ML20128G710
| ML20128G710 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 04/19/1984 |
| From: | Jeng D NRC |
| To: | Chen J, Heller L, Lear G NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19263A633 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-455, FOIA-84-A-56 NUDOCS 8505300281 | |
| Download: ML20128G710 (22) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:, , - _ ..
/,- Ms/ua. k }E , f &Difdf2V_ '
4.,__/fs.W s .._ J. ._!Gm- \'.. . ~ D . - 7 .f.-t._fo. . . L / ~C W . V N
.[ . . . . _ . . .
.. .-. . .j . .. . 9 ga Q, _.. ;
1). c. ___wM_ _.d d
. k..-__ .
J' al R- ef&,wr. ~t_;, yS , n %, o . g m.1 #. N}W! _& .ct .L_!.% 4.. ......I P@Nu. . . ... . ? ..- . . Y. - -- _
. m . ._ ._.... j l N'
-_. a. -
..._..[. h M ow .b w.NC. M .7hbu bk" 'f._ .o C U.,. y /md, dea & Sh -WN , $r".. W ...
_ _ _ _ _ . e2 . . _ _ .fasacevA.(__.h._.W,..t" .
._hh/A _
.{s h.. J). & - A =ck. W.d, 6[n = g.4 ..h mw 6 ~Aw ..v;/c- wh l
. wnA- we w.. %n e-w ..c u - u 4 c % w /u, .ot a. 4 %
- p a l O _C.tre ' A d ,q l ...
gm ____(.ht//.4, . us*d6_9 m 4~ p. .rce .). q 1
-O T
?q.
4._q<._M-_c>an.p-g, u A._~ H9 23,p.J _ny er._ M ...effi a... q .. y __e.rrum_4 w ..f, ..p g. _.[g Mn .. OEE cQ4 .
.t-Lv t, \
,f aut,
%p t_ 44ast,,, ,
.__--.c........ . . . _ - . .
_..$ . < k. . . . . _ v% (' .. - - - - .
.... .g g -q .p. . ;a . . . .... .. _ . _ . . . . . - . _ .
m ._. .. . .._ g - - vfpr-y.
- m. m 717 L ... _ _e . > r
. . _ _ ~ ~ - ' i
~ '
8faD/f,/f2t,L k-Ns/tn. W- - l - /i@ ..
-. 7. -_C% ' '
_ " t. g ;.- - f f a . .
. C;.
R _ h '. A C. [ Lo
. . . . . . ... . -. #N 4 .5 ..!.W k . ..S N . .... .. .. .. .. ..
f> _ _g __, lg. pg ..... -" -
~
gjO
~
.. . . . . {%4 n- KLn Mc.. & .JL4u C4 _ 'r ___
u, p W u.R..o~t..-.sF M - m - ~Jr} , G ,k..
- _. _ _ . _. w . ._ ._ . fwe /.reyh.-- % ..-t[ & _.ca & .A t
.{s/ - d). ..% % 2 A.. . %,4 - .&.W Inc.sJ, .
.e,ch.
..h n .} chcrw< .h ..revtw .% .a uM . uim. a.e
---..cn ,-- ^ewou J M A h 'e#c-c.n &. e m ..c tuoAlc eem.1 uv .woldh'++-4 -- p/
1%4t.=,aw-# a-ud ac%..w N- 'N f Ib & le ,
' N N cw S . Ele- Ma_cm
_ . - (. rmeea. rh h-j rc,... Apef ez.4 . .rce/L..). T s .
~d- oor -Q m ma }- -.n. h-t 2. 5., pn S-..Gr. % 't...e- f M .. f - m y - - . . gmn-A A.itcoc1 % d. w ...h..cfQ ad 5 ..
W k..ooe
- c. M b --<
.f... %... % ..
J% % M,. .
. tc. . . -
-s e A. . M. .4. s.C -.----.--
. h'[ . ... . h h.). . . . .. . . . . vM r .
M - _. .
/
. ~ . . ..- :- - -.. . . .. _. ___ .
Y/f7/FY
;wj
- 7. ua$$ - , .s nDw f =5e (.7. u. u.4 ---- - =
wArsefoto 3 d m .cr esl sedo.<sseze d Ay ~Td Als 4As/j4 L . . -. ov7K0Ducf.EOW . .. . ..
~The SGEB .s,e e f* v:r//ad. de. Ws /erf.'o d .s s:/e .n Afendz1,*/.
J.J ses sayrlced fa see. crees.o- d< r.L-j ws/ d e/ we{
./~a< -daa a n s c67 si&. A., J . i L ,, J.c . ,,f d a ./ Ar..y4t /* +4s MAC /.casss s/s f avren d;,a. S.m e. ./
rse. ers.xs avan.
- ,,a l:, d to -rte rt:es/ at:.s (t>sycs.d.k.4r
+e +4 m .r/ ) t / j.:ne/ jy a. crsef, <<, -, A s e.r/ a/ //.e f.,s e,A . 7iesc. .cr rexs - >ere. Aehe,d J. Ls shese erc eA.s. r
. a,.J ca.s*J es- c ar s . . GA*< erockt e-. 4 < s.ust/s a ./ -
e r, r/e ma/, sa4te4 . appeared da Je. .rd,.;re .o r
-//avare eesexs , .d.:d -,/ ),rese,,7. .e4e in7. ,ees,:,.W'f Sy .a..t/ e
-Ast/a.,e ,A< s/r c/.,a/ a'n/e,<:/y - P .,4- mu/
At ae s:le , .1 n <ta.se d s c.,, / e/s,, .e.,ds a../ a'.,/ec viesaed- s* < fe p/* *aA. por/:coyled ,% .,4e .rcf.s/. c.ns/r c/;,, . -f ,4 e oros/:,, s. eCat n . /e<s/s d e.,r/,,,e/2 pr.4/e.,,s. S, ,. a ,. i/ ./ ise.s.- s4 e,,-u/e,,cas. c.,/../.,b.., e,ah . , s ....
