and to currently specified loads and loading combinations. Thus, for all modified plant structures, Topic III-7.B will be fully resolved. It is anticipated, however, that some structures determined to be essential to safe shutdown will be found acceptable as built. It is likely l that determination of acceptability will be based primarily on a demonstration I i - that the genegal sizing of major structural elements in these buildings is t i j adequate to sustain current loads and load combinations. A number of the i design code changes, however, relate to the adequacy of specific structural details. It is therefore recommended that a review of remaining Topic III-7.B items for essential structures which are retained as-built be incorporated as a specific aspect of RG&E's structural reanalysis program. l ! _nidin Rese_ arch._ Center l - - - - -.

c 4 TER-C5506-423 8. REFERENCES { Franklin Research Center, Technical Evaluation Report Design Codes, Design Criteria, and Isading Combinations (SEP Tcpic l. II.7.B) Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, Robert Emmett Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1, TER-C5257-322 May 28,1982 " Specification for Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel i 2. for Buildings," Sixth Edition American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. New York, NY 1963 " Specification for Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel 3. for Buildings," Eighth Edition American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. New York, NY 1980 " Code Recuirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures" I 4. (ACI 349-76) Anwrican Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI (ACI 318-63) " Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete" 5. American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 2 6. " Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containments" New York, NY 1980 J. E. Maier, Rochester Gas and El stric Corporation Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, Chief, Operating Reactor Branch No. 5, USHRC 7. III-2, Structural Reanalysis Program, SEP Topics II-2.A, Docket No. 50-244

Subject:

III-4.A, and III-7.B, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, April 22,1983 J. E. Maier, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, Chief, Operating Reactor Branch No. 5, USNBC 8. Structural Reanalysis Program, SEP Topics II-2.A, III-2, Docket No. 50-244

Subject:

III-4.A, and III-7.B, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, May 19,1983 J. E. Maier, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, Chief, Operating Reactor Branch No. 5, USNRC 9. SEP Topic III-7.B, Design Codes, Design Criteria, and Load

Subject:

Docket No. 5ft-244 Combinations, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, May 27,1983 nklin Research Center A Dheen of The Fw bushme

.u L TER-C5506-423 t 10. T. C. Stilwell (FRC) Letter to D. Persinko (NIC)

Subject:

Topic list for NBC/RGEE/GC/FRC meeting of June 21, 1983 ~ June 15,1983 Hand-carried Gilbert Commonwealth calculations, in response to Reference 11. 10, on the following subjects: Integrity of structural walls against punching shear (5.6, Attachment a. 3 of Reference 9). Specific example Main steam penetration under postulated LOCA. Integrity of elements loaded in shear with no diagonal tension (5.3,

b. of Psference 9). Specific example: Shear capacity of beam pockets supporting the intermediate building floor.

Development length of lapped splices in columns (5.1, Attachment 3 of c. Reference 9). Specific example: Column group which includes control room Column. d. Coped beams (4.2.6 of Reference 8). Specific example: Integrity of roof beams (if coped) under extreme environmental load. Steel embe4ments (4.2.9 of Reference 8). Specific example: Frame e. columns under low roof of the auxiliary building. s t 7 9 ..~ 4 nklin Research Center A Deueman of The Frasman human ._ _ ~.. _,. _.. _. -., _ - _ - _ - _ _ ~, -.

EdcLoSOSE G ,.u,-., ..n..w....-.... I SUPPLEMENTMY RE?CRT j [ 'REVI31 0F LICENSEE RESPONSE TO i DESIGN CODES, DESIGN CRITERIA, P..

AND LOADING COMBINATIONS (SEP,111-7.8)

.u A ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION y' R. E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 1 ,p NRC DOCXETNO. 50-244 FRC PROJECT C5506 NRCTACNO. 48881 FRC ASSIGNMENT 18 W NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC 03-81 130 FRC TASK 423 =w ~$ '.db Prepared by 11 3 Franklin Research Center Author: T. C. Stilwell, } The Parkway at Twentieth S?eet M. Darwish, E. W. Wallo p Philadelphia, PA 19103 FRC Group Leader: T. C. Stilwell n id Prepared for Nuclear Regulatory Comrnission ~g Washington, D.C. 20555 Lead NRC Engineer: D. Persinko b s] July 29, 1983 m T hets recort was prepared as an account of work sponscred by an agency of the Uni'ed States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, excrossed er implied, or assumes any legal liacility or y responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, appa-p ratus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third .Jii party would not infringe privately owned rights. C $ae7 .~a A M INlb Franklin Researchtenter a A Diwsien :f The Franidin !nst:::.:te u 3e Bam Fw Partw,#ne 419103 t2'Si 4+00 w ..-,,,.,w___ 250729 ^ vyvvvauc,c-C.- ADCCX 05CCC244 m w a

')

TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT ' SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT REVIEW OF LICENSEE RESPONSE TO DESIGN CODES, DESIGN CRITERIA, AND LOADING COMBINATIONS (SEP, III-7.B) ROCHESTER. GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION R. E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 1 1 NRC DOCKETNO. 50-244 FRC PROJECT C5506 NRCTACNO. 48881 FRC ASSIGNMENT IS NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC43-81-130 FRC TASK 423 Preparedby Franklin Research Center Author: T. C. Stilwell, The Parkway at Twentieth Street M. Da)vish, E. W. Wallo Philadelphia, PA 19103 FRC Group Leader: T. C. Stilwell Prepared for Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Lead NRC Engineer: D. Persinko July 29, 1983 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees. makes any warranty, expressed or impiled, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information. appe-ratus, product or process disclosed in this report. or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights. Prepared by: Reviewed by: Approved by: &W.A Tc5bd spadw Departmentpirecjbr Principal Author: Gro Leader Date: "J/ti f13 Date: b '" Date: "7 f 3 ah c b.0. Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Senestrun Fwuen ?anomey. Ph. Pt 19103(215) 44s 1000

TER-C5506-423 CONTEartS Section h Page 1 1 INTRODUCTION 2 DESIGN COEE CET.NGES DESIGNATED SCALE A. 2 2.1 Shear Connectors for Composite Beams 2 2.2 Composite Beans or Girders with Formed Steel Deck. 2 2.3 Flange Stress in Hybrid Girders 3 2.4 Stresses in Unstiffened Compression Elements 3 2.5 Maximum Load in Riveted or Bolted Tensile Members. 4 2.6 Shear Load in Coped Beams. 5 2.7 Column Web Stiffeners at Frame Joints. 6 7 2.8 Lateral Support Spacing in Frames. 2.9 Brackets and Corbels 8 8 2.10 Special Provision for Walls 2.10.1 Shear Walls 8 8 2.10.2 Punching Shear. l 2.11 Elements Loaded in Shear with No Diagonal Tension. 9 2.12 Elements Subject to Temperature Variations. 9 2.13 Columns with Spliced Reini,rcing 9 9 2.14 Embedmonts. 2.15 Ductile Response to Impulse Loads. 10 10 2.16 Tangential Shear (Containment). 2.17 Areas of Containment Shell Subject to Peripheral Shear. 11 11 2.18 Therral Loads. 2.19 Areas of Containment Shell Subject to Torsion. 12 2.20 Areas of Containment Shell Subject to Biaxial Tension. 12 2.21 Brackets and Corbels (On the Containment Shell) 12 nklin Reseerdi Center A Ossumen af The F'usuen enumano

TER-C5506-423 CONTENTS (Cont. ) Page Title Section 14 3 REVIEW W.THOD AND TABULAR PRESENTATIONS. TABULAR

SUMMARY

OF FINDINGS OF LICENSEE CCelPLIANCE 4 STATUS CONCERNING IMPLEMENTATION OF SEP TCPIC III-7.B 17 IMPACT OF DESIGN CODE CHANGES 33 5 REVIEW FINDINGS - LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS 33 5.1 Concrete Containment Shells 34 5.2 containment Liner. 35 5.3 Spent Fuel Poci 36 5.4 Auxiliary Building (concrete) 37 5.5 Auxiliary Building (Steel). 37 5.6 Control Building 38 5.7 Intermediate Building (concrete) 39 5.8 Intermediate Building (Steel) 39 5.9 Cable Tunnel 40 5.10 Screenhouse 41 5.11 Diesel Generator Building (Concrete) 42 6

SUMMARY

OF REVIEW FINDINGS. 43 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS. 44 8 REFERENCES. ? - i iv _rankEn.n. sea _rch._ Center Re ~ l 1

TER-d5506-423 FOREWORD This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center under a contract with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactors) for technical assistance in support of NBC operating reactor licensing actions. The technical evaluation was conducted in accordance with criteria established by the NBC. t i A j UNil Franklin Resear.ch C. enter a % e n. r l l l

~ - -. TER-C5506-423 -Suasary Information concerning the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 supplied to the NIC by Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (BG&E) dealing with Topic III-7.8 of NBC's Systematic Evaluation Program was reviewed. Topic III-7.B assesses the ispect of perceived margins of safety of Seismic Category I structures that may result from changes in design codes and from differences between loads and loading combinations used for design and those currently specified. The review was conducted by the Franklin Research Center with the objec-tive of assisting the NBC in the evaluation of BG&E's compliance status with respect to implementation of the Systematic Evaluation Program by appraising the technical content of the information submitted. The review found that M&E has made a substantial eng$neering effort toward resolution of Topic III-7.B concerns. Although open items were found to remain, these primarily relate to assessment of effects of design code changes when appraised for loadings associated with extreme environmental and faulted service conditions. RG&E plans to address these concerns in due course as part of the Structural Reanalysis Program. D' .. ~ - vii nk!!n Research Center A Deussen of The Fearmen muneme +,.,--

-.T TER-C5506-423 i 1. INTRODUCTICN Current design criteria for nuclear power plant structures contain requiremen'ts that were not in effect when older plants were designed and licensed. Consequently, one aspect (designated Topic III-7.8) of the implementation of Nac's Systemtic Evaluation Program requires licpasees to review changes that bave occurred in structural design criteria since their plant was built and also to review the loads and load combinations used for design of plant structures by comparing them with the loads and load combinations now specified for current construction. The licensee's objective is to assess the impact that these changes may have on margins of safety of Seismic Category I structures as they were originally perceived and as they ~ would be perceived under current criteria. Upon completion of this work, licensees report their findings to the NBC. To assist in this review, the NBC provided licensees with plant-specific Technical Evaluation Reports (TERs) concerning these issues (e.g., Reference

1). The Teas listed design code changes and, on a building-by-building basis, the load and loading combination changes to be addressed in the licensee review. The items listed were ones judged to have the greatest potential to degrade the originally perceived margins of safety.

