ML20148H177

Forwards Request for Addl Info of Round 2 Questions That Is Req for Completion of Review.Requests Response to Sections W/Notation RSP by 781215

ML20148H177
Person / Time
Site:	05000584
Issue date:	11/03/1978
From:	Heltemes C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Gogolick C GIBBS & HILL, INC. (SUBS. OF DRAVO CORP.)
References
NUDOCS 7811130387
Download: ML20148H177 (12)

Text

--_ .. ___

• ->~?. l l j oO~ %$,

UNITED STATES y" ->?g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

< j WASHINGTON, D. C 20555 1

% + NOV 3 1978 Docket No.: STN 50-584 (

Mr. Charles Gogolick j GIBBSSAR Project Manager -l Gibbs & Hill, Inc. l 393 Seventh Avenue l New York, New York 10001

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - ROUND TWO QUESTIONS AND STAFF POSITIONS 1

Dear Mr. Gogolick:

Enclosed are requests for additional information that'is needed in order to continue our review. Also, you are. requested to respond to the staff positions included which are designated by the notation "RSP." We need a completely adequate response to these areas by December 15, 1978. As you requested. .we have-arranged a meeting on November 7,1978 between Gibbs &

Hill and staff representatives cognizant in the areas addressed in the attached enclosur'es, in order to expedite your evaluation and response in that regard. Please contact us if.there are any questions. .

Sincerely, 4

i C. temes, r., Chief Sta rdization ranch Division of Project Management.

Enclosures:

Q-2's/ Positions by i

Structural Engineering '

Branch L

cc: Mr. Fredrick W. Gettler, Vice President Power Engineering Gibbs & Hill _ , Inc.

393 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10001

7811.13033g

E i .. a _ . _ __._ _ - _ _ _ j i

q a.

.,> w., . .

p~

}

1.

p, k_a GIBBS AND HILL STANDARD BALANCE OF PLANT GIBBSSAR-Structural Encineerinc Branch' 1 i

SSAR Second Recuest for Ir.fomation 131.56 ' < Your responsa to Item'131 ~.3 is not adequate, since you did' not

.1

.(3.3.2) ...

(RSP)- , specify the-non-Category 'I equipment which may become a missile.

. In view of the fact that the Gibbssar plant will- utilize blow-cut'

)d panels for venting,vyou are requested to state your intentions to i either of the two:

~

(

j

1. ~I.dentify the. n.'on-Ca.tegory I equipment wnien may become

. . _ _ . . . a'. tornado l.genetsted,, mis}i,les{f a,ny.~andl assess its dama. e_potentiaT,,and, g l

~ JshoW tnat tne damage potential-is less than'the damage which would j

. .. re.'s. ult. fr.em the..t.ern. ado . missiles contained tn the. Standard Review Flin 1

Section : 3.5.1.4 or, q)

, u 4

1 i

2. Comit to secure all .non-Category I equipment in the blow-cut areas which may become tornado generated missiles to their sup -

ports so that there will be no tornado' generated missiles resulting -

n p from the venting due to the blow-cut panels.

1 131.57 Your response to: Item 131.6 is not adequate. The allowable ductility -1

- ( 3.5)'  !

(RSP) ratics; to'be used in the SSAR do not reflect the regulatory staff oosition. The staff's position is provided in tne Ecclosure. Indicate your compliance with. this position.  ;

1 131.53 Your response :o :Itam 131.36 requires additional ~ infomation. Cescri:e 1 4

(3.3.1) .

in more detail the following: J

,\;

i i 4

Y , ,_

r.

J

_- ~ . _ . _ _ . . _. _ __ _

?

-2 ;

.1. Material, physical characteristics and thickness of the " protection

urse" shewn in Watarproofing Detail (Figure 3.3-2). .,

l

2. Cescribe in more detail the " reinforced concrete mat" (RC4).

Provide details of the reinforcement and thickness.. Indicate .f the difference between the " reinforced concrete mat" and the i

" founda ti on ' mat" .

3. Provide the pertinent infonnation regarding the material and . j physical characteristics 'of the membrane waterproofing. l d

131.59 Your response to Item 131.8 is not satisfactory in that it lacks a 1

(3. 7.1 ) 1 (RSP) cemitment that the plant will be designed for the :eak ground SSE a::aleraticn of 1 ig. M i: the reculatory staff :csiticn tra: the standard plants :,hould be designed f:r one ;eak grounc-acceleration regardless of the- site. Express your intentions regarding this-commitmenc.