.,xa , ~gG.,s..t,,:a.,/
a 4 / , < se,ec r,.:,e. cur u <an Aeld :,, e,, aste yf r. asMhs4 ,4. der -rhe .chtte soi/- s'/svefure ,' /erae/;., ans/ysir soa.s s/td c/egaa/c :., /.y4/ .
-f are > ds/s neet-e/ a d n < a aeaf
'Tle. ans{st.s 2,,) des.,*,n /, Aa ms/ :,, y e ,aes/, spaat.r/ esledadhn cans /rwe/yn ye L/eo,ns , a .l er.e/v.sl,e a d ree, n,a ,dk.a see.
d:sa.,oe d A d. ). F 0 (A -n-4G L k8.M l lI
2 P,' /qA}y$y$ AND DESIGW . - - - - - ***
, The Applicant's analysis of the base mat utilized finite element f methods and generally r'ecognized formulas presented in a textbook written by R. J. Roars tMre approaches; are fundamentally i independent of each other. The use of finite element methods in conjunction with electronic computers permits solutions of structures having complex geometry, loading'and boundary conditions, such as the Waterford Ur.it 3 base mat, although correct use of this
~
method is rather difficult. The use of textbook formulas permits solutions for ideal , loading and boundary conditions, but must be utilized in conjunction with enginee' ring judgment,,to obtain
' solutions for actual' (non-ideal) conditions.
i in its application of pertinent formulas, the Applicant calculated
; positive bending moment in the mat under the reactor building by i
i assuming a 20% edge fixity of a circular plate under the shield I e building, and a uniform soil, pressure beneath the mat; the Applicant l l calculated negative bending moment under the shield building by a assuming a 50% edge fixity and uniform soll pressure under the mat.- 1 i In its finite element analysis, the Applicant calculated two bending moments in the mat, by 'using actual load'Ing conditions and two l separate soll conditions: constant soll modulus, and variable soil l modulus in which the modulus varies in rough proportion to the deformation shape of the mat.
- t. -
i 3 The top and bottom reinforcing steel bars that resist the negative and positive bending moments, respectively, were proportioned in a manner such that a surplus bending moment capacity is always provided, by comparing ~0ie-th tee design bending moments calculated
, for a given location (one derived from u'se of the formulas and two derived from the finite element analyses). In each of these three I
l analyses, the estimated dead load on top of the mat was multiplied 8 by a factor of 1.5 before being tsed in c~alculating the required
~
design bending moments (providing the 50% margin in load capacity referred to above). The shear capacity of the base mat was calculated and provided in manner similar to the bending moment treatment described above: a surplus shear capacity is always provided, by comparing the design shear forces obtained in each of the three calculations, and the estimated dead load was multiplied by a factor of 1.5 before being used in calculating the r,equired design shear resistance. Based upon my review, I have determined that the procedures and approaches utilized in the Applicant's analysis and design of the f base sat are sufficiently conservative and are acceptable. The sum l . of the top and bottom reinforcing steela bars J 4e vedical skeer retakeetas adequatel'ars e
~ has provided strength for the met to resist the load imposed by the reactor and g shield buildings, [4e. [ .iJaft s. ) Wes as Jss meM
- n A anal,s:s a.4 e.nkm}:. was carried .O yyerly
- s. 4,4 .h .,,J 7 Juf vefleefs de a+ ef"'8- **J'-
.n 4s erj$i aal desa .
+
..- /l* ~ e vor ,.. J soa s . n d< d'sc-sslon.s las reer.l 2s 4l:z/r4) eulrk de .
. Nec . Go.realn: col E,y'~aart.;. slstil.-. il ~as Jeter/e/. vis/ . ne, Mar. .
. -..,4 s i,.-, e:c.i/ vsI.:a realeJ r4 se/. / -l.' dz/:.,, s.:/e /:lt <.
- .z./ vt.:/.,'s..ae esse, 4:s ~.at/ ra:sa a -)1,ss ../al paeal--
at.at +t < ~ val lMy .f 14. s/al:e s :/- sir.,e/ ara in/er c/:~, ..
.ui,dy s:s , .uk. i .~a, , . Arn.d . -./. .,*/s ce,.sh asad -At ht,y,,.
4 TLs, llls reg. ired ,'. e:derjus/.*l' y .M vt< or):,a/any/A* e serv.r-/:ae s 4 .,e / ,a /.
./ s.:/ yr: yz ea:,1 / a/ ,' s i.>.r e
. . efeay,, .r rse ,,, t .11,u r4. eetus/ -/L,.dsJ:.,, s.:/ <.aJ:.
. . L e t.,. useJ , r j>erf.r , add:/:,,,e/ .1s,a/ys,'s -l. aee.un-/ $r ... -
.. rA c. a c /u.r/ / v de /:.,, se:/ eend:l.*.as. ~
- 3. SPECIFIC calculAT.wn St.c sicar ers.x, ~ . rc. Je/ ./ad .a u s ,.x 2 7 ,ir a , +ic h ..se euss reg,eesled / yar-l.'c,n c ale.lall..s 4. 4/s.' shear s/nsaks onder- .j ers/.*ey an / S$4 c.nd:/,*o,,e , .re.( sfrear capac/ly(s/ref be 0 l*ek SA 2.d .f., ulere s4 esa. ersaxs occurree/. Zi u rs repor/e/ ly Elsse. etroyd -/.lep t e -r4*/ shear ~ s-/reeces al.ay
. -1 A < eroe/s :n Dlat SA were 44 "/f/ be yerOf *~ d .
144 M/ff. 0 SSE a../ . le Ml*et .t s z /ft for operskny k and shese es k/f/ and 2/o /ff -{er SSE,1..,1 .,.u.sa ~:a aaar re.u4
-/.>
e,.s c er,A n4 % ,. .
/ e s$62,= c ree ts <le n.l f>resen .2 c},2//enye /. +Ae sfn.e/e,J/
- n/egy,'fg of'rke e,4f undfr afse,s!" /*
**,) Cons l: .n ,aissen ft.c
d S l i
.s/o/is sell- s/r.c/are ens ly s:s .~se y,*rformed adepr/d y a .f .. .