In May 1983, under contract NBC-03-81-130, the NBC retained the Franklin Research Center (FRC) to assist in its review of licensee findings. This i report describes the review for the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 and sununarizes nochester Gas and Electric Corporation's (BG&E) compliance status with respect to the implementation of SEP Topic III-7.B. O nk!!n Research Center A Denman of The Fm m i .~ gm ,,,9 ,,m.,.--.--..+w

g.

p ,m-,, ,m,, ,_,,,,_,,.,e.,.,,-.,_.m,,,g, ,ww,

j TER-C5506-423 2. DESIGN CODE e m c't DESIGNhTED SCALE A Current structural design codes contain provisions that differ from, or did not appear in, the codes to which older plants were designed and con-Changes that were judged to have the potential to significantly structed. These j affect perceived margins of safety have'been designated as Scale A. changes are ' iscussed item-by-item in this section of the report. d 2.1 SEEAR COBRECTOFS FOR COMPOSITE BEAMd Four major modifications to the 1963 AISC code (21 related to the type, distribution, and spacing of shear connectors for composite beams occur in the 8 80 Code (31 These modifications ares Permission to use lightweicht structural concrete (concrete made with a. C330 aggregates) in composate designs Allowance of design for composite action in the negative acaent b. region of continuous beams and provision of design guidance for including the longitudinal reinforcing steel in the negative moment resisting section Design requirements for the minimum number of shear connectors in c. regions of concentrated load d. Maximum and minimum spacing requirements in terms of stud diameters. The first two modifications will not affect old designs because they were not The new provisions concerning the number of allowed by the previous code. studs in the region near concentrated loads and the new limits concerning spacing of studs may adversely affect the margin cf safety in older designs when checked against the new code provisions. These new requirements are of special concern in the case of composite beams subject to large concentrated loads, such as those associated with extreme environmental or critical accident conditions. COWOSITE BEAMS OR GIRDERS WITH FORMED STEEL DECK 2.2 The 1980 AISC Code (3) contains a new section covering stay-in-place These provis16ns for formed steel deck when used in a composite design. 2-ranklin Research Center A Dhaman af The Frasumme m ww-- w w

w

--,-,----w w m-,w---- -ae y--.+p 'qe-w. m--,------------g- ,---.,,---%,,-,c-, ---w.i-- ee m--.-m--e w w w ww w - ---,.--ew--w_m--. .----w--- .w

TER-C5506-423 formed steel decking, depending on the rib geometry and the direction of the riba relative to the beam, may. affect the load capacity of the shear studs and the effective flange width of the assumed cohcrete compression flange. They provide for reduction' factors, to be applied to the shear stud allowable ~ capacity, which account for the structural irregularity introduced into the composite slab. Composite beams with formed steel decks that were designed to the previous code could have less conservative margins of safety when compared to present requirements, especially in cases where extreme loadings are to be considered. 2.3 FLANGE STRESS IN HYBRID GIRDERS The AISC Code section covering reduction of bending stress in the compression flange was modified in the 1980 Code. The original flange stress reduct. ion formula in the old code was needed to account for stress transfer which may occur in ordinary beam webs if the ccepression region should deflect laterally, thereby changing the bending capacity of the cross section. In hybrid girders, the, amount of the loss of bending resistance resulting from this phenomenon will vary depending on the 1 relative properties of the web and flange steel. A reduced bending stress formula reflecting this interaction was introduced. In order to keep the i i formulation relatively simple, the reduced bending stress was made applicable to both flanges of the hybrid member. Beams or girders fabricated from plate where the flange and web steels are different could have lower margins of safety under the new code than were thought to exist under older code requiraments where the ratio of web yield stress to flange yield stress is less than 0.45 and the ratio of the web area to flange area is low. 2.4 STRESSES IN UNSTIFFENED COMPRESSION ELEMENTS New requirements provide stress reduction factors for. unstiffened elements subject to compression with one edge free parallel to theYempressive stress. l U000 Franklin Research Center aos==nwn=r sn - .~... . m

TER-C5506-423 Previous code provisions allowed the designer to neglect a portion of the i The new code requirements provide equations for var-area of such elements. ious elements based on the critical buckling stress for plates. The new analytical approach is more conservative for the steams of teos and less ( conservative for all other cases. Itsere structural teos are used as main mes6ers and the tee stem is in compression, the margin of safety for older designs checked under the new code could be significantly less than was thought urder prior code requirements. Since bucking is a nonductile type failure, these new requirements are of special conce. n in the case of tee shapes subjected to the extreme environ-mental or critical accident conditions. 2.5 MhXDCM ICAD IN RIVETED OR BOLTED TENSILE MEMBERS The 1980 AISC Code [3] introduces codes changes which affect the maximum load permitted in tensile members. Two interacting code changes are involved in establishing this limit, and the mutual effects of both must be considered in assessing the impact of the The two new code upon the perception of margins of safety in tension members. provisions involved concern: the tensile area permitted to be used in establishing load carrying 1. capacities l 2. the allowable stresses to be used in conjunction with these areas. Both effects are taken into account in ranking this change. The potential ~ magnitude of the mutual effects of the two changes is discussed below. l The 1980 AISC Specification definition of " Effective Net Area" introduces a reduction coefficient which is to be applied to the traditional definition This essentially changes the design capacity of a tension member of net area. First consider only when compared to older versiens of these specifications. the effect of the critical area used for the design of a tension member as defined in the new code compared to the critical area used for the design of the same member as defined in the old code. Clearly, if all other factors are y-ranklin Research Center A Dhusen af The Fw treghae m- --e - we -y-we e----- i.i.-.-,9- -. -,. -,. - - -,,,,,,.--,.----_.--y.,y- , - - -,_.,,---. _ _,.. - -. ~ - - ,-*-----,.-.g.,.- e__---,..._ y. +<.__m._--,.,- -ymy-, ---- ,._,w,

l TER-C5506-423 l equal, the new code is more conservative. However, all other factors are not the same. The changes in allowable tensile stress definition (on the gross i area and on the effective not area) which were introduced simultaneously with the new definition of effective not area modify the above conclusion, l'a addition, the traditional upper limit on the critical not area of 85% of the gross area (a requirement of the old code) is no longer a requirement of the new code. Both of these changes interact with the new effective not area requirement. A yalid assessment of the ef,fect of these ch,anges is best accomplished by a comparison of the allowable load each code perants in tension members. If one considers the allowable load on the effective not area, the value based on the new code is a function of three variables: the new reduction coefficient, the not area,* and the ultimate tensile strength of the steel. The allowable load based on the old code is a function of only two variables: the net area and the yield strength of the steel. First,' form the load ratio of the allowable load defined by the new code criteria to the allowable load defined by the old code criteria. Next, consider the ranges of all of the parameters mentioned above, this ratio will have defined upper and lower limits which are a function of the ratio of the not areas, the new code net area reduction factor, and the ratio of the steel ultimate strength to the yield strength. For all the steels allowed under the new code, this load ratio ranges t from 1.5 to 0.69. For all the steels allowed under the old code, this load ratio ranges from 1.6 to 0.88. It is apparent that, for those steels with load ratios less than 1.0, the new code is less conservative than the old. The margin of safety of some older designs therefore could be significantly lower when checked against the new code requirements. 2.6 SEEAR I4ED IN COPED BEAMS The 1980 AISC code [3] introduces additional control over the shear load permitted at beam end connections where the top flange has been coped. 1

In making this comparison, one must be careful to note that the net area is not always the same under the old and new codes.

,,. _mklin Rese_ arch._ Center ,-,----,-,...-.,.--__--.m_,,-,,w .,.,=g..p ,w ,.,-%.%g, g w -,.-w-%e-y 7-, --,,w---*wmyw

w-----g.m

---wi----

TER-C5506-423 Web shear control in older codes did not distinguish between coped and eW beams or between shear allowed at connections and over the free span The shear., (escept for requiring reinforcement of thin webs at connections). load allowed was given by: allowable shear load = 0.4 (yield strength) (gross web section). The 1980 Code retains this limit, but intrMuces an additional requirement to protect against a failure mode associated with coped beams. For coped beams (and similar. situations), a portion of the web may sever, failing along the perimeter of the connection holes. In particular, coped beam web connections where the fastener holes lie close to the butt end of the beam may be prone to such failures. This web " tear out" failure is actually a combination of shear failure through the line of fasteners together with tensile failure across the shortest path to the beam end. The failure surface turns a corner with shear failure along a line trending upward through the holes, combined with tensile failure across a more-or-less horizontal line running out to the beam end. The newly introduced shear limit is given as a function of the minimum not failure surface and the steel ultimate strength. Thus, the new requirements may or any not control a coped beam's allowable capacity in Whether or not it does depends on both the connection geometry and the shear. type of steel used. Itsen this requirement is controlling, coped beams designed by previous rules may be found, if checked against the new criteria, to have significantly smaller margins of safety than previously thought. 2.7 COLtDel WEB STIFFENERS AT FRAME JOINTS The more recent editions of the AISC code mandate which columns must be stiffened at locations where beams of girders are rigidly attached to the column flange and also establish requirements for the geometry of such web These requirements are introduced to preclude local crippling at stiffeners. y-such frame joints. ranklin Research Center A Osnamn cd The P6 mumans

TER-C5506-423 No such guidance was provided by AISC-63 [2]. Older codes (such as left such matters to the designer's discretion.' Consequen'tly, there AISC-63) is no assurance that all such columns are adequately stiffened for current accident and faulted loadings. 2.8 LATERAL SCDPORT SPACING IN FRAMES (PLASTIC DESIGN ISTROD) The 1980 AISC Code contains changed spacing requirements for lateral supports.in portions of members in frames where failure mecnanisms are expected to form at ultimate load. Members of such frames must not only be capable of developing a plastic hinge, but must also be stable eTough to sustain moments larger than those computed on an elastic-perfect-plastic theory (because real steels work-harden at strains expected to occur at hinge locations). Previous lateral bracing requirements were developed for a limited range of steels. Research on high-strength steels has shown that, for certain ranges of slenderness ratio of the compression flange of such frame members, older specification bracing requirements were not sufficiently conservative. The new specification requirements make the slenderness ratio limits a function of the steel yield strength and the member curvature (as expressed by the ratio of the lesser bending moment at the ends of the unbraced segment to the plastic mesent). The new specifications are more cor ervative for (1) any segment bent in double curvature regardless of its steel specification and (2) very high-strength steel members. The adequacy of frame usabers bent in single curvature an4 constructed of steels whose yield strength exceeds 36 kai should be examined on a case-by-case basis. The new requirements may reduce the margins of safety thought to exist in: 1. structures designed under the plastic requirements of older codes l 2. elastica 11y designed structures sized to carry a smaller maximum f load than is now required by current accident and faulted load combinations. In this case, plastic logic say have to be invoked to justi'fy the adequacy of exisiting structures. Nonconformance with l ' ranklin Research Center A Dheesen af The Fransen inmandar