131.60 Your respense to Itam 131.7 did not sddress the issue. Examination

( 3.7.1 ) .

(RSP) of Fig. 3.7-2 snows that the high frequency and of the response spectra is not'in accordance with the Regulatory Guide 1.50. Indicate-your intent to comply with R.G.1.50 or provide technical justifica-tion for the deviation.

131.61 Your respense to. question 130.21 is not clear. Indicate hcw much of (3.7.2) the live leads is included in the mathematical medal and clarify if the mathematical model used f:r structural respense analysis is different frem that used f:r in-structure response s:ectrxl generation.

w+,. 2. - _ _ _ , . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _

1 If so, provide the basis. I i

)

131.62 Your response to Question 131.29 is not satisfactory. Clarify the- I (3.7.2) l

'following:

^

1. How are lateral earth pressure and hydrostatic pressure considered i

. . ,1

. in your analysis? l

2. An upward vertical acceleration will reduce the weight of a' structure. Is this censidered.in the definition of W indicated in Equation l4) on Page 3.7-297 131.63 Your response to Item 131.34 is not complete. Referencing benchmark  ;

(3.7A)  ;

calculations is not enougn.. You are requested to sucmit sample

problems c

mearing the ::mputar ::de sclutien with a solution obtained j l- .

by either hand calculations or other computer code solution,'which .

is in public demain, so that the reviewer has' opportunity to review the results of the two. solutions. In case that the cc= cuter code l has been verified by means of tests, the test recert should be sue-l mitted together with the comouteri:ed solution for review.

I'  !

131.64 The reference to R.G.1.22 on P. 3.7-24 appears to be erronecus. The (3.7.2) correct Regulatory Guide should be R.G.1.122.

-131.55 On page '3.7-15.a statement is made that the stresses are within the (3.7.2).

elastic limit and in ac::rdance with "acprcpriate c: des". Define the codes.to which reference is being made.

I

't.

..-...m .

. s... ...we..#' --wwe 131.66. Your respense to the Regulatory staff's position stated in Item 131.16

( 3. 7.2 ) _ .

(RSP) is contradictory to a statement made in Section 3.7.2.1. In the responsh,

.ycu stated that you intend to ecmply with the Regulatory Staff posi-tien, which allows local yielding due to 1m; active and impulsive

^ "~

loads. Yet, in the.jecjian. 3.L2.1,_ you stated that yield s_tressjts_, ,

may exceed the secondary stresses "to the extent set fort.5 in the  ;

appropriate design standards and codes". Remove the ambicuity by specifying-the codes and standards and indicate your compliance with the staff's' position, which allcws stresses. in excess of yield only when the impactive or impulsive leads are present. ,

. t 131.67 Your response to Item 131.17 is not satisfactory in that instead of (3.7.2) resconding to the original cuestion you eliminated the :ertinent information frem the PSSAR. In view of the above, provide inf:rmatien and a satisfactory justification pertinent to the treatment of tne mass mcment of ir.ertia of each structure. In additi:n, Figure 3.7-13

~ ..

referred to in your response is not a ccmclete mathematical medel. n Sections 3.7.2.1, 3.7.2.11 and other places, mentien was made of using finite element techniques in medeling the structures. Figure 3.7-13 .

does not reflect such a representation. Provide the c:mpleta model used in your seismic analysis.

131.68 Explain and justify the folicwing statements on page 3.7-17 of the (3.7.2) 53AR:

1. What are the "acprepriate c:meuter progrens to be used to tevelce flexibiltty matrix fer ::ntainment structure".  !

I

?

-,+ ,, -v..,- ,, -w r - er v y

. . . = . . . . - .

_ . _ _ . ..;. _ ._-_ m _ _

e. -

2. What do you mea.r. cy " beam history (SIC) and how it relates to l

the containment structure. l l

.3. Justify the use of the computer programs based on "ceam history" l 1

as applicable to the containment structure and those based en the finite element method as applicable to the other Category I Structures such as the auxiliary building, and' the internal-structure.

131.69 .In' Section 3.7.2.4, you indicated that the resthods of analysis of (3.7.2) .