'.-r4 s colads-/t.o,1. /or sior s/rrer a,,J shror. e/rq4 are. e.rre<l.
--rt:, Is. Leerase as-/. steze.ra: -ht y boa s/ -< /,zs p rtde.f.
ture den adogmale res/s/ sac < , " - 4< roptro.( sierr s/ recs.. . .
.....ll,a<rar.. ll ls n*l cesv,forlable "
lo c-sp. ere .4e cde-lale/ si,ese s/rees e f 3/ ,"/;ef g $ t $ d e es/ew/sh/s,Je.rr S/reopf -f 274 "Vfi froced on .l des e,ndoh.n.s,.'e, no ersaxs a d ee/.f.s . .
~T e Cede.KL Bad Voll1 ln Conertfe suls/ >*es/ac t ,Y2 $$edr
;cepoet/y. Nora. l.br~ob*.a :s neede/ /- auess de Joyre <.
o-/ red.iclien. O., ,4e adas /w /, -vla daay.n Asse owlyse< ..
. *Lo/ as J :,, .esa s fr :s.e ,,,ay. eveaeJa .rta eog.tre.t sss, G..l,.tbut, r.doce +$< dC/.tif sbeJr .5 rest tar-f o.*e lc =s" o $e . .
res:</a.f. Mre i.Ar-rJr.., a--( . ~ ,x . ara o,eder( .t.A,e a r.,/:ne/,jaJ.,e,..ed es,, 4 a raacted .., 4 <4ar -ele oclual si,ar cayactly , s .adepsde se o,,/ 4 CON.5720cnoN PROBLEMS . i
. Cons /rael..., ye L/e,,.s deaco: Led Lore are /: %d f. .e4s Arsh
^
-rl,ree bleers */ e.<,ere/e f.locemeo-f uAara ,,oj.e ersaxs occurreal.
. . . . . Nand .o, Ae I: ida./ rer.w .le.ae/raali.., ree.rde o d y..,r/s -
lo,YervEteuek, *fke f b ' f $. f WY* f **fvfd,,C C.f reef .lld =/r =fe 4,14km E 2 )weyrim eu'* fk.*. . devert/st/est, .'T$e [*rg/ .dret theles .f e erele y /scen,od did re,,, ,,,/, g.al.lyc.,,fre/ yr Wems. 75au y bl.nu .'.eladed drog:,,, c.,,cre/e boye e/
.5 ' LeisU al + ~,e.s , osi y vLaler ,' r.,,orly a-d A,caf..w yllrsll., , ,and s/eJ,ye /,2,,, roser,'ay re;,. .re:,y, sacs +a eraale en a ,;,. < . a ,( .r.L .. . -p r.>,. ,- :Mt <t.. e z..e,s s, -14, c. ra/e . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . . - . . _ , _ . . . _ . _ . ~ . _ . ~ _ _ _ , _ , - . . . _ - . , _ . , . . . _ - . . , . . . .
l (=, 1 I
- . . . . .. ....l
_ Lal.e .el,r..,A yae/ias/ rat.A,.:,,, .1ar.e. 74.oa p,.s4,,, are . _ _.
.. LdiarJ f. La 4< n,ct,,e ,/risJ.,s 1. e are/s. e<<aa:.y. .a /_.
n .C.*sfrvel,'n..ln o /2/c.1977 a.,./ .. .
. ... .<sd lsoney ee,h hl} 0$ served~aes 1:c:a c , .
.elen';le,-,;4e,, -/. a c ><a:,y .
yin4. a-.i ), , s.,+ ,,, Arc /t ,,, ;+;;;at,J. $4.,. n.,e . ode < wn ;sraa.ye. Lt,d afiar +1, . c.ncre/a , t><ao e.-f .p 4a &<sf
. -rbres. LI.eks ., Ja/ no drii/e/ c.ra.a . - n , des /raa/ive .Jaal:y..
-fecin. gees .used }o wrify -rhe. ga.allly ar ./ .s/reyrf .p
-+/,a +r.hted So7$ suLie yards af c.-Crele . Were dise.sst.n
~:J, de c. dr.J:.. p. i.le ls ,,eada/. + je:,, s.. Lader . .-.. -
J*u . +. u.de, sis.,d.y ..P A< /*yr<< *f J.J.'ci=-cy ;,. J. aper d: d<.a,< gstiJy a,.l. sJ,..yi . f .r.4a/ c. cae/c. . . .-.. 5 CONC (.UZZew AraD }l&CD&tt1t AWbot ~fle*Y
'7$a yr.Lleme o.f .d,<. md seem 1. Le resaid 8 .
a ..- . uce .i . e,iii e rd:. a.. , .. a. +e. si,,.i:,,,, .
.. '$ /rvelurJl, $t*YteknicJfa d *'*l .a--Cont ,,,lYuctll*n.
1 Eac4 disp /:as.... seen,ed +e Le able fo yerArm ll: oow, wk. d-s! resolve id p rolles,,1. Esc 4 d,>y//ove seco <el +e J e lase,ost/,'ve -to
;la : 2</
7 . , ,
.sfar dity.Itars ar. to kata,7 in.pacle/ Ay..
*tA.e rs . 'The> < pel d,< curreif Lebov/or or WWe fsfrea e f rt. <. e,r-/ in ,,4 dara:, wh:el, more.sv4<.adeg-sey a ueno,,e.+. ef .+Aa o,a/ very d:Geur/.
Si .. a . y..uc, , a,e i.,/cc ./a /a/ a,,,.,,, A,,li,,,,z, 1.l 1.s ree..r.o.,aa.teJ -14e/ d,*y be sd<ad ja:,,1ly >>o/ _
.sep arcirly .
... . 7
. . . .0p< sib'c C*nel~ston.s daJ rac.,,,a,ondoll s .2re lis-l*/ 4de.a:
.. - . - A . 7),< ona} i.s no} curren/, jn a}l:}resi Arse.( ee.