"~' ~ TE M 5506-423 current. bracing requirements may substantially restrict the capability of frame members to carry code-acceptable overloads. 2.9 BRACEBTS AND CORBELS ACI 349-76 (4], Section 11.13 contains design requirements for short brackets and corbels which are considered primary load-carrying members no 318-63 (5]. comparable requirements are provided in ACI The requirements apply to brackets and corbels having a shear span-to-depth ratio of unity or less. They provide minimum and maximum limits on tension and shear reinforcement, limits on ultimate shear stress in concrete, and constraints on seaber geometry and location of reinforcement. Brackets and corbels designed under earlier codes any or may not satisfy the newly imposed limits. If they do not, they any be prone to non-ductile failure (which occurs suddenly and without warning) and may exhibit==mit er margins of safety than those currently required. 2.10 SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR WhLIE 2.10.1 Shear Walls ACI 349-76, Sections 11.15.1 through 11.15.6 specify requirements for reinforcing and permissible shear stresses for in-plane shear loads on walls. The ACI 318-63 Code had no specific requirements for in-plane shear on shear walls. 2.10.2 Punching Shear ACI 349-76, Section 11.15.7 specifies permissible punching shear stresses ACI 318-63 had no specific provisions for walls for these for walls. Punching loads are caused by relatively concentr ted lateral loads stresses. These loads may be from pipe supports, equipment supports, duct on the walls. supports, conduit supports, or any other component producing a lateral load on a wall.

p. nklin Research Center A Ohnman of The Fresues inmunas

_.,_.___.,__,L_

~~ ~ l TER-C5506-423 2.11~ ELElerTS LOhDED IN SE:ZAR MITE NO nrannm TENSICII (SEEAR FRICTIOtt) S e provisions for shear friction given in ACI 349-76 did not exist in ACI 318-63. These provisions specify reinforcing and stress requirements for situations where it is inappropriate to consider shear as a measure of di c el tension. 2.12 ELEMENTS SUBJECT TO TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS The ACI 349-76 (4), Appendix A requirements for consideration of temperature variations in concrete were not contained in ACI 318-63. These new provisions require that the effects of temperature gradients and the difference between mean temperature and base temperature during normal operation or accident conditions be considered. The new provisions also require that thermal stresses be evaluated considering the stiffness and rigidity of.nenbers and the degree of restraint of the structure. 2.13 COLUBSIS WITH SPLICED REINFORCING The ACI 349-76, Section 7.10.3 requirements for columns with spliced reiMorcing did not exist in the ACI 318-63 Code. The ACI 349-76 Code requires that splices in each face of a column, where the design load stress in the longitudinal bars varies from fy in compression to 1/2 fy in tension, be developed to provide at least twice the calculated tension in that face of the column (splices in combination with unspliced bars can provide this if applicable). This code change requires that a minimum of 1/4 of the yield capacity of the bars in each face of the column be developed by both spliced and unspliced b.tra in that face of the column. 2.14 EMBEDMENTS Appendix B of ACI 349-80 provides rules for the design of steel embedmonts in concrete the design of embedmonts is not specifically addressed in ACI 318-63. I Current requirements of Appendix B are based upon ultimate strength l design using factored loads. The anchorage design is controlled by 'the ) l i ~ 0I Franklin Research Center A Dhegan af The Frgum ingang --_-_,,_.,.-.,..,,--._-..,,_,,n-.

~._ _. TER-C5506-423 ultimate strength of the embedsent steel. Ductile,. failure (i.e., steel yields before concrete fails) is postulated. Under the provisions of ACI 318-53, the' design of embedmonts was left to Working stress design methods were widely the discretion of the designer. used. Consequently, it is likely that original embedmont designs do not fully Review of such designa to determine the conform to current criteria. implications with respect to margins of safety is therefore judged a desirable. precaution. 2.15 DOCTILE RESPONSE TO IMPULSE LOADS ccatains design rules for structures which Appendix C to ACI 349-76 [4] may be subjected to impulse,or itapact loads; no such provisions occur in ACI 318-63 [5]. (i.e., The rules of Appendix C are intended to foster ductile response steel yields prior to concrete failure) of nuclear structures if and when they For structures built to codes not experience impulsa or impact loads. containing such provisions,; there is no assurance that sufficient design effort was directed toward proportioning members to provide energy absorbelon Consequently, such structures might be prone to non-ductile, capability. sudden fnilure should they ever experience postulated accident loadings such as jet impingement, pipe whip, compartment depressurization, or tornado missiles. 2.16 TANGENTIAL SEEAR (CONTAINNENTS) Paragraph CC-3421.5, Tangential Shear, of Section III, Division 2 of the addresses the capacity of reinforced ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code [6] It provides concrete containments to carry horizontal shear load. code-acceptable levels of horizental shear stresa that the designer may credit f No specific guidance in this 'satter exists in ACI 318-63. to the concrete. The provisions associate the allowable concrete. stress in horizontal shear with the concrete properties, the mar.ner in which lateral 1oads are nklin Research Center A Ohassen of The Frenean masase WW-----.

l ..m 1 TER-C5506-423 imposed on the structure, and the presence of sufficient reinforcement to assure that the assumed shear capacity of concrete can be developed. Sufficient diagonal reinforcement (or its demonstrated equivalent) is to be supplied to carry, without ascessive strain, shear in excess of that permitted in the concrete. A anjor consideration here is the preservation of the structural integrity of the liner. In containments constructed to older codes, such matters were left to the discretion of the designer, who may or any not have provided the horizontal shear capacity at controlled strains that the code currently requires. 2.17 AREAS OF CONTAIlOENT SEEI4 SUBJECT TO PERIPHERAL SEEAR Concrete containment design is currently governed by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 2,198C [6]. The provisions for peripheral (punching) shear appear in code Sectidn CC-3421.6. These provisions are similar to the ACI 318-63 code (5] provisions for slabs and footings, except that the allowable punching shear stress in CC-3421.6 includes the effect of shell membrane stresses. For membrane tension, the allowable concrete punching shear stress in the ASME Code is less than that allowed by ACI 318-63. 2.18 AREAS OF CONTAI15EENT mRr1 SUE 7ECT TO TORSION Concrete containment design is currently governed by the ASME Boiler and Pressure vessel Code, Section III, Division 2, 1980. Section CC-3421.7 of the code contains provisions for the allowable torsional shear stress in the concrete. Such provisions were not contained in the ACI 318-63 Code. The present allowable torsional shear stress includes the effects of the membrane stresses in the containment shell and is based on a criterion that limits the principal membrane tension strass in the concrete. 1 l f-b MN A Osamen af The neumi hamnae ,_..._,___J.~.E..~..____

T2R-C5506-423 2. 19 maan t LQEDS ACI 349-76 Appendix A and ASDE B&PV Code, Section III, Div. 2, CC-3440 contains requirementa for cons'ideration of temperature variations in concrete J that are not contained in ACI 318-43. The new provisions require consideration of the effects of thermal gradients and of the effects depending on the mean temperature distribution and the base temperature distribution during normal operation or accident The new provisions also require that thermal stresses be eval-conditions. usted considering the stiffness and rigidity of members and the degree of i restraint of the structure. An assessment is to be made of the analytical methods used to determine thermal stresses as compared to current code-acceptable practices, e.g., those 3495-40. discussed in ACI 349.1R-80 and the cosumentary to ACI l If the methods used for design produce stress results which are signifi-cantly different from those current procedures generate, perceived margins of safety could be affected. AREAS OF COIrfAlleEENT SEILL SUBJECT TO BIAXIAL TENSION 2.20 Increased tensile development lengths are required by section CC-3532.1.2 of Reference 6 for reinforcing steel bars terminated in areas of reinforced l concrete containment structures which may experience biaxial tension. For f biaxial tension loading, har development lengths, including both straight I embedmont lengths and equivalent straight length for standard hooks, are required to be increased by 25% over the standard development lengths required teominal temperature reinforcement is excluded from for uniaxial loading. ACI 318-43 had no requirements related to this e these special provisions. increase in development length. BRACKETS AND CORBELS (ON THE COIrrAI19 TENT SEELL) 2.21 The ACI 318-43 Code did not spec,1fy requirements for brackets and Provisions for these components are included in the ASME Boiler and corbels. Pressure vessel Code, Section III, Division 2, Section CC-3421.I. These nklin Research Center A Okammet of The Frqsgen bughet _ _.. ---~.- M.,- - T

C C, -.-. - ~.--_ -._,__.

TER-C5506-423 provisions apply to brackets and corbels having a shear-span-to-depth ratio of unity or less. The Provisions specify minimum and maximum limits for tensicn and shear reinforcing, limits on sasar stresses, and constraints on the mestier geometry and placement of reinforcing within the member. e f 1

p. ~ -

! g ddhbnklin Research Ce.nter acm aw w r

TEA-C5506 423 3.- REVIEW IETECD AND TABULAR PRESENTATIONS The information relating to SEP Topic III-7.3 which was supplied to the NBC by Rochester Gas and Electrfc Corporation and ande available for this review is contained in the following documents: J. 2. Maier, nochester Gas and Electric Corporation f 1. Letter to D. M. Crutrafield, Chief,i Dperating Reactor Branch No. 5, USNBC Structural meanalysis Program, SEP Topics II-2.A, III-2,

Subject:

Docket No. III-4.A, and III-7.3, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, j 50-244 April 22, 1983 J. E. Maier, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 2. Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, Chief, Operating Reactor Branch No. 5, USNBC Structural meanalysifs Program, SEP Topics II-2.A, III-2,

Subject:

III-4.A, and III-7.5, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-244 May 19,1983 J. E. Maier, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation l 3. Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, Chief, Operating Reactor Branch No. 5, USNRC SEP Topic III-7.B, Design Codes, Design Criteria, and Load

Subject:

Combinations, R. E. Cinna Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-244 Nay 27, 1983 L I Gilbert Commonwealth calculations for the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 4. Unit 1 on the following subjects: Integrity of structural walls against punching shear (5.6, of Reference 3). Specific examples Main steam a. penetration under postulated LOCA. Integrity of elements loaded in shear with no diagonal tension b. (5.3, Attachment 3 of Reference 3). Specific example: Shear capacity of beam pockets supporting the intermediate building floor. Development length of lapped splices in columns (5.1, Attachment c. 3 of Reference 3). Specific example: Column group which includes control rcom column. d. Coped beams (4.2.6 of Reference 2). Specific example: Integrity of roof beams (if coped) under extreme environmental load. .. ~ - ranklin Research Center A Denamn of The Fraseen mumane

TEA-C5506-423 ~ f steel embedmonts.(4.2.9 of Reference 2).. Specific example l e. Frame columns under low roof of the auxiliary building. Refore undertaking licensee report reviews, FRC prepared tabular forms to be used as a working tool during the review process and also to document the review work and its findings when the review was completed. These tables are intended to: 1 I 1. establish a systematic and comprehensive review procedure 2. senadardise, as such as possible, the review process for all licensees i 3. present a relatively compact overview of each licensee's SEP Topic III-7.5 compliance status. Two such forms were prepared, one related to design code changes and the other to the differences between loads and load combinations used for design and loads and load combinations current today.* i The form sheets provide space to summarise key infor'aation reported in i licensee responses. Certain items (such as descriptions of Scale A code changes, conclusions, and comments) frequently are not adaptable to I, abbreviated summary. For such iteme, the form sheets refer the reader either to sections of this TER where the mak.ter is developed more fully or to an extended note list compiled on separate sheets. The note list, although detached from the main table in order to allow a fuller discussion, accompanies each table and should be regarded as an integral part of it. The form sheet consists of four major columnar sections which 1. identify each Scale A itsa 2. state the action that the licensee took or the logic that the licensee presented to resolve the item I 3. provide an assessment of engineering conclusions that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence provided l