Category I structures for the soil-structure interaction to be used in future confimatory analyses will be according to those specified in Table 2.7-3.of the SSAR.- It is the regulatory staff position that each utility applicant refsrencing GISBSSAR perfom confimator/

soil-structure interaction analysis to demonstrate design adequacy of Category I structures and the acceptability of such confirmator/

analysis will be reviewed en a case by case basis in the future site related applications. Therefore, the discussion pertaining to future confimatory analysis methods together with the Table 3.7-3. referenced should be deleted 7.nd a comitment to comply with the above stated staff position be provided in its place by the applicant.

131.70 Your response.to Item 131.17 is not satisfactory in that you failed to

.(3.8.1) descri5e: ,

1. The method of calculating the leads resulting frem the buckled 1tner piata, f i

2. The buckling critaria applied to the liner plata analysis and design. ]

Providef the above infomation.

i

i

-- l

m: :+: -

, . = - --- - - - - - -

j l

,' ; ~

.e. l

-131. 71 Your response to Item 131.39 is not satisfactory. Section 3.8.1.4 (f)

. (3.8.1 )

refers to Section 3.3.1.5 '(c) for infonnation on the allowable anchor

]

loads. - Examination of Section 3.8.1.5 (c) reveals that this infor-mation is missing. Discuss in detail the method of analysis to pre-vent the "::ipper effect" stating the test data, and the allowable , ,

loads on the anchors and the liner plate.

131.72 our . response to -Itam 131.40 is not adequate. The question did'not '

(3.8.1) state that you must combine the effects of peak temperature and  ;

pressure effects, but simply asked you how are you combining such effects. - This you did not answer. Describe the method of analysis to account for temperature gradient in the containment. Al so , j usti fy.

the increase in allcwable strain of tensile reinforcing to'1.5 times the yield strain.

131.73 Tne revised Sections 3.8.1.3 (a) and (b), which you provided in res- -

( 3. 8.1 )

pense to Item ,131.42, do not centain 1 cad combination equations in  ;

accordance with the Standard Review Plan. Tne Extreme Environmental i Categorf Equation should include the R e , as defined in Section 3.8.1.3 (a) (8) of the SSAR. Please correct the equation accordingly.

131.74 Your response to Itam 131.46 is not acceptable. The revised Fig.

(3.8.1 )

3.8-13 does not answer the original question. Please provide pertinent j answer to this question. ,

i i

[

i q;

. s

,e , ,et' - ,- -w-e e -, --'n,<,-,- v,,-- +m , v- , p - e- c., ----en

4 131.75 Your response to the Interface requirements (General Comments of Ql) is too general to be censicered satisfac:crf. Fer example, by making a statement that the " check will be made to ensure censistenc) at the interface between the 307 structures and the NSSS components", you did not address the specific requests of the staff. Indicate your compliance to the specific requirerents of the NSSS/ BOP. interface as requestad by the staff. .

131.76 It is noted that you did not respond to Itams 131.37 and 131.52. For your convenience these items are repeated below. Please respond to the

original quessions.

Oricinal Ouestien 131.37-(3.3.1)

Cescribe the provisions to be taken to prevent corresion of the liner -

plate in case of buckling tewards the 'inside of the containment and the surveillance measures to be used to detect.such condition.

Oricinal Ouestien 131.52 (3.8.61 GIBSSSAR is intended to aces.u.edate a large nt=ber of sites within the centinental United Sta:as. Naturally, tne site scil conci:icns affect--

ing design cf fcundaticns will vary frem site to site. In order tc proceed with the ccccrenensive design of tte plant, the design para-meters of soil ccnditions mus: te defined that will cover all possicle situations for wnich tne plant will be designed. You are requestad to specify such design paramatars in the SSAR. These parameters should cover pertinent aspects of structural engineering and design of foundations, such as the allewable soil searing pressure, ground water level, cohesion, soil stratification, etc.

4

-- , , , r

~ . - .