.. .. . .. -r4 . cesete oLserva /. ,,, . . . .. ..
. . - . . s. -Te urify ,4< adepacy -/ c.1/ s,<iy vicol i, -Le analysts, Je diseasted in Sad,:,- 2 , s's e/
la,da,,, a./a/ i~p.r/anee .
. .. c. vart/ta./t.,, .f staz, capac,'/y e d. , v.cs .a /r.
. +a s,e Jane., . . .
~b.
~
)) ge,,erzl S veve ,*//ance proyram $1 Veesemande/
.-l.,ait-el,a cr.re xc a,,d ,-/ r shear creeks, -t4 <. .
le,,yib a d Slae. of a crack ra,d ,'sls propaya-/t.,, sy zir,s} . +ta,ra rl.atd be n orced and ree.<ded.
.. E. C.r or s.:,n .h rei,,8ac,',,, L.rrs Ja e t . + /,e y a ,ar /
s., a]<< is beli wl +., Le u,,/ kal y a t de s:/e.,
. Nevaed,</aes , <:7 sue va,Ws,,ca y<y.7m it ree.,mardee
.e... .
\ . i
.~5 e' ,
l%Mw 2.
.. Jeng "ALT* a* d T"E ST***w L i d Xpr 84 Nb
. '5'A -i FE]N
. ,on .
J f ,**,^^ ",_ EVAkeAUw, JJ 4TERFOR" O-Base m_
. -. 2-. ._ .. -
dvw -- . - .
' .3'0uni .6;..j ;ce; :..;!..a.-!..; "@
e I , Thi.s report provides th g St r. M . ...J .
~
C safety evaluation of thef. built." Waterford 3[t,5pecific ,W . '. " ~ p *
. l.
CJrhMdm M retc.an w W'% Wunt Mo be incorpr.cateu o per6 m dii-bl. Itcense for the plant are , also listed herein, s
. fM
- 2. InspectionofBaseMatStructure/FoundationandReviewofMatConstruction o
~
Records ~ The SGEB staff visited the Waterford 3 sit,e on March 27, 1984. Staff
~o bserved cracks on the ring wall and wet cooling tower walls. These cracks I had not been specifically mapped and brought to the NRC/5GEB staff attention until the March 27, 1984 visit. Someofthecrackswerein51tnedtothe i
4 . __ _ _... --
-- =- - - - - - - - - -
P Q jh *WWW El8.M
~. - - . . . . - . . ..
- f -i- . - :--. . - ~. . . . .
- p. .
h vertical auf s (perpendicular to the mat) and were j2ined by a crack on Other cracks cat. Thus, these cracks were believed to be shear cracks. on the walls and on the met appeared to be shrinkage or flexure crack .'
- f- appng/ adalg br Lrs le reviewed construction At the site the Structural Engineering staf
- records and interviewersome people who *.uttt participated in the actual con-* e
- * ' " _ ase mat.
struction of the = : _. e*
- 3. Analysis and Desion of the_ CmM Mat
. * */
The applicant's analysis of the ba' e mat utilized finite element methods s and generally recognized formulas presented'ip a textbook written by ' The Roark; these approaches are fundamentally independent of each other. ~
^
use of finite element methods in conjunction with electronic computers permits' solutions of structures having complex geometry.' load boundary conditions, such as'the Waterford Unit 3 base mat, although c f' textbook formulas permits
.'use of this method is rather difficult.: The use o solutions for ideal loading and boundary conditions', but must be utiliz .
" in conjunction with engineering (udgment to obtain solutions for. actua
. '(non-ideal) conditions.
' In its application of perti.nent formulas. the. Applicant calculated pos bending moment in the mat under the reactor building by assuming a edge fixity of a circular p' late under the shield building, and a unifor The applicant calculated negative bending soll pressure beneath the mat.
moment under the shield bul'1 ding by assuming a 50s edge fixity and soil pressure under the mat. e v .- - - --- , , -- w - w * - ~ - - -- *,----t -- *--r'- -
. . 3 In its finite element analysis, the applicant calculated two bending mome 6
in the mat.' by using actual loading conditions and two separate soil con- t
- [
constant soil modulus, and variable soil modulus in which the ditions: l modulus varies in rough properation to the deformation shape of the mat.
~
The top and bottom reinforcing steel bars that resist the negative and I positive bending jsoments. respectively, were proportioned in a manner that a surplus bending moment capacity is always provided. This fact yes . verified by comparing the three design bending su'unents calculated for : a t,/ , given location: one derived from use of the formulas and two derived from In each of 'these three a'nalyses, the estimated
' the finite element analyses.
dead load on top of the mat was multiplied by a factor of 1.5 before being used in calcul'ating'the required design bending moments thus providing the 505 margin (surplus) .in load capacity referred to above.
' The shear capacity of the base met was calculated and provided in a manner '
he' scribed abe: ' a surplus shear
,-similar to the bending moment treatment capacity.is always'provided. Again, this fact was verified by comparing t design shear forces obtained in each of the three calculations.' As before.
l the estimated dead load was multiplied by a factor of 1.5 prior to being used in calculating the required design shear resistance. c.sfew/.,r,/e.,A.en!.,sYh-
-aidetermined that the procedures and approaches T=r ;r- ; -" . , '
utilized in the applicant's analysis and design of.the base met are The sum of the top and bottom su'fficiently conservative and are acceptable. reinforcing steel bars and the vertical sheer reinforcing bars have provid 4 adequate strength for the est y resist the load imposed by the react . cou .m. . _ shield buildings. U := r- =A- that the foundation soil behaves as pr'edicted in the analysis and that construction was carried out prop . W e s .-
/
- - - - %R - g y p p-yyesigq. .., , *
.. 'uM > Af f f,A .. 1 ,,
[ s5mn ,-,m,
/
./ -u n.e).' .