The tables for load and load combinations do not appear in this report because

~ RG&E plans to address these matters fully and in due course as pst of their " Structural Reanalysis Program." However, for each Seismic Categcty I ctructure, BGEE listed currently appropriate lead combinations; this ?s discussed later. ranklin Reneerch Center A Osumma of The Fmnamn tumane l l

- ~ i - _._ s. TFJN:5506-423 7l t i summarise the licensee's compliance status with respect to the ites. i 4. Items' listed on the tables are designed code. changes (or itemized load combinations) designated scale A. This list is drawn directly from g TE3H:5257-322, the earlier report on this topic [1]. Licensees may choose to address potential concerns stemming from Scale A items in two ways: generically, i.e., on an overall basis which resolves the concern for 1. all plant structures collectively, or i on a structure-by-structure basis. 2. The form sheets are compiled in a manner matching the licensee's approach, with one form sheet containing generically treated matters and with st.ructure-specific form sheets for each structure-specific satter. Form sheets summarizing the review findings concerning the licensee's compliance status with respect to the implementation of SEP Topic III-7.B A discussion of aspects related to design code changes follow in Section 4. the review findings concerning the licensee's compliance status with respect to load and load combination changes is presented in Section 5. e t e I G y-

10*

i gu ranklin Research Center A (>nman af The Feuei bemame ..----,.-p -w.-- y_ n 7

TEIH:5506-423 4. TABUIAR SUNNiutY OF REVIEN FINDINGS OF LICENSEE cot @LIANCE STATUS COICERNING.INPLEMEFIATION OF SEP TOPIC III-7.B INFACT OF DESIGN CODE CHANGES Form sheets summarising the review findings concerning technical aspects with respect to the implementation of SIP Topic III-7.5 as related to design code changes follow. O i e-l l l l t l t l ' nWin Research Center A Osnamn of The Fm wommas 4 ,,m..c, ,e

,l ,I l ,8 4

Imer. -lane ST94Ettpass All steel situctuses Supechat of LICSasSEE C00eLIhES STATUS -

10eACT 0T DESIGas Cous mmES Eheet 1 of 31 l D *TI 2 3 t E CODS CHAIE28 Cl?tD AS SCALE A EVAIJahfl0ge CF LICEIISSS'S ACTiett LICEISSS STATUS E34SES'S ACTICIS TO DESOLVE l p lu TER-5257-122 Portartl As, CONCEmII m IS SUFFIClgIrr l IS 815T1000 EWIDEssCE Sth1 TIS telTII BErSSENCED CODLS DESCRIPfl0II or l AIID FARAGRAPM CODS CMANGE REFEREaICS VALID AND BEFOltrBD TO COIICIJael0IIS MSPECT TO FtINTEIBS + lSee Indicated r%E Apreoral-JUSTIFT COIS- & TID C00 Sear *S Tuls COBE ACTIcel CumaEerr DEstcas _ neport Section) paCossart Isupeata _ Arta0ACM ATE 7 CLustoesSP (SES envrEl CIsaaIGS BrQuleSD i

r j

p 33 f { AISC 1988 AISC 1962 f 3.33.4 1.!!.4 Sheer connectore met. 2

p. 4-2 Calculatione and con-Pee Yes C-1 Desolved Isone 4

in composite App. A struction osawlege wese j beame 82.3) seuleved fos the use of i eheer connectora for jj' compoente beams. C2 CE for rusthes loves-J 1.11.1 Composite beams pet. 2

p. 4-2 Calculatione and con-Wee See Isotes or gisdore with App. &

structlan drawings were 162 loads shown tdgetton on drew-segelte4 for j formed steel reviewed for compoelte beams with steel deck-ings. C and D seswice 1 doch (2.2) tenditions, I h Ing. Selected beams cm were analysed fos loads I shown on the drawings. 1.19.6 1.10.6 mybgld girdere Def. 2

p. 4-3 Cos.struction esawings Tee Yes C-3 Isot oppil-IIene 1

cable i 12.1) App. A and specificatlane were soviewed for the sels-i to, ace of bybsid girdece. l 1.9.l.2 1.9.1 Compreselos met. 2

p. 4-3 The pleet structural tes See potes C-4 CE for F sther 8 mees-and App.

elemente having App. A model was saviewed to I&2 noteet Llos segulged operating for C and D C width /thicknees deteseine ediate toe sec-load com-mesvice cond8-retto greater ticme were used In com-blnettone. tions. than specitled preselon. Deee wese In 1908 Code evaluated sandes nosmal 82.4) operating load combina-tions. t

g I.i. 2.2 Ten. ion

.hes.. .ef. 2 ,. 4-. .ing ti,e...ui and ,e. i.e C-s mooir ene when load le app. A allowables fue each tanneeltted by code, the etsuctusal un botta or rivete capacity of a generic un l2.5) design esemple use c - put.d and -.ed. g 1 We Liceprea. has not yet conaldesed thle code change in conjunction with cussent accident and fealted service loading conditione. Notese 3. "The ef fects of solemic loado ese not a pett of the code comparison of this selef L** 2. Paragsagh 4.1 in Appendis A of Deference 2 states. j O

I c E=4 o,i Ptaarts Glena g Stacehaf OF LICEteSEE CU8erLIA88CE STATUS -- STRI8CTUREs Att steel structures INTACT OF DESIGal CODE CtenseGES Sheet 2 of 11 pmI i! CODE CitAssGE Cit *3 AS SCAL 2 A LICENSEE *S ACTIOel TO RESOLVE e 5 IM 7th-$2$7-133 POTEasTI AL CDNCEkW EVAIABATIOIS OF LICSesSS'S ACTIOtt LICW 8SS STATUS IS SUFFICister n DESCRIPTIoet OF IS 8WTIIUD EVID$sICE STATUS titTE 3 DEFEDENCEO CODES AND PARAGRAPil CODE CilA80GE SEFElduGCE VALID AIID BEFORTED 10 nuarv ana gOgg SSSpect TO FURTMER g (See Indicated PAGE APPDOPRI-JUSTIFT Gist-AseD COBettertS TIIIS CDDR ACTical CllRRENT DESICBI. Degx>rt Sectiont }sguesarf NUMBER APPh0ACS ATE 7 CLUSIOIG7 ISES IIDTED 080480G8 880188859 j i 9 AIsc 1980 ABSC 1963 f i* l t.5.1.2.3 some end connec-met. 2

p. 4-S Steel febrication draw-Tee See Isotes C-6 OE for ptssther inese-tion ulth top App. A lage were reviewed for

!&3 loads shown tlgetton I flange coped, if majos mees >ere with (Sheet 1) on the segistred for subject to sh.ar bolted connections and construc-C and p seswice I (2.6) Atted top flanges. Lion drew-condittene. Lightly loaded giste, ings. } 8 Q plattosme, stalt 8 etsingere, etc. were not g I t included. i Stie block shear capacity ot each toeas. was com-pared witha B

1. Roede shown on the construction dsewings

2. the aheas capacity of the bolte, et

3. the maalaus allowable

( load fus the beam epen. 1.n5.5.2 Column web sof. 2

p. 4-6 Constrim;tior, and f abri-Ten See esotes C-7 05 for rusther inese-through ettffenese for Asy. A cation drawings were

!&2 ostginal tigation 1.35.5.4 connectione revleved for use of 18heet Il applied registred for g restying moment musent connectione. loads. C and D service Y or aestrained only seseenhouse soof conditions. I member connec-beams were so designed. tion (2.7) These wese checked us 0 agelnet the ABSC 1980 Cafe using the original f A asylled loads. DJ ta 9

e D ay3% is G3~ 'E PLANTS GlJens 1-STRUCTURES All steel structutes gn StSee&RV OF LICEN6EE OMetLI AssCE STATUS - Sheet 3 of 11 7 O INFACF OF I)ESI0at CODE CMAteGES i 3$ i 4-LICENSEE *S ACT8000 TO BESOLVE EVAlmATIOel OF LICENSES'S ACTIOtt _ LICSBIStB STATUS i CODE CHANGE CITED AS SCALE A POFElfflAL ConscEaN IS SUFFICIDrf IN TER-5251-122 STA198 lelTal IS BeETIIDD EVfeX3 DEFEDEssCED CODES DESCRIPflote OF WALID ABID REPORTED TO 03edCLUS3005 DEstaCT TO FUeftIER AND PARACnAPM 0)DE CHANGE APPROPRS-JUSTIFT 0181-Aasp CtsetOITS Tut 4 CODE ACTinal BEFEREt8CF CMA88GS _ DEOulmSD lbee ledicated ArtssDACII ATE L Cl4SIONS7 _ ISEE IdDTEI _ __ i PAGE SnsteER CupAENT DESIGII_ poport Sectiow L DOCUMEafy Ilef. 2

p. 4-6 Avellebte calculottone tes See lootes C-8 05 for all las action f

h AISC 1980 AISC 1963 loadings gespalted tantese 142 O i 2.9 2.0 Specing of and the Giswee FSAR were when reec-pleetic logio latesel supposta App. A ISheet !! soolowed fos evidence of tions le subsequently of neebese pleetic deelge methode. seemin need to justify designed using electic et the integstly pleetic design been of the estating methode 12.8) eupposts. etractuses under Scale A 1peding com-blnetton. If so, Licensee-stated con-oluelone emnet be toenemined. y U9 0 476 06 DJ ts .g

I-t=- ea .iI D yg S3 b FRANTs Glena SupetABf 0F LICEasSES CupeLlhtCE STATUS - ST9tR'TURE s All cenesete etsuctuses i G3 p 23 IleACT OF DESIGN Cs10E CHANGES Sheet 4 of !! I p y3 7 IO C0t* CHANGE CITED AS SCALE A LICENSEE'S ACTICII TO DESOLVE IN TED-5251-122 PorENTIAL C008CEkN EVAIJAATIGII 0F LICEs8ME'S ACTICII LICEIISES WFATUS I 18 suertCILwr ,I ( IS :sTNOD svloENCE STATUS mTu ., I mErBugecED CODES DESCnirTION Or AleD PARAGMAPM CODE CHANGE WSFE8E6CE WALID ABID SEPORTED 10 COBICLUSICIIS SSSPSCT TO FuerteES ISee indicated PAGE APP 90 Pal-JUSTIFT Cuel-Agap CopeqEssTS Tels C0oS ACTical CUppEtst _ DESIGN _ gpost Sectlonl ptCtsetNT bestBER - APPIK2CII STk? CLUSIODIS7 ISEE IIDFE) CISAIEiB 58Q0558D ACI 349-76 ACI 110-63 6 shott brackets amt. 3

p. 11 Concrete outline draw-Tee Tea C-9 Boeolved asume 11.11 and cosbels inot Sect.

