ML20093N848
Text
Sb bf3C.
k b.t>
Y o
- aea.,*)
t UNITED STATES t
s c(,gh[,,g
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
f f\\
(F 4
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 N$,. **
l NT2e /7P g I
Doci t Nos.: 50-329/330 le DRANDRf FOR: Elinor G. Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch #4, DL 11 i
James P. Knight, Assistant Director THRU:
for Cmponents & Structures Engineering Divisica of Engineering FRG1:
/
Franz P. Schauer, Chief j
Structural Engineering Branch Division of Engineering t
?
SUBJECI:
MIDIAND ASLB IEARINGS STRLUfURAL EICINEERIIC INPUI y
Plant N$me:.MidlandPl$ntUnit1$nd2 Licensing Stage: OL Responsible Branch: LB No. 4, D. Hood and R. Hernan, LPM Requested Cmpletion Date: October 22, 1982 Status: Ca::plete In response to the verbal request of W. Paton and M. Wilcove of GELD, we have enclosed.our input to staff testinony in preparation for the upccming ASLB hearings. The hearings originally scheduled for October 27 through Novenber 4,1982, that were to cover (1).bearin beneath the Diesel Generator Building, (2) underground. pip $ capacity ing, (3) Ser-vice Water Pump Structure (SWPS) and (4) Pernment Dewatering. We understand these. hearings have been rescheduled for November 15-23, 1982, and that.the Structural Engineering Branch input is applicable only to the SWPS.
,5
.h the enclosure under Part.I, we have identified the pertinent SSER tections where the. structural. engineering staff has addressed the_tcpic
.,l scheduled for the upcaning hearings. Under Part II of the enclosure wa have identified either the SER or SSER sections.or ue have provided l
our response.to the safety issues listed in the Stamiris' contention 4.c.b as related to the identified hearing topics.
Lj Any questions that you may have on the enclosed input may be referred to
~
Fra s. Rinaldi (X24921), Structural Engineering Branch, DOE.
l\\
'?
r 8408020180 840718
'lIS' er Chief I
tructural Engine,ering Branch j
Division of Engineering 3,
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page
' ' ~
c
4.
)
3
!J 'l Elinor C. Adensam
?r b
b i
cc w/ enc 1:
i R. Volhner i.
4 i
T. Novak l'
^
W. Patcn.
j M. Wilcove 5
'}
D. Hood
-l R. Hernan P. Kuo J. Matra NSWC F. Rinaldi E. Adensam 4
- 2 l'
4 6
i i-I s _
m M'
.i 1
[I'.
\\
i Midland Plant, thits 1 and 2 Dat Nbiibers: W3297330
~
StructurEl Engineering Input into StEff Testinony for SWPS Prepared i:nf: Frank Rinaldi, SEB, NRR i.
i il-i 1
e'
?).
PART I - PERTINENT SSER SECTIWS MR HEARING ON SWPS
- i-A - SEB SSER SECTIONS
- 3. 7.l' 1 Seismic Safety Margins and Deping Values e
j j.
3.7.2.1 Design' Spectra jj 3.7.2.2 Seismic Safety Margins
'f 3.7.2.3 Soil-Structure InterEction 3.7.2.4 Structure to Structure Interacticn (SWPS vs CRIS) 3.8.3 GenerEl Introcbetion 3.8.3.2 SWPS Structural Evaluation Appendix I Jacking Forces i
3.8.3.5 CrEcks EVEluation, Mmitoring'and Repairs 3.8.3.6 Fox-Howlett Splice System 1
B - N0tMEB SSER SECTIONS REUGED TO SEB ON SWPS 1.7 SER Sections-3.7.1,3.7.2,3.8.3End3.8.4
- i
- i 2.5.4.4.1 Description of Soil Media (p.23-24)
L.1 jj 2.5 Figure 2.9 SWPS Underpinning
- i 2.5.4.5.2 SWPS
- 1:j 2.5.4.6.1.1 SWPS J
2.5 Figure 2.12 Instrumentation for thderpinning 2.5 Figure 2.13 SWP Monitoring Instrumentation 2.5.4.6.1 Acceptance criterid for SWPS 2.5.4.6.3 Iong Term Settlement Monitoring
- Ia
.i
- i
.II-
___-.,-_.._.i.,-...-- -
~ -.
g-io.
4 PART II - RESPONSE 'IO ST&fIRIS' CONIENTION 4.C.b ON SWPS
>(
l CONIENTION 4.C.b:
Ji 4
4.
Consumers Power Ccropany performed.and. proposed reedial actions re soils settlement thai: are inadaquate as presented because:
..l.
C.
Remedial soil settlement actions are not bEsed on adequate evalbation of dynamic response regarding dewatering effects, differential soil settlement, and seismic effects for these structures:
b.
Service.WaterIntakeBuildingEndItsRetainingWdlls i
Li SEB STAFF RESPONSE:
j Our understanding of contention 4.C.b is as follows:
1 Consumer. Power Conpany has performed and proposed actions with regard to th SWPS.as a. result of the soils settlements at the Midland site which adequate because these acticns have not considered the following:
(1) dpanic response regdrding dewatering effects (2) differential soil settlement (3) seismic effects.
In the design of $11 CEtegory I str$ctures the Applic$nt is reqEired to consider static.and dynamic loads. that effect the. structure.
loads :is increased _by an applicable load factor.and combined in several Each of these in all possible combinations. load combination equations so to assure Le staff has found acceptable loads, load factors and load ccanbinations proposed by the applicant in the evaluation of the SWPS.
As identified in Section 3.7.2 of the SSER the applicant plEns to cond$ct E
- r. esp' nse spectra and to couparefloor response p,
o structure to show that floor response spectra used for the design of these M
underpinning (1.5xFSAR) envelopes the. respective ones developed from the a
seismic site specific response spectra.
4
%e staff has identified these efforts as confirmatory Ection items.
O ne design work performed by the applicant and the confirmatory work to be 1
will address the tree concerns identified in contention
- j
])
expects that the confirmatory work will show conpliance to NRC acceptance criteria.
l
- a ne applicant has modeled this structure and the supporting soil media.in a j
. conservative manner and has performed and will be performing analysis and
'I
- . J C
-l *
}
' design calculations using criteria acceptab'le to the enginee. ring comu i
the NRC staff. These calculation consider.the dynamic response of the structure
)
and soil. media to include variation that can be encountered at th j-Specifically, for deuatering.the applicant has considered loads resulting from I
low (elev. 587) and higb(elev. 627) water levels. Also, the applicant has and 1
will be considering differential settlement as an additional. load in the load combinattonsused for the design and evaluation of this structure.
M
differential settlement have Deen considered for construction con The effects of 40 year life design condition.. Einally considered in all agimring analysxs a,pplicable to Cateseismic effects have 4
I structures.and camponents,other than construction conditions. Therefore, staff concludes that the a i,
Staniris.' pplicant has indicated ccmpliance with the three concerns identified in contention 4.C.b.
i I
.t
.i e
t
(
l 1
I i
l t
_