/ w / /.< ~r M ,.n .. & w - e. ?~ a. ~. p . J J ..ca ,.c .: . ..
u&D~ c M i ). ,.. A . q ;.- A - . M .. # dea =.v< n.p n n
... y ..d~ L . ' A ..m..a .
. a.~ w n y = =- L . = - k k .._7 L :< s,nyd . A d '
. . . . #M .. N . . c t'M.
A c-c. N 05y*sk * - m
. . E$. . W nla.d
- xw . un..
,w.s a.
M ..ca A'G N u A
- 9. .6 h% .-
. . # As *-'* . Y ~LE~ M$ & l&
,17
/ . - <t e.
a-fa iJ.' .r,, ya .ra. s.c /
.a f *L ? . dl s: c- lll -
~
- 4. ^ Specific Calculation of Key' Block Mat Capacities. . ~
Since shear cracks in the reactor shield building $ 'and Jr concrete wallswere detected during the staff site visit on March 27, 1984, the applicant was I requested to perform calculations to obtain shear stresses under operati and SSE conditions, and also sheer capacity (strength) for base met Blocks I 5A and 1 ,where the shear cracks occurred. It was reported by Ebasco via I telephone that shear stresses along the crack,in Block 5A were 64 k/ft for a . normal operating loads and 166 k/ft for tem SSE loads while in Block 1 they, Shear capacity
- are 52 k/ft for operating loads and 210 k/ft AttforhSSEpu.vist loads. A
.cwM a, e-- : in W . M u'*- '
Ywas 274 k/ft for both , blocks with shear reinforcing bars contributing 98 k/ft and concrete 176 k/ft. The shear cracks do not appear to present a challenge to the structural integrity of the sat under operating conditions.
'-- f
^
- xL .; _.. . a x . .. _m m - . . . ..~ ., . - -- (; West, s
This is because the shear reinforcing bars alone have provided more than shear stress n.. < x_ vNv4dW. W/2f adequate resistance to the L .dc.G
, ,& g .- p :.g , , 3
, /
4
/
~
5 s A4L .fra > rde sos.*s e.n'Tkdi ye/,wAers e s,* ano.7/> avo'a/ ente to S., 4 ew/ vnder SSEf.dz 4 sy e.,,, j.rc .y . ele e,b.isk.
-rh es/c;/s/a /'s Larr .;l . ,4 c.p,u2 dur,.1/<ere -/ slo '/// u.'d.
- Jausas .4*/ s4. sia,.-/,'.&
. o/ 174 x/n. ' 71:s .....w/eusf'.;,,i.a.s.. . ,a a , s
~asmit..isu.t . '=
a ,, J , v . : J s , =. :4 = ~ '
* = = - - 4 '..
?*r/r*lsI
. ' .le e1 5/ren ~,desfree// s /esb r'de n rr-hre. 't1r.e me,e,* den / fa *) /aln Infor*,ellen en $.edes:'t' om/ vol s ~
me/ .so el,sf a r.af.'s/'c .rssocsmes f -f i
-/ '
l hl;r&,a. c..nare/sL $ as me/ las,, ss. p e,
,~ g hk Yq es YY M Y ,1 ~ ,
W+6 q re,
+
~W
/
4w f: Y, _.u, w. xm .
.yg
- 5. CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS Constructio'n problans. described-here are Italted to the first three bloc s
/
of concrete placement where major cra'cks occurred. Based on the review of construction records and interviews, we find that Loutstanna Power and Light (LP&L)qualityassurance gidtrytomakeitsprogramasuccess. /
/
s Meyertheless. the first three blocks of concrete placement did h4yg quality O
.s - .
.; v A
e
- _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ ._m _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ , , - . . ,
f+ :--- -contro l problans. These problems included dr:pping concrete at times. using a concrete vibrator improperly (providi,ng insufficient vibration) as well as sledge hammering reinforetng bars to create openings , thus transmitting shock waves to the concrete below through vertical reinforcing bars. T " ;.Y_? r : u *---- .- i: ^A M.. m.. r ;., a
* -- =--+- :::.;,;.., .. -I.cn.,_2_ ' ; a* enved dwetag-eenst. ;t';; 8- ?:t I '
Deficiency notes were written for the cracking and w t d -- t.'" u'"~.h,e. : , p.e. ,, ca:.ae, +. ~.,a -e .w..- -: , rw~s:
- honeycombNing. ' . a :: . -. . a ce :;7 " ' = = e -1=^_
A $ top
~
work order wei issued by Lp & 'L after the concrete placemen't of,the first - three blocks, but no drilled cores.or ' nondestructive. testing techniques ,t/ were used to verify the quality and strength of the 5074 cubic yards of
~ - -
# i romr.4 ~
.g J ' . eased and hardened concrete. .+. , eke. sf,( m 4.Jg.
a L g L.< e. e ./ .J,;,. y 14 .
'., ta. -n < < ae y . .d W. de. W . ar. '-14< a. Y.
1 . , ! y/ we ./
./
raa Jz u L.:. .,J.</, d..h.:. y ,6 L .
' .sa;.
- e. d~
4{f,, .tu,. d*e NCm .'- sW 6hes. -rbe.' . epa / y .p.< , a a a.. :.< 4 4, ~~ ./ ~. e ' [p[li
)
h/~d' <><d s.r f .U m :.a,, radz h .ru.a &- L i; ,,, ,, /. I a
..f . 1
..-* u. . i .. .2., .. , ... .
a . . s-a 5.' Conclusions a 4 R .e ..= .. A. The mat is not currently in distress based on the crack observation. B. Verification of shear capacity under SSE,needs to be-done. A5 r*rf
. f -.t.:, ,,. : 0 4:. 7. s .a , n.nJ.d~c4:.e_ f.d5 d (
M g ra u, and .J 4. H s:n :.P.<,na4:.n .^n craces .= .t . v.:Js 0
%p
- c - 4.
g_y
- c. TI.e_ Ite,..e, :s v.p;, I +. :J,.epe% 4=- Ils -$i =l e
. .m af y .s are 14:a &de. ': Igt .PAapacnd~l ~
- d e.-i ~ :.g . & . C n.elua4,'*N k yW 4: "3 I *"!y*s
+. .a s c.< c. c+.aI 4Lt 4:., s.d ...J:4:., s.
p g A general surveillance (monitoring) program is reconnended for all the l cracks # h shear cracks, the length and size of a crack and its prooagation against time should be marked and recorded.