Inge and available on the contain-5.2 osteinal calculations b ment shelli 12.9) Att. 3 were serieved to detes- !l .ine a e,e 1,s.c. eta.nd ~I corbels were used. Twelve cosbels were found. Significantly loaded corbels havlag einitas geometry wese grouped. A cosbel from each group ljudged to have the wusst load) was evaluated for compliance with DCI 349-16.ontIg-j usation seguisemente, it all seguisements wese met, the capacity of the corbel was calculated in accosdance with s.CI 349-16. If a coabel did not contosa to config-usation se.luis.nent.,

g the concrete shoes i

l' etsesees was computed, t taking no credit fus y us solnloscing. O sh Ia. DJ (J t G t

e ptAffra Glane StretARY OF LICENSEE CUSIFLI ANCE STARIS - STSUCTUREs All concrete structores IterACT OF DESIGG (XM3E CHABIGES Sheet $ of !! cg > *TI CODR CasaseGE CITED AS SCALE A LICENSbE'S ACTIOesTo asSOLVE gg les ten-5257-322 POTEttflAL CDeICBats EvalABATIOgl OF LICSIdGES'S ACTIOef Liremen* STATUS l IS SUFFICISBfT g25 REFERENCED CODES DESCalPTIOst OF IS BIETIsuD EvlDEseCE STATUS tflfit g :3 AND PARAGRPMI CODE CMANGE REFEREBACE WALID Als DEPORTED 10 CDedClJsSICOS BSSPSCT TO FUIITNES ISee ladicated PAGS APP 90 FBI-JUSTIFT (Xiet-AIID CDeIEerFS Tul8 0005. ACTIOel cumprNT DES lQ1 Sepost Sectlon! DOCUMEtrF 3HatBER APP 90ACIO Afg7 CLUSIOGIS L ESEE 80Drt) _CIIA0005 BSoulmSD. g, O ACE 349-16 ACI 318-61 31.36.3 Sheer walle used pet. 3

p. 28 A total of 157 sheer res Yes C-IS mesolved 806E has com-through as primary load-Sect.

walls was Identitled. escept for altted to note ll.16.6 carrying menisere 5.4.5 the welte in eacIn build-diesel modificatione 12 15.11 Att. 3 Ing were taken as a generator to the diesel group, and f urther cles-building. generator elfled as either inte-buildlag. rior or esterior. One well representative of each cleastfication was 7 evaluated. For the controlling load coe- [ b!netton, in-plane ver-tical, la-plane hartoon-j p I tal, and lateral loade on the well were evale-ated to code proviolone. l lbheer walle In the acreenhouse were evolu-8 i ated by comperleon with eueillery building walle.) II.16.7 Punching sheer Def. 3

p. 22 Emed sheets from the Tee Tea C-Il Resolved Itone strees for walle Sect.

Glana Setemic Opgrade 43.15.2) S.4.2 rec 3 em were reviewed to Att. 3 determine punching loads from pipe and equipment supportu. For pipe sup-porte, the moet severe loads found were applied q V 54 to the thinuset well, y t uslag a 6-in aquere area O of applicattors. The cepecity of the well calculate 1 la accordance C3 A with the ACE 349-76 pro-1 viei-a was d.t.r.ined. N Equipment punching loade 8*8 were individually treated. e

i 'i! i 5,3 c= 6 l > 13 &3 PLAarre Glana

g p

1 e StSetART OF LICElebEE C00fLI AKE STATUS - ST9tCTUREs All concrete structures l{ IterACT Of DESIGN CODE CMANGES Steet 6 of !! e n CODE CNAacGE CITED AS SCASA A LICEasSES'S ACTICBI TO SE80LVS IN Tsa-5257-322 PfMElftI AL C00dC5808 SVARAantlatl 0F LIC5sess's ACTION LICBIISBS STATUS IS SUFFICIEtrt REFEREtCED CODES DESCRIPTI(BI W IS 88T1000 EWIDEaCS STA14ps telTE AMD PARAGRAPM C0es CHANGS WFBIElf5 VALID AseD IlEroettED TO COICIApelcalS RESPECT TO FugretIES I (See 'ndicated 6 AGE APP 90PRI-JUSTIFY COII-AIID C00esartS TO'S CODE ACTICII CumaE % DESIGN poport Section! 00Cussert IsuHeEn Artes 0ACW ATE 7 Cl.uSinges? 19E3 teorEl CuassGE DSQuinEs ACI 349-76 ACI 310-63 it 11.15 Structural asf. 3

p. le moviou of concrete out-Tea Tee, Let C-12 OE for rusBher laves-elemente loads 4 Sect.

line draulage and avell-see Isote loads tigation may be I in sheer ideere 5.3 able calculatione C-18 and stated in required for j!' U lt le inapproa Att. 3 seaseled 203 shear-frio-status com-esemple C and D service l l I pelate to con-tion ounditions from a ment given in conditions. eldes ahear es a variety of team and elab peference measure of ding-sucesste and other alt-5.b. onal tonelen natic no. Steller cose-leheer friction) figuratione were grouped 12.11) together in 15 catego-rias. Taking credit only for reinforcement meeting ACI 349-76 pro-violone, the shear capacity of one semiser (the most heavily l loaded) of each group uma determined. Teile i capcalty use checked against a code-required factor of refety or g (falling thle) against N actual failure. y 1 tn ase O trn Ib 94 Las e s

b PLAarts Glana c= cEE3 SutetARE OF LICE 80SEE ColePLI AICE STATUS - STSUCTU5hde All concrete structures IterACT OF DESIGas CODE CMAldGES Seteet 7 of !! >q Bs E E3 CODE CMAtsGE CITED AS SCALE A LICEsosEE'S ACTIOI0 TO DESOLVE fM IN Tsa-5257-323 PortNTI AL ConsCEau EVALUATIces Or LICEtessS'S AcT80er LIcasSBs STATUS IS SUFFICIEJf' 1 f pErERENCEr. CODES DESCRIPTION Or IS toutteop EVIDEldCS STATUS IIETE y AgsD PARAGRAPN CODE CMANGE ISFERESCE VALID ABID MPOfrTED TO COOK *LUSICIAS DESes*T TO FUWFIIER (See Indicated PAGE APrporRI-JUSTIFT C000- AND C019eE8FFS THIS CODE ACTIcet Cut past DESIGu poport Sectioni Secteeg esteesta APPRDAOI ATE 7 Cimalose87 GiEE BIDTEL rummena

3g008859, 4

ACI 349-74 ACI 318-63 Appendte A ~ Concsete aegions Bef. 3

p. 33 In beslldinge edtere a Ves Vee C-13 Demelved leone subject to high-Sect.

poselble thesmal differ-temperature time-5.5 esential condition of dependent arul Att. 3 consequence could occur, poettlon-depen-drawings and calcula-dont temperatuse Lions were reviewed to variations (2.12) determine thessel condt-tiene. Sie attuations wese found. Of these, g ed the cable tunnel condt-y alon was judged to be the worst case sad eval-usted. Delag the moet 3 severe loading combina-tion, the momente la the cable tunnel were deter-mined and composed to the cossesponding somer.t cepecittee. 7.10.3 805 Column with met. 3

p. 15 proulage and calcule-Ves Wee, for the C-14 CE for Further Invee-epliced rein-Sect.

tions wese reviewed to loads con-loeds con-Ligation may be forcement subject 5.1 determine columns with oldered in eldered in required for to etsees reves-Att. 3 spliced reinforcing 57 the compu-the sepost, C and D service sal 12.13) were found. All use lap tations but the conditione. splices et the bottom of report does the column. These were not cleasty Q D grouped, according to state that I thels reinforcine all settene detalle and elses, lato load cases nine categurles. One have been un heavily loaded column canaldered Ut face each group wee for all Q chosen los evaluettoss to column g to ACI 349-76 psoul-groups. g alone. The splice g,, 9

t 4 E53 w PtAufe Clana

1 Stestant OF LICEseSEE C000PLIANCE STATUS -*

STSUCTUREs All concrete attesctures h IIIPACF OF DESIGas CODE CHANGES Sheet 8 of !! E e 5' = ym LICl;4dSES'S ACTIOef TO DESOtNS CODE CHAasGE CITED AS SCALE A l IN ten-5257-317 POTEsf7IAL CneerzaN BV&tAAATIOes OF LICstESS'S ACTIOIf LICE 80SSS STAttiS 3 IS SUFFICittaf y IS 8579510 BVIDEaICS STATUS telTS DEFERE9ECED CODES DESCRIPTIOel OF h AseD PARAGRAPM CDDE CllAIGGE REFEREDICE VALIO AleD SSPORTED TO maars san gOgg pgSPECT TO rueTIIER 3 (See Indicated FACE APP 90PRI-JUSTIFY Cost-AaID CIBetERITS TitIS CDOS ACTI0tt gpaElsT _ DESICBS. Depost Section) DOClatENT,suME;ER APPROACll ATEF C1.08 5005 7 18E5 00075) CashasGs DEoutaED ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 capacity was calculated. 1.10.3 It the ep!!ces did not Icont.) have the minimus sequised spiace length l to fully develop the bar, splice capacities ,6 were seduced in propos- '{ g tion to thels length. sJ 'I tn i Appendia 3 Steel embedmont met. 2

p. 4-7 reon a total population yes See Isotee C-15 Os fos Further inves-I used to tseneelt Sect.

of 194 columns, 46 562 mosmal tigetton may be load to concsete 4.2.9 thawing conesete anchor-Isheet 1) deelen required fos 12.14) age) were selected as a loads uelag C and D seswice stattetical sample for cussent conditions. i load evaluation. These combine-column erwhorages were checked fos ductile tiene. failure and othes requiremente of the ACI 349-08 Code. It code seguirements were met, the anchorage was deemed acceptable. If not, the ultimate capacity of the anchorage was. coopered to the cosmal design load combinations. i Y Elemente subject Ttile item w!!! be adJseemed in the Structural Upgrade program. appendte C ta imptualve and ~ 8,8 impactive loads, whose talluse p savet be precluded la.isi Io las e

9 > yg 8 a FRANrs Glena StaeuCTUpEs All concrete structuses 3 SLSWIPEY OF LICENSEE ColeLI AICE STATUS - lit 44CT OF DESIGN CODE CNAI:3ES Sheet g of !! G3 f;G 4 i CODE CHAIIGE CITED AS SCALE A LICENSEE *8 siCT1011 TO DESOLVE IN TER-5257-322 PorEIITI AL CtaCseII SWALAIATICII or B.lCEalSES'S ACTICII LICSIISE STATUS IO IS SurtlCIEgry 18 IIETIIOD EWIDBMCE STATtsS IIITE DEPEREICED CODES DESCRIPTICII 0F ABID PARAGRAPM CODE CMAleIE MBrE8ESCE VALID AIID REPoetrED TO COICLUSIORIS DESPECT TO PuerIIES iSee Indicated PAGE .APPROPRI-JUSTIFT Cott-AND COISE8rtS TIIIS CDDE ACTIOle CUkhtart _ DESIGN. Deport Sectioni pecUtsgry glielaEn APPROACM ATEP __ CL81850gIS7 18EE IIDFE) CIIABIGS 15005R50 A$ set B&PW ACI 310-63 Code l Section lit Div 2, 1990 CC-3421.5 Containment met. I

p. 2 pesolved in SER transaltting TEs-C5257-322 to aGa5 transaltting Sect.