SEB INTERIM POSITTONS FOR REVfE'4 AND ACCEPTABLE Enclosure

• .- 0F i DUCTILITY OF REINFORCED CONCETE AND STEEL STRUCTURAL. ELE!ENTS SUBJECTED TO IWACTIVE CR I@ULSIVE LOADS INTRODUCTION In the.. evaluation of over.sil response of reinforced concrete structural elements (e.g., missile barriers, colt.mns, slabs, etc.) subjected to impactive or impulsive 1 loads, such as impacts due to missiles, assumption on non-linear response (i.e.,

ductility ratios greater than unity) of the structural elements is generally , ,

acceptable provided that the safety functions of the structural elements and those -

of safety-related systems and components supported or protected by the elements are maintained. The following summarizes specific SES interim positions for review t

and acceptance of ductility ratios for reinforced concrete and steel structural elements subjected to impactive and impulsive loads.

SPECIFIC POSITIONS

1. REINFORCED CONCRETE SENERS 1.1 For beams, slabs, and walls where flexure controis design, the pemissible ductility ratic under impactive and impulsive loads should be taken as i 0.05 . .g '10 0 o*' ,

where ; and a' are the ratios of tensile and compressive reinforcing as defined in 'CI-318-71 Code.

1.2 If use of a ductility ratio greater than 10 (i.e., u> 10) is required -

to demonstrate design adequacy of structural elements against impactive  !

or impulsive loads, e.g.,-missile impact, such a usage should be identified in the plant SAR. Infonation justifying the use of this relatively high -;

i ductility value shall be provided for SE3 staff review.

l e

9

- , . . m y u v-y , , , . , , , .w=,ye.. n,. . -..-e ., wm,e.e.,. v w a- = .-<,- en

~

.. ~~~ ~ 2 : ._. .-. ..~. . .

- ~ ~

.. -2,, , ,

. , l'.3* For beam-columns, walls, and slabs carrying axial compression loads

and subject to impulsive or impactive loads-producing flexure, the.

permissible ductility ratio in flexure should be as follows:

(a) When compression controls the design, as defined by an interaction diagram, the permissible auctilty ratio shall be 1.3.

(b) When the compression load does not exceed 0.lfe' Ag or one-third of that which would produce balanced conditions, whichever, is

,l smaller, the permissible ductility ratio can be as given in Section 1.1.

(c) The permissible ductility ratio shall vary linearly from 1.3 to that given in Section 1.1 for conditions between those specified in ( a) and (b) . (See Fig.1.)

1.4 For structural elements resisting axial compressive impulsive or I

! impactive loads only, without flexure, the eermissible axial. ductility ratio shall be 1.3.

1.5 For shear carried by concrete only 9 - 1.0 i For shear carried by concrete and stirrups or bent bars u - 1.3 i For shear carried entirely by stirrups a - 3.0

2. STRUCTURAL STEEL MMERS .l 2.1 For flexure ccmpression and shear  !

u =.10.0 i 2.2 For columns with slenderness ratio (1/r) equal or less than 20 u = 1. 3 l

1 d

i

~ . . . -. ..

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

m_ ,.

4.-- * ;i .,

1

.'3-i- ~.. , _

- where 1 = effective length of the member ' ~~

l

~

r = the least radius of gyration i For columns' with slenderness ratio greater than 20 u - 1.0 t 2.3 For members subjected to tension a  : .5. c.----

. cy where tu,=l ultimate strain cy'= yield strain t

. $* E I

f

\

1 1-1 i

k l

c 3

F i-

-  ?

r N Y

--y.,-c.,.,--rd - 3m .,#.- m , U , em -e e s -, c y a p~, ,.-e- , . , - . , . . . ~ - . , - , es.,-..e4.,.--..~.~~#.md----.- . . . - . - w~e;<we.----,+-4

l

. .l I.  !

.;* -[

- :i

- ? '

• y s

a

- M o_

h o

, - ' l - ;i -

• opc i

yW -

TAe t

t t h t

T i' t. lI lI -  :!I .l. g ,.

.i co No  ! +

DF .

se o i

g

_ T ~

A R

X

) T x t

, ' - t .

a T ,

( c

/ M o b

!l . ' -

r>

, e s

M o P

o *

- i hi .  ! i .l

'R o

l P

O ,'

, ;i

r. i! '

J 0- .' i '

, f .;Il

" lP. ? - -

G t

g,3,4 AlME f Cynu I

4 f t

3 F N

l. _

,E L

4 2' y*s 9 o . y 3 o. ,Y

)s \ , .

ri

\ ..

.l (w . s k g O A P y pb bC .

3, o .

- t

~

! , . I , ,'  ! '