$b-:.f:< o.4 .
E g. Sorrosion of reinforcing bars due to ,the ground water is believed to be
- unlikely at the site. Nevertheless. a surveillance program is reconnended.
. . _ . p g.; ;_., y r rr 12.1 N reiiitt%FiMP:tmi 24 be:1~ ;:gtes -
r ~
- . - -,.e-~w.. , . , - , , , - , - - - , , , , ,
r . ,
,, 1. ,.c f- .
., " 'a ( uh 1
'7 . ,G -
C,4,= E Q kH. h L 2 A Tsa
- 16. , f314.-
cp. ygg, svUrxJA4t
.(STRUCTURAL'ADEQUA,CY AN0s SAFETY u .- rwm_ . ./ > v gygg gg EVALUATION OF WATERFORD 3 BASE MAT (d/rThA 3 9AKE ($
......_2_.... _ . .
e I, Thi.s report provides the Meter:shu. g e.id Q c' p q .4 Ensincering h @ % 0 otocli..icei 3 ' at. aspecific , Y .'Y
~
safety en M evaluation n a a mof the[a-built" w Waterford an i *
. C T .
. s to be incorporated as part of Inei.0L license for the plant are also listed herein.
t
- 2. Inspection of Base Mat Structure./ Foundation and Review of Mat Construction
~
Records' " TN. The SGEB staff visited the Waterford 3 site on March 27, 1984. Staff ' A observed cracks on the ring wall and wet cooling tower wal1s. These cracks had not been specifically mapped and brought to the NRC/SGEB staff attention until the March 27, 1984 visit. Some of the cracks were inclined to the
. _m.
l l - t f_il A .B_.4.._5T
~
- . . _ . _ _ _ . .. . . _ . . . . _ _ _ E.ls. 23 .__ . ._-
t mem. m__ m .ga,, , , _ _ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,m,, , m#
+ =
,0- - - g
'^
. q,.f -.-- - .
- .s . y - 2 .
/ vertical axis' (perpendicular to the mat) and were joined by a crack en the mat. Thus, these cracks were believed to be shear cracks. Other cracks on the walls and on the mat appeared to be shrinkage or flexure cracks.
- At the site,: the Structural Engineering staff also reviewed construction records and interviewed some people who participated in the actual con- .-
struction of the nuclear island foundation and base mat.
- 3. Analysis and Design of the Coatsde Mat The applicant's analysis of the base mat utilized finite element methods-and generally recognized formulas presented 1,n a textbook written by R. J.
Roark; these approaches are fund' amentally independent of each other. The use of finite element methods in conjunction with elec'tronic computers permits solutions of structures having complex geometry, loading and boundary conditions, such as'the Waterford Unit 3 base mat, although correct use of this method is rather difficult. The use of textbook formulas permits
- solutions for ideal loading and boundary conditions', but.must be utilized ,
in conjunction.with engineering judgment to obtain solutions for. actual , 2 - (non-ideal) conditions.. , In its application of pertinent fomulas, the. Applicant calculated positive l bending moment in the mat under the reactor building by assuming a 20% ,
- edge fixity of a circular plate under the shield building, and a uniform i soil pressure beneath the mat. The applicant calculated negative bending moment under the shield building by assuming a 50% edge fixity and unifom soil pressure under the mat.
l , i I i
Ia its finite elemInt analysis, tha applicant calculated two (tenang . . ... _
~
~
in th2 mat, by using pctual leading conditions and two stparate soil cen-ditions: constant soil modulus, and variable soil modulus in which the modulus varies in rough proporation to the defomation shape of the mat.
~
The top and bottom reinforcing steel bars that resist the negative and positive bending mome'nts, respectively, were proportioned in a manner such that a surplus bending moment capacity is always provided. 'This fact was ' verified by comparing the three design bending moments calculated for a given location: one derived from use of the formulas and two derived from the finite element analyses. In each of 'these three analyses, the estimated . dead load on top of the mat was multiplied by a factor of 1.5 before being ' used in calculating'the required design bending moments, thus providing the 50% margin (surplus) .in load capacity referred to above. The shear capacity of the base mat was calculated and provided in a manner similar to the bending moment treatment described above: a surplus shear capacity is always provided. Again, this fact was verified by comparing the design shear forces obtained in each of the three calculations. As before. the estimated dead load was multiplied by a factor of.1.5 prior to being used in calculating the required design shear resistance. ,
. Based upon my, review I have determined that the procedures and approaches utilized in the applicant's analysis and design of the base mat are f .sufficiently conservative and are acceptable. The sum of the top and bottom reinforcing steel bars and the vertical shear reinforcing bars have provided adequate strength 1for the mat to resist the load imposed by the reactor and
{- ' shield buildings, if one can assume that the foundation soil behaves as predicted in the analysis and that construction was carried out properly. e ek*
*** * '- # I . 'd*
*. r *. . 8 e **t
- e t. .. g*i' Ja* .*d *
[' , . . .
- a. .
w 3.. a .. c + . .. ; . ,. ,n;g , , ,,. w ;. g .
. m. - .
y p z ::.3. :. .g . - .
- -..5.:.;. _.
r , - . 4 giEpdweal egineeith [ For the first assumption',[ oil behavior, an evaluationly the Astaff h,as 4}% % . been made and in generalyconcluded that the soil behavior past and future is adequately unders'tood and is adequately accounted for in the E b i1 ~ design and expected performance of the structures (seeheetecn. ; ::/ rap = ci,,g evek:tfe '. - _ d.i.n a hfe m t!e g ^ - 1s pM5Y
. For the second assumption concerning construction, an evaluation fs%4 m in the following sections. ,
- 4. Specific Calculation of Key Block Mat Capacities.