Spection 1.2. Attachment 3 of Beforence 3). g inplane sheer 1.2 w 12.16) Att. 3 y CC-3421.6 1787 pagion of the pet. 3

p. 24 A total of 126 penetra-Tee Tea C-!E pesolved ago further action containment shell

Sect, tions was ideattfled, seguised.

subject to 5.6 and escuped by sleeve perigdietal shear Att. 3 diameter into ten cate-12.128 pslee. 4ame groupe were adequate by inspec-tions for othese a

worst case
penetration from each group was chosen and the shell cepecity of these penetrations was svaluated. Actual factoss of safety were calculated and compared to the factor of safety 1*

required by the code. CC'-3421.7 921 begion of con-met. 3

p. 26 Strisctural drawings wese Tea Tea C-17 Desolved 100 further W

action tainment shell Sect. reviewed to ideettfy required. tai subject to 5.7 penetrations adalctn sely y tossion 12.103 Att. 3 upon concrete capacity m to seelet tersion. Only I the neln steam and feed-d. water penetsettone were g t. found to Ise so designed. O

*st g

PIAttre Glane SteetARY OF LICEaISES QM4PLI ANCE STATUS -- STRUCTURES All concrete attuctutes g p-INFACT CF DESIGN CODE CHAWQtS Sheet 18 of II I* CODE CllANGE CITED AS SCALE A LICE 8est:E'N ACTIOel TO DESOLVE IN TER-5257-322 POTENTIAL aleacEmu svAIA84T50W OF LICasWSS'S ACTI0tt LICWISEs STAftse () IS SUFFICIBIFF DEFEDEseCED CUDES DESCRIPTIOel OF IS BIETIIOD BVlJealCE STRTUS WITII AND PARAGRAPH CDDS CMA31GE DEFEaENL'8 VALIO A8EB BSPORTtD 10 am usgong pagygCT To rueTua ISee Indicated PAGE APPROPRI-JUSTIFT 0000 AND CraetERITS TMIS CDOS ACT10st CURRENT DESIGN Report Section) DECUgeEber enesota APPROACII ATg7 CgAfg g(t37 {ggg ggrPyg) CgA3p(3 agggggg ASNE S&PV ACI 318-63 ~ Code Section III Civ 2, 1900 CC-te4S Elemente subject Isot Per resolution Ibi, ic) to transient addressed, of ansaSc/ I thermal toeding best le Ch-2588 U 12,10) canaldered findings. l I in suua8G/ l CR-25SS. CC-3512. Areas of conteln-met. 3

p. 27 Contelament casterete fee Tee C.IS OE, for Licensee should 1.2 ment shell sub-Sect.

drawings were esamined load com-provide amour-ject to blastal 5.9 to identify the areas bination ance that all tension 12.191 Att. 3 where main reinforcing conaldered. containment base are tesalnated. service loade seine areas we e found were considered where the male reintosc-in thle evalu-ing bare in time well and tion. i, - ere ter.in.t.d d eeven additional areae where supplom atart bare ere terminatel. This-teen of the 14 areas wese individually evalu- .ted. 1,. t e..a n. 13 3 .develogeant 1 engthe g required fos ;he con-tsolling load combtna-Un tion were compared to the development lengthe e psovided. { La

l t I c.=- D arg [H E L3 ,,9Il O PtA88Ts Glena s SupetARV OF LICENSEE UNIPLI AIGCE STATUS -- STSUCTusse All copereta structuses 4 IMPACT OF DESIG8 CDDR CHA80GES Sheet II of !! CUDE CitANGE CITED AS SCALS A LICENSER'S ACTIOel 10 psSOLVE IN TER-5257-122 POTENTI AL OMICER00 EVAIAsATIOpf OF I.lCEteER'S ACTIOgg LICEleSEE STATUS IS SUFFICIdarf IS SEETHOD EVIDEa8CE STR1 TIS titTS DEPEREsCED CODES DESCRIPTIOtt OF VALIO AIS DEPORTED TO F amIOes SESFgCT TO FUSTuRR AND PARAGRAPH (XM)E CNAffGE REFERE80CE APPSOPRI-JUSTIFV 0110- AtID Ctsessaf?S TrilS IX3DE ACTIOel (See Indicated PAGE M CURSE 8FP DESIGBf poport sectlon)_ DOCIBGENT BMethER APPROACl4 ATE 7 CIAMilOedS7 ISEE tetFfEl CalhasGE peQUIRED g cp t' ASME B6PV ACI 150-63 Code Section III Div 2, 1900 CC-3421.0 Brackete and Ret. 3

p. 27 Drawings and calcula-glo l>cachete Ihne corbete la con-

Sect, tiene for the contain-or corbels tainment shell S.8 ment shell wese soviewed were toend (2.21)

Att. 3 to determine where in the con-cosbele were used, talament shell. I 1,' t tn O dhI b N 48 r e

~ ~ TER-C5506-423 NDfES: In the following notes, the Licensee's conclusion is presented first, .followed by the reviewer's coments, if any, in brackets. C-1. Se review showed that the steel beam section was adequate to carry the applied loads and that composite action was not relied upon. l C-2. The a alysis showed that composite design was not required for these beams and the Licensee surmised that the existing shear connectors were provided to preclude lateral torsional buckling in the top flange. C-3. The review showed no use of hybrid girders in plant structures. C-4. The review showed that, under normal load combinations, none os' the too section failed the code check for members in compression. C-5. The results of the generic review showed that, for the structural materials used in the Ginna plant, the AISC 1963 Code provides a more conservative design. (For this design code change, the conservatism or nonconservatism of the 1963 AISC Code is material dependent. For the Ginna plant, where all structural members are of A-36 steel, the conclusion that the 1963 AISC Code is more conservative is correct. However, this is not necessarily true of plants which also use other construction materials, particularly the higher strength steels.] C-6. In all cases, it was found that the beam capacity was controlled by one of the three other loading limits cited and not by the block shear capacity. [ Positive evidence that coping will not reduce safety margins is provided for those beams which pass comparison tests 2 and 3. For such beams, the critical section controlling beam capacity is not through the coping but elsewhere. Determination of coping acceptability by test 1 shows that safety margins (although smaller than formerly perceived to be) are still code acceptable for the loads that the Licensee considered, i.e., normal operating conditions. In any case, since to date only normal operating loads have been considered in the Licensee's review of this item, any structural concern about the acceptability of coped members at the Ginna plant ~ is relegated to the review of member acceptability under the portion of the III-7.B topic devoted to loads and load combinations.]

- ranidin Research Centes A Ommen of The Fe insumme

..,. ~. - -,.,,. - _ _

i I TER-C5506-423 C-7. It was determined that no column web stiffeners are required to safely carry the original applied loads. C-4. No evidence was found of plastic design methods being used. C-9. Evaluation of the twelve corbels showed: a. Six of seven corbels supporting primary structural elements met code requirments. One did not conform with the minimum reinforcing requirements but its stresses were too small tc be of concern. b. The five corbels which support secondary elements did not comply with the code requirements for reinforcing. However, all five have insignificant stresses. C-10. S e evaluation showed a. S e shear walls in the auxiliary building, intermediate building, control building, containment interior structures, and screenhouse met the code requiraraents, b. L'he shear walls in the diesel generator building did not meet current code criteria because of the new code provision for in-plane shear. C-11. Se evaluation found that, in all cases, the walls met the code 4 required factor of safety for punching ahear. C-12. The results showed: I Six groups representing 26 conditions had safety factors that a. were equal to or greater than the code-required factor of safety, considering only code-satisfying reinforcing. b. Five groups representing 108 conditions met the code-required factor of safety, considering code-satisfying reinforcing plus taking credit for any additional well-anchored reinforcing installed. Two groups representing three conditions met the code-required c. factor of safety for shear stresses in unreinforced concrete. l d. One group representing six conditions (beam pockets for beam supporting the intermediate building floor) had an actual factor of safety less than the code requires, but greater than unity against ultimate failure. O-ranklin Research Center A Onamen af The Frissai mesmane .m.-- _,3-._ p.,- --,__,_..-,_---m-_-,.-_.- ..,,_.-,.,_,,-~,_,_,,_,-,_,,,,_..---c_-

TER-C5506-423 (Computations for the beam pockets for beams supporting the floor at elevation 271 ft in the intermediate building were

====4ned during of the review. S is was one of several sample calculations arbitrarily chosen by the reviewers and provided by the Licensee to serve as examples typical of computations made by the Licensee in support of its conclusions. It was noted that the loading combination used in this computation was the most severe of the operating loads (which included the operational basis earthquake). However, a more severe loading would appear to occur under accident conditions (for example, a load combination including the safe shutdown earthquake). If the same procedure used for the check computations made by the Licensee were applied to tho latter loading, it appears that the beam pockets would exhibit a factor of safety less than 1. However, the check coagutation is conservative. It relies on the shear capacity of the concrete alone and takes no credit for additional shear resistance provided by existing bearing plate anchors and other reinforcement that may also be present.] One group representing two conditions met the code required e. factor of safety assuming an in-aitu concrete strength (f'c) of 3300 pai, as opposed to the 28-day strength of 3000 pri. This in-situ strength is' judged to be reasonable. [Tne reviewers concur that it is reasonable to expect a long-terza strength increase of at least this auch.] f. S e results for the screenhouse show the safety factors are greater than those required by the code. C-13. The factor of safety found for the cable tunnel was greater than I the code requires. Basd on this " worst case," the remaining five elements were judged to est.he current code requirements. I ( C-14. Se evaluation found all concrete columns==amined met the :. ode i required factor of safety. C-15. ne'sults of the evaluations Of the 46 column anchorages evaluated, 22 did not meet the ACI a. 349-80 Code, b. Of the 22 that did not meet the code, 5 anchorages were unacceptable for the applied loads. Using statistical projection, at a 954 confidence level, no more than 27% of the population of 194 column anchorages would have unacceptable margins of safety for normal load combinations. 31-I nklin Research Center A Osamen af The Fw buumme ( .wg. _m -_.,,_m s,,_,,_c ,,..,w-._ _ _ _, .o,,_-__-,,. ._m_,, ,w,y.___,,,,.___,,,-__,.,_-__7,

TE M 5506-423 C-16. The results of the evaluation: For penetration groups with 6-in,12-1/2-in, and 14-1/4-in ~a.. diameter sleeves, the code specified punching shear capacity of the concrete exceeded the ultimate axial load of the pipe ', penetration. ~ b. For penetration groups with 24-in and 54-in diameter sleeves, the shell capacity was judged to be adequate, since no significant punching shear loads were identified. At equipment and personnel locks, significant punching shear c. loads occur under containmarit internal pressure only. Under the abnormal loading condition (1.5 Fa), adequacy against punching failure local to th7 penetration was demonstrated by calculations. d. For the groups with 10-in and 24-1/4-in diameter sleeves, the shell capacity was shown adequate. For the 29-in and 45-1/4-in diameter sleeve groups (feedwater e. and mainstream penetrations), the shell was found not to meet the current code-required factor of safety using pipe rupture loads from the original plaat design calculations. However, the actual factor of safety is greater than 1.0. C-17. A torsional shear stress check was not required. C-18. In all of the 13 areas evaluated, the provided tensile development lengths exceeded ASME Code requirements. l ~ p. i 32-l

0) Franklin Research Center A Chaman af The Fw ensamme f

a-w'e--.=- v--r- -c. -i.,--y mwam.m-. e - -.--a--m.v-- - - - m7-y.-, - -- m --m7 y --,.,----------u 7

-==--

v

e TE3K5506-423 5. REVIEN FINDINGS - LOADS AND IAAD CCMBINATIONS This sect!ca presents, on a structure-by-structure basia, the review findings concernag the Licensee's compliance status with respect to the loads and loed combination aspects of SEP Topic III-7.3. 5.1 CONCRETE C00FEAInBeff SEELLS I The reviewers concur with the Mi&E conclusion (see Page 10, Attactueent 3, Reference 9) that the follow'ing set of loads is, as reduced by building-specific considerations, a proper loading combination under current criteria. I 1. D+L+F4 PT + To + B0 2. D + L + F + PV + To + Bo + Bo 3. D + L + F + PT + To + W + Ro i 4. D + 1.3L + F + PV + To + 1.5Eo + 20 5. D + 1.3L + F + PV + To + 1.5W + Ro 6. D + L + F + PV + To + Ess + Ro l 7. D + L + F + PV + To + Mt + Ro 8. D + L + F + 1.5Pa + Ta + Ra 9. D + L + F + Pa + Ta + 1.25En 10. D + L + F + 1.25Pa +.Ta + 1.25Eo + Ra 11. D + L + F + 1.25Ps + Ta + 1.25W + Ra

12.

D + L + F + To + Eo j

13.

D + L + F + To + W 14. D + L + F + Pa + Ta + Ess + Ra + Yr + Yj TER-C5257-322 had cited load combinations 7, 8, and 14 as scale A. g RGEE has demonstrated in Section 1, Attachment 2 of Reference 3 that load combinations 7 and 8 any be removed from Scale A, classification. This conclusion is based on the results of SIP Topics II-2 and III-6. Based og the conclusions drawn in NUREG/CR-1821 (substantiating the seismic adequacy of the containment to withstand SSE considered as acting alone) and the findings of NOREG/CR-2580 (where seismic stresses were considered in combination with other loadings), the Scale A rating may also be removed from load combination 14.

Ibe Licensee's response references a single load combination (designated as License No. 12) representing the combined load combinations 12 and 13.

e33-nklin Research Center A Okeman af The Fe ensumme l

TER-d5506-423 5.2 CONTAINBWIT LIBER Based on the information provided by RG&E (section 2, Nttmehmaat 2, maference 3), the following set of loads appears to be a proper loading combination under current criteria when reduced by plant-specific considerations. 1. D + L + F + To 2. D + L + F + To + Eo 1 3. D + L + F + To + W 4. D + L + F + To + Eo 5. D + L + F + To + W 6. D + L + F + To + Ess ) 7. D + L + F + To + Nt j 8. D + L + F + Pa + Ta + Ra 9. D + L + F + Pa + Ta + Ra 10. D + L + F + Pa + Ta + Eo + Ra 11. D + L + F + Pa + Ta + W + Ra

12.

D + L + F + Ba + To + Eo

13. D + L + F + Ea + To + W 14.

D + L + F + Pa + Ta + Ess + Ra Load combinations 7, 8, and 14 are cite'd in TER-C5257-322 as scale A,. Although the concrete.shell and liner form an intergral structure and are currently designed to the same code provisions, the liner was given individual attention in the Topic III-7.B study because of the special considerations associated with it. Primary among these considerations is maintenance of liner integrity. Loading cases 7, 8, and 14 are retained as scale A, pending: 1. Resolution under Topic III-6 of effects associated with pipe l reactions occurring inder accident or faulted service conditions. 2. Resolution of concerns for done liner integrity raised in AUREG/CA 2580.

See footnote on page 33.

..e-ranidin Research Center A t>numa af The Frumen tumme e v -+- -- '-ww yme--m--- .,v.---.w w-ip---..w .-m.-.---:y- - -,m-. e--,,. -,,, - --w--e.-,.--.-ww----y.-,- -. - w y - - -v---.-w-mg--- --w.y-

w-

,--,--,--e---w-- e.--

~ i.~ ~ -c. TER-C5506-423 4 5.3 SPENT FUEL POOL (CONCERTE) se reviewers concur with the RG&E conclusion that the following set.of loads is, as reduced by building-specific considerations, a proper load . combination under current criteria. 1. 1.4D + 1.7L 2. 1.4D +,1.7L + 1.930 3. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W 4. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L) 5. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.9Eo) 6. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7N) 7. 1.2D + 1.950 8. 1.2D + 1.7W i 9. D + L + Ess 10. D + L + Nt 11. D+L 12. D + L + 1.25Eo 13. D + L + Ess TER-C5257-322 had cited load combinations 10 and 13 as Scale A,. nG&E has demonstrated in Section 3, Attachment 2 of Anference 3 that load combinations 10 and 13 may be removed from the list. This was based on the Licensee's response concerning loading case 10 which states: "It was shown in the SER's for SEP Topics III-2 and III-4.A, that the Spent Fuel Pool would not be affected by wind and tornado (including missile) loadings." Concerning loading case 13, the Licensee stated: l "The spent fuel pool was shown to be adequate to withstand SSE loads, per NUREG/CR-1821. Temperature variations as the result of failures in the Spent Fyel Pool Cooling system were considered, and found acceptable, in the NBC's SER for SEP Topic IX-1, ' Fuel Storage', dated January 27, 1982." De original analysis of the spent fuel pool treated earthquake leadings using static equivalent forces; current practice requires dynamic analysis. However, because the pool is a massive structure and because of its location, it is expected to respond to earthquake loads without appreciable amplification or structural deformations. Consequently, it seems reasonable to expect that static and dynamic treatment should not produce widely divergent results. --.h. Center renidin Researc [_,

TER-C5506-423 On this -basis, for Topic'II-7.B objectives, the review finds that. pool adequacy has been damaantrated. 5.4 AUKILIAE! BUILDIW3 (CONCRETE) The reviewers concur with the BG&E conclusion that the following set of loads is, as riduced by building-specific considerations, a proper loading combination under current criteria. 1. 1.4D + 1.7L 2. 1.4D > 1.7L + 1.950 3. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W 4. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7Bo) 5. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.730 + 1.9Eo) 6. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7Bo + 1.7W) 7. 1.2D + 1.9E0 8. 1.2D + 1.7W 9. D + L + Ro + Ess 10. D + L + Ro + Nt M. D+L+h 12. D + L + 3a + 1.25Eo

13. D + L + RA + Ess TER-C5257-322 had cited load combinations 10 and 13 as Scale A,.

The A, classification for both of these loading combinations is retained pend'.ng: 1. resolution of issues related to masonry walls, and 2. establishment of embedmont c'.rength needed to ensure that all columns can withstand loadings founu during SEP seismic review and also from tornado loadings at wind magnitudes satisfying SEP objectives. RG&E states that loading combination 13 reduces to loading combination 9, a case tr'e'ated in the original analysis of the auxiliary building. Except for regions local to pipe penetrations or pipe supports (or the like), this equivalency does exist. However, it should be made clear that absence of a Scale A citation of a previously analyzed load combination does not necessarily reflect tacit agreement that existing analytical results are in full accord with current criteria. It merely indicates that some other loading combination was deemed likely to be more significant. p." - l 000 Frankun Research Center 4one. awn.r, en m C-- -e- ,c--e, e-we-.-w-c- -~e- -.s g-w.---,- y -mw. ---w-g ---g--5 - - -m-%9y

TER-C5506-423 5.5 AUXILIARY BUILDING (STEEL) Based on the information provided by BG&E (Section 5, Attachment 2 of Reference 3), t5e following set of loads appears to be a proper loading combination under the current criteria. 1. D+L 2. D+L+E 3. D+L+W 4. D+L+Bo 5. D + L + Ro + E 6. D + L + Ro + W 7. D + L + Ro + E' 8. D + L + Ro + Mt 9. D + L + Ra 10. D + L + Ra + E 11. D + L + Ra + E' TER-C5257-322 had cited load combinations 1C and 13 as Scale A,. The A, classification for both of these loauing combinations is retained pending results from the IEEE Structural Reanalysis Program. 5.6 CONTROL BUILDING The reviewers concur with the RG&E conclusion that the following set of loads is, as reduced by buiIding-specific considerations, a proper loading combination under current criteria. l 1. 1.4D + 1.7L I 2. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.9Eo 3. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W 4. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L) 5. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.9Eo) 6. 0.75 - (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W) 7. 1.2D + 1.9Eo 8. 1.2D + 1.7W 9. D + L + Ess 10. D + L + Mt 11. D+L 12. D + L + 1.25Eo 13. D + L + Ess TER-C5257-322 had cited load combinations 10 and 13 as Scale A. g The east wall of the control building incorporates masonry bidcii construction. Although this wall is reinforced and has received analytical _nk!!n Rese_ arch _Ce.nter ,,v, ,.-ww-- w - -w,_--

-.,, ---- +

l l 1 1 - TER C5505-423 i attention, criteria acceptable to the hBC are not available as a basis for establishing its ecceptability. Consequently, the scale A, rating'has been retained for both loading cases 10 f.nd 13. 5.7 INTENEDIATE EUILDING (CC1 CRETE) The reviewers concur with the BG&E conclusion that the following set of loads is, as reduccd by buildinq-specific considerations, a proper loading conoinatio3 under current criteria. 1. 1.4D + 1.7L 2. 1,4D + 1.7L + 1.9Eo 3. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W 4. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 7. 7R0) 5. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7Bo 1.9Eo) 6. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7Bo + 1.7W) 7. 1.2D + 1.9Eo 8. 1.2D + 1.7W 9. D + L + Ro + Ess 10. D + L + Ro + Wt 11. D + L + Ra

12.

D + L + Ra + 1.25Eo ~

13.