~
~
Since shear cracks in the reactor shield buildings'and a concrete wall were detected during the staff site visit on March 27,1984, the applicant was requested to. perform calculations to obtain shear stresses under operating i andSSEconditions,andalsoshearcapacity(strength)forbasematBlocks 5A and 1, where the shear cracks occurred. It was reported by Ebasco via telephone that shear stresses along the crack i.n Block 5A were 64 k/ft for normal operating loads and 166 k/ft for the SSE load, while in' Block 1 they, are 52 k/ft for operating loads and 210 k/ft for SSE loads. Shear capacity AW a. Acha ww- ewAm Ac.T 6.da. ywuh4 ' Ywas 274 k/ft for both blocks with shear reinforcing bars contributing 98 k/ft and concrete 176 k/ft. The ' shear cracks do not appear to present' a l challenge to the structural integrity of the mat under operating conditions, assuming the calculations for shear stress and shear strength were correct.
~
l
. . s .
This is because the shear reinforcing bars alone have provided more than c u 4- I adequate resistance to the Mced shear stress. Wefoundthe'@$w/cI
. . A methd de v ~ ~ for calculation both the shear stress and shear '
Vf .. . . e
unummmuuuuuu
. .?
y e.w 3
~ '
m ~ y nu. T n, M capacityr However, it is not sufficient.to' compare the calculated shear H stress of 210 k/ft under SSE loads with'the calculated shear strength of t g",. - % c o as M u b e*4 c a r m .A s w w l , g a -- 274 k/fpased or1(ideal 2conditions,1[su.7 t e,.o pav;,,sid' ac fa n&y- o r <.* no'ocra'cks..U_n.d_y_oip**". Crack h
- 6es toef2o /ft)
,, 3 * "<**
voids in concrete wil1 reduce 7 its shear capacity. JInformation needed
,2 s$ -
,_,, assess the degree of reduction was soughti More infonnation and work are n_eeded before a final judgement can be, reached' to quantify this reduction
}
of the " ideal" shear capacity in the base mat . Sowever, an -interim n evaluation, based on engineering judgement, that such a reduction in
'b f strength .does not exceed 20% of the ideal strength capacity is reasonable,
( kNs-h
~
given the knowledge already gained from th'e March 27, 1984 staff visits, 1 (
'A -
interviews with persons from the utility, and its contractors, and our r4 review of documents recently provided by the utility (M. bi.an;; cf eteenh h eni.s-1 e ,LsvA ) ^ 1 .,
-is a.i enctOTUte,t. Accordingly, it is the staff's concly;; ion that the base h *J .3 Y r 4 (YN mat and other structures of a Category I seismic design which expe'rience(
!, cracks, can perfonn thei ended function. Further, develcpment of our ljr.- % u .% g*
knowledge concerning.\ the status'of the /, three blocks Dr.a 3 % O sf it = continue in an attempt to quantify specifical,1y the reduction. Such effort
*y may involve nondes'tructive testing or o\ hysical tests, including' ar.M tf" ther
& A plan for c/nh..'s.e/ such confirmatory informa ion will be developed and
' SG
{ l included as part of he operting license. 1 "hrg':
- 5. CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS -
Construction problems described here are limited to.the first three bloc s of concrete placement where major cracks occurred. Based on the review of f construction records and interviews, we find that Louisianna power and Ligitt 4 rod (LP & L) quality assurance t9eergdid try to make its program a success. Nevertheless, the first three blocks of concrete placement did ha_ve cualy/ WIN (k. Gilh$C0 I l
- a m & % vfay Og edn f^ x W E.y ,LLdicsNA M
, m -
. .n , . . ~ .
v r , s._. 7 6
,+.. ,
.czntrol problems. Th'eseprchlemsincludeddhoppingconcretebey:nd5' height at times. using a concrete vibrator improperly (providi,ng insufficient
- vibration) as well as sledge hamering reinforcing bars to create openings thus transmitting shock waves to the. concrete below through vertical -
reinforcing bars. These problems are believed to be the main contributors to concrete cracking and honeycombing cbserved during construction in late 1975 and early 1976. Deficiency notes were written for the cracking and . honeycombing; but no non-conformance report (NCR) was initiated. - A stop j work order was issued by LP & L after the concrete placement of the first i I three blocks, but no drilled cores or nondestructive. testing techniques ' were used to verify the quality and stre,ngth of the'5074 cubic yards of Pound
.pa.ved and hardened concrete.
At'present,however,onemustevaluateconcretequalityfromgArecords ' and verbal description of the LP & L personnel or its contractors. . Interviews of construction quality control, personnel who were present during this construction phase reveal that corrective action such as the stop work ordergwere taken, .but written records of these actions are minimal, thus requiring the staff to asses::. the adequacy of the three suspect blocks -
).
i- .
'. primarily from verbal accounts. ,
t
' 6. Conclusions a-e R=c. d**M~y
, A. The mat is not currently in distress based on the crack observation. '
.s B. Verification of shear capacity under SSE needs to be done. .
~
C. A general surveillance (monitoring) program is recomended for all the cracksf# Am.hr - shea,r cracks, the length and size of a crack and its ) .
, propagation against time should be marked and recorded.
D. Corrosion of reinforcing bars due to the ground water is believed to be
. unlikely at the site. Nevertheless, a surveillance program ts recomended.
E. The surveillance pr rams (itemsCandDabove)shouldbeincorporated -
~
(9J sk 5b //
'r t1 TL
%9 Q %v Ak %
( /0+) e // ) e,g C/s/p/g, 5 de
& /& ( A Deevee - 904 m c+r %
Sfern e<de-Shev& - cm/st# lhu .WJd) ~ PQt V - iaim - %9 Jo41u - f4 . L' 4&ys% & - Fo* a 6 em _ aapa ~ b'a} m e M A nk A f} "
- M/ sM Ba&A s
9 4 9 Fo rA -IM6 6/B.M
...v,.. .
,{ %h 8
UNITED STATES
<Ty n=p)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
. WASHINGTON,0.C.20555 AL Sved dt h.,g APR 191984 lfe/A,--6=70>
f Utn (lls*,~)$
-Docket No.: 50-382 i fW 4
*W I
WN Mr. R. S. Leddick Vice President - Muclear Operations J
~ Louisiana Power & Light Company 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 7 /
i
Dear Mr. Leddick:
Subiect: Waterford Unit 3 Technical Specifications In your application for an operating license, you included proposed technical specifications. During the course of our review of your application, we have worked with on the proper wording you on these Technical Specifications to reach a mutual aereement and substance. Enclosed in final draft fom are the Waterford Unit 3 Technical Soecificatio which were developed utilizing the Licensing and Appeal Board decisions in the
. operating license proceedings, the Coribustion Engineering Standard Technical Specifications (NUREG-0212) and the Waterford Unit 3 plant specific recuirements.
Please review the enclosed draft and submit, in a timely manner to support license issuance uncler oath or affimation, certification that to the best of your and the knowledge, SER analyses. the enclosed draft accurately reflects the plant, the FSAR, to the Waterford Unit 3 license are expected to be essentially identical the enclosed final draft with two exceptions. and Engineered Safety Features Subgroup Relay Testing requirements riust beThe
' Specifications.. resolved prior to license issuance and will require changes to the Technic If you have any Prn.iect Manager,atquestions regarding this matter, please contact James H. Wilson, (301) 492-7702.
Sincerely. pofA-tv-vd . 3 ' .M re . Ei en btor Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated . cc: See'next page - www pwY b -~ vg: -
PLANT SYSTEMS 3/4.7.13 COMMON FOUNDATION B4SEMAT ' LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION 3.7.13 Common Foundation Basemat shall be OPERABLE.The structural integrity APPLICABILITY: At all times. ' ACTION: With the NPIS Common Foundatto'n Basema't' inoperable, perform an engineering evaluation to determina the effects of the condition on the structural integrity of the NPIS Common Foundation Basemat; prepa're and submit a Special Report to the Commission within 14 days pursuant to Specification 6.9.2: fying' the acceptability of ' continued operation; otherwise, be in HOT ing 30 STAND hours. 8Y within the next 6 hours and in COLD SHUTDOWN within the
~
SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS 4.7.13 The NPIS Common Foundation Basemat shall be demonstrated OPERA a. At least once per 92 days by verifying that the measured differen-tial settlement of the Common Foundation Basemat does not exceed 1/2 inch and the total differential settlement dcas not exceed 1 inch as determined in accordance with Table 4.7-2. ' b. ! At least once per 92 days by analyzing a sample of groundwater { obtained in proximity to the HPIS Common Foundation Basemat and i rerifying that the chloride content does not exceed 250 ppe. c. At least once per 18 months during shutdown by verifying that no cracking exists with a width in excess of 15 mils on the accessible 1 areas of the basemat. \ . ( FotA 46 WATERFORD - UNIT 3 3/4 7-44 * ' O
- . -t I TABLE 4.7-2 M '
g". FOUNDATION DASEMAT DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT MDNITORING
- = ;
BASELINE
- s 2
ACCEPTANCE 'I c CURRENT ** CRITERION l 5 H ELEV. AVG. ELEV. DIFF. SETTLEMENT' ELEV. AVG. ELEV. DIFF. SETTLEMENT - I
. 1) ) *
- 1) )
t
- 2) ) x 2) )
- 3) ) x
- 3) ) 1 i
- 4) ) '
- 4) ) ;
(X-Y) .(Xg -Y 3 )
- 5) ) (Xg-Yg ) = (X-Y)
- 1"
- 5) ) .
l
- 6) ) y 6) )
- 7) ) y
- 7) ) 1
- 8) ) 8) )
7 O un . t
*8aseline is the differential settlement as of September 1, 1983.
** Current is the differential settlement as determined in accordance with Surveillance Requirement 4.7.13a.
i
-R co s
, 4 W to C#
r .c .
- C 3::=
n ! n
PLANT SYSTEMS i BASES 3/4.7.11 FIRE R. ED ASSEMBLIES The OPERABILITY of the fire barriers and barrier penetrations ensure that fire damage will be limited. These design features minimize the possibility of a single fire involving more than one fire area prior to detection and
~ extinguishment. The fire barriers, fire barrier penetrations for conduits, cable trays and piping, fire windows, fire dampers, and fire doors are periodically inspected to verify their OPERA 8ILITY.
3/4.7.12 ESSENTIALSERVICES' CHILLED 0ETERSYSTtiM The OPERABILITY of the essential services chilled water system ensures that sufficient chilled wate.* is supplied to those air handling systems which cool ~ spaces containing equipment requirea for safety-related operations and, during normal plant operation, the nonessential spaces. 3/4.7.13 CO MON FOUNDATION BASEMAT .
. The OPERABILITY of the Nuclear Plant Island Structure (NPIS) Common Foundation Basemat will ensure that the structural integrity of the plant foundation will remain functional during normal operations and in the event of a safe shutdown -
earthquake. The limitation on the foundatior,basemat differential settlement ensures that the structural integrity of the foundation basemat will be. main-tained comparable to the original design standards. The limitation on chlorides in groundwater in proximity to the NPIS is consistent with concrete design specifications for Waterford 3 and is well below the threshold for breakdown, of the passivating film on structural rebar which is taken as 710 ppe in the presence of free oxygen and up to 3550 ppa when free oxygen is not present. The limitation on crack width identifies any significant cracks that would require an engineering evaluation to determine the structural integrity of the t foundation basemat. Cracks with seepage will be noted and the effects evalu-J ated. In the event that any of the limitations is reached, the effects on the foundation basemat will be evaluated and mitigative measures defined as
} necessary and repdrted to the Commission.
l ( . WATERF0 0 - UNIT 3 8 3/4 7-8 o(A O ' [ h+
.. . .. - - - - . _ .}}