D + L + Ra + Ess TER-C5257-322 had cited load combinations 10 and 13 as scale A. g The A scale ratings for load combinations 10 and 13 are retained g pending resolution of issues relating tot

1. the wind load magnitude in compliance with SFP objectives, ano,

2. the structural integrity of the intermediate b'411 ding's masonry block walls.

Current fequirements that the ef fMts of an'instuttaneous gttillotina pips break be considered in thcae 10ad ccabinat, ions have been waiv'ed. The Licensee stated:

N

As noted in SEP Topic III-5.B, an inservice inspection program has been instituted by SG&E, and accepted by the NRC, Which would p?ever% full diameter breaks in the steam and feedwater pf ping systs as.

Thus, only crack breaks in the mai42 piping, or full diareter break 4 in the small ~ branch linds, need to be postulated. The modifications l#'916 merited kf BG6E as a result of tre review of postulated pepihg failur'es in the intermediate building (e.g., jet shields and misaile barriets) consider the effects of the resultant piping dymanic loads." nk!!n Research Center A Den >= ed Ttse feween truense M sd y

TER-C5506-423 5.8 1NTER8EDIATE BUILDING (STEEL) Based on the information provided by RG&E (Section 8, Attachment 2, Reference 3) the following set of loads appears to be a proper loading combination under current criteria. 1. D+L 2. D+L+E 3. D+L+W 4. D+L+Ro 5. D + L + Ro + E 6. D + L + Ro + W i 7. D + L + Ro + E' 8. D + L + Ro + Nt 9. D + L + Ra

10.

D + L + Ba + E

11.

D + L + Ra + E' Load combinations 8 and 11 are cited in TER-C5257-322 as Scale A. g A Scale A ratinJ is retained on load combination 8 pending determina-tion of the wind speed magnitude deemed necessary to comply with SEP objec-tives. A Scale A, rating is also retained on load combination 13 based on the following consideration. NUREG/CR-1821 found the intermediate building column system, as presently anstructed, to be " marginally acceptable" under SSE. Modifications to the intermediate building are currently anticipated in order to provide structural integrity under tornado. Assurance should be provided that such modifications also enhance the structure's earthquake resistance or at least do not detract from it due to an altered dynamic response. 5.9 CABLE TURNEL The reviewers concur with the RG&E conclusion that the following set of loads is, as reduced by building-specific considerations, a proper loading combinatica under current criteria.

see footnote for corresponding items for intermediate building concrete structures (Section 5.7).

p. ranklin Research Center A Chaman of The Frauen maamme

l TER-C5506-423 i

1. 1.4D + 1.7L

2. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.950

3. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W

4. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L)

5. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.9Eo)

~

6. Oo75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W)

7. 1.2D + 1.9Eo

8. 1.2D + 1.7W

9. D + L + Ess

10. D + L + Nt

11. D + L + Ta + 1.5Pa

12. D + L + Ta + 1.25Pa + 1.25Eo

13. D + L + Ta + Pa + Mas TER-C5257-322 had cited load combination 13 as scale A,.

Based on conclusions reached in NUREG/CR-1821, the Scale A rating for g loading combination 13 any be removed, and the structural integrity of the cable tunnel may be considered demonstrated. 5.10 SCREENHOUSE The reviewers concur with the RGEE conclusion that the following set of loads is, as reduced by building-specific considerations, a proper loading combination under current criteria. 1. 1.4D + 1.7L 2. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.9Eo 3. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W 4. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L) 5. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.9Eo) 6. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W) 7. 1.2D + 1.9EO 8. 1.2D + 1.7W 9. D + L + Ess 10. D+L+Wt 11. D+L

12. D + L + 1.2SEo
13.

D + L + Ess TER-C5257-322 had cited load combinations 10 and 13 as scale A. g

Alternative methods of achieving safe shutdown are pecposed under SEP Topic III-5.B in the event of postulated pipe breaks in the screenhouse.

.- nklin Research Center A Dhuman of The Frauen kummes

TER-C5506-423 A Scal.e A, ranking is retained for load combination 10 pending resolution of wind speed magnitudes deemed satisfactory to v.ssure compliance with SEP objectives under tornado 1Gadings. The Licensee observes the equivalence, when reduced by building-specific considerations, of load combination 13 (ranked Scale A ) and load g combination 9 (for which an original analysis was made). The original analysis was based' on representation of earthquake loading by an eq@ialent static g loads current criteria presume dynamic methods of analysis. The Scale A, ranking is retained pending demonstration that the original analytical methods are adequately conservative. 5.11 DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING (CONCRETE) The reviewers concur with the BG&E conclusion that the following set of loads is, as reduced by building-specific considerations, a proper loading combination under current criteria. 1. 1.4D + 1.7L 2. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.9Eo 3. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W 4. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L) 5. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.9Eo) 6. 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W) 7. 1.2D + 1.SEo 8.

1. 8 + 1.7W 9.

D + L + Ess 10. D + L + Nt 11. D+L 12. D + L + 1.25Eo 13. D + L + Ess TER-C5257-322 had cited load combinations 10 and 13 as Scale A,. The Scale A, rating is retained for load combination 10 pending resolution of tornado wind speed magnitudes deemed necessary to comply with SEP objectives. The Scale A, rating may be removed from load combination 13 based on conclusions stated in NUREG/CR-1821. p _nklin Rese_ arch._ Center

.TE3A:5506-423 i 6. SUMMMt! OF REVIEW FINDINGS Number of Scale A and Scale Ax Rankings for Unresolved Items for Ginna Seismic Category I Structures Scale A Code Changes ACI 318-63 vs. AISC 1963 ACI 318-63 ASlet B&PV vs. vs. Sect. III Issues AISC 1980 ACI 349-76 Div. 2 1980 Raised by, 8 88 6 TER-C5257-322 Resolved 3 3 4 Remaining 5 5 2 Planned Resolution per Structural b 5 5 2 Reanalysis Prograa Scale A Lead Combinations x 7,,,,, Raised by 23 TER-C5257-322 Resolved 7 Remaining 16 Planned Resolution per Structural b Reanalysis Prograa 16 (All structural elements except masonry walls) Open Issues 6 (Masonry walls only) a. Appears in TER-C5257-322 as seven items. The Licensee provided rational treatment of code shear provisions (Section 11.16) as two separate items. b. Presumes that BG&E concurs with general reccamendations (see Section 7 of this report) and that SEP structural acceptance criteria satisfactory to NBC are adopted in the Structural Reanalysis Program. ~ y nklin Research Center A Ohmen d The Feween ensamme ____._.____m___

1 ~' ~' TER-C5506-423 7. CONCI,USIONS AND mwunaTIONS The review disclosed that Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation has undertaken a substantial engineering effort responsive to the objectives of,,,, Topic III-7.B and that RG&E has supported its findings concerning Ginna Unit i rith a considerable body of analytical evidence developed during the course of its review of this topic. A number of items were found to be unresolved and.these are cited in 4ections of this report dealing with the review findings. Se remaining items primarily relate to the assessaant of effects that currently defined loads and loading combinations for extreme environmental and faulted service conditions any have on perceived margins of safety in building structures v. hat are determined to be essential to safe shutdown, especially when these ars taxen in conjunction with Scale A design code changes. RG&E plans to address these items in due course under their structural l reanalysis program. All plant modifications that may be found necessary to comply with the objectives of the Systematic Evaluation Program are to be l constructed to current design codes and to currently specified loads and loading combinations. S us, for all modified plant structures, Topic III-7.B will be fully resolved. It is anticipated, however, that sovee structures determined to be essential to safe shutdown will be found acceptable as built. It is likely that determination of acceptability will be br. sed primarily on a demonstration that the general sizing of major structural elements in these buildings is adequate to sustain current loads and load combinations. A number of the design code changes, however, relate to the adequacy of specific structural details. It is therefore reconsended that a review of remaining Topic III-7.B items for essential structures which are retained as-built be incorporated as a specific aspect of RG&E's structural reanalysis program.

p. ~ -

_nidin Rese_ arch._ Center u;_.____.,_.._.

TER-C5506-423 8. REFERD1CES 1. Franklin Research Center, Technical Evaluation Report Design Codes, Design Criteria, and Loading Combinations (SEP Topic II.7.8) Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, Robert Emmett Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1, TER-C5257-322 May 28, l$32 " Specification for Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel 2. for Buildings," Sixth Edition American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. New York, NY 1963 " Specification for Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel 3. fir Buildings," Eighth Edition American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. New York, NY 1980 4. " Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures" (ACI 349-76) American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI 5. " Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete" (ACI 318-63) American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI 6. ASM Boiler and Pressure vessel Code, Section III, Division 2 " Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containments" New York, NY 1980 7. J. E. Maier, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, Chief, Operating Reacter Branch No. 5, USNBC

Subject:

Structural Reanalysis Program, SEP Topics II-2.A, III-2, III-4.A, and III-7.B, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Locket No. 50-244 April 22,1983 8. J. E. Maier, Rodiester Gas and Electric Corporation Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, Chief, Operating Reactor Branch No. 5, USNBC

Subject:

Structural Reanalysis Program, SEP Topics II-2.A, III-2, III-4.A, and III-7.B, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-244 May 19, 1983 9. J. E. Maier, Rochester Gab and Electric Corporation Letter to D. M. Crutchfield, Chief, Operating Reactor Branch No. 5, USNRC ~

Subject:

SEP Topic III-7.B, Design Codes, Design Criteria, and Load Combinations, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-244 May 27,1983 V ----.ch Center nklin Resear

r = 3 TER-C5506-423 10. T. C. Stilwell (FE) Letter to D. Persinko (NBC)

Subject:

Topic list for NBC/RG&E/GC/FBC meeting of June 21', 1983-June 15,1983 Band-carried Gilbert Commonwealth calculations, in response to Reference 11. 10, on the following subjects: Integrity of structural walls against punching shear (5.6, Attachment 3 of Reference 9). Specific example: Main steam penetration under j a. postulated LOCA. Integrity of elements loaded in shear with no diagonal tension (5.3,

b. of Reference 9).

Specific example: Shear capacity of beam pockets supporting the intermediate building floor, Development length of lapped splices in columns (5.1, Attachment 3 of c. Reference 9). Specific example: Column group which includes control rcom Column. d. Coped beams (4.2.6 of Reference 8). Specific example: Integrity of roof beams (if coped) under extreme environment.a1 load. Steel embedmonts (4.2.9 of Reference 8). Specific example: Frame e. columns under low roof of the auxiliary building. W 9' I e ranklin Research Center A Chance of The Feween wummag u-e----+ww 9w% 9 y y-i,y-yr-- t w --p-9-= ---N+- -"v--*-~T-+=--e -e'NN----'w--P

.}}

v t e Letter Sequence Supplement
TAC:48881, (Open)
Initiation Acceptance... Supplement Administration Questions Answers Results Approval... Other: ML20077K986
MONTHYEAR1983-07-29 [Table View]

ML20077G001

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Subject:

Subject:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Navigation menu

Search