ML20198G539

Forwards Structural Engineering Branch second-round Request for Addl Info Re PSAR Structural Aspects

ML20198G539
Person / Time
Site:	Satsop
Issue date:	01/27/1975
From:	Maccary R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Deyoung R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-WNP-1316 NUDOCS 8605290655
Download: ML20198G539 (4)

Text

...;.-..-.'

I r

e, i-Distribution:  ;[ '

( / Docket?STN 50-508/509

p' L-Rdg 7 .

.y SEB RF Docket Nos. STN 50-508/509 3r 2 'l $75 g, ,

.g. ..

~ '

.,  :.; -){ :

. . ,Y*bl

~

7L:.f. R. C'.TDeYoung, Assistant Director igig . for. Light Water; Reactors, Group,1 ..

Maw Division of Reactor Licensing +.> n - l ^ '- - *-Sc .* - A -

o'% , w.:.~. ;x:p

.~'

W. .,

-;&gp/f 3 .WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 3_?- (WPPSS UNITS 3 & 5) -

L:ofM PRELIMINARY-SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT,: SECOND ROUND RECEW

.Mai6.+% :. .f ::f ,. J rM .

~

' . .. % . wk . . .[:;u ; - c .

=*

. ,Q5~;&-fc. Plant-Name:~ > WPPSS~ Nuclear Project No.T3WR ~ ~MW 1:Wm- n~ Jr -

ggp?;rLicensing Stage: OSecond Round Review of the PSAR

~

^

yh G.W Project Ntnbers: lSTN-50-508/509 . . .. . :. .- > ~ _,

iGW ' Responsible Branch'and Project Manager: . LWR l-3, P..D. 0'Reilly _ ^

f.c.:7 m. Requested Completion Date: January 24, 1975 -~

. .c W2;.& Applicant's. Response Date Necessary for Completion of Next Action ,,

W~ ~ Planned on Project: JApril 15, 1975 ~~ ,_ _

.4 ~ Description of Response: Answers to Questions ..:'

T.F . Review Status: Complete

+.

f - The second round review of the subject application has been completad

.l' by the Structural Engineering Branch and we find that additional infor-

.. i - mation is required before we can complete our review. The additional '

.Zf 1. infomation requested,~which concerns structural aspects, is contained f

.7d sin the enclosure. -Please note that our acceptance review questions i

.;.-. ~ 130.21 and 130.23 have not yet been completely answered.- -

- ::-;; 2 . % % % i-= F ^ -~r;; .~ S=: - h i ^i=--b - ~- ?'$:::'N ~ . n: ^ t'.: qN

..: ?.w:.)%-j.:'.Y Y ~ . - -

. . - - 3. . .

~

. . . , ,-.8. .-: .

. .,. 7.

-u

. y+-~ . : r-- . .c ~ . r .:<.

.p

~ ~.c'5-? . i5 ' R. R. Maccary, Assistant. Director.

-n-W. .

^

. :.h.- .: for Engineering . -

id.yjf . ,.? 9 6.h.A ~ '.D1 vision of Technical Review  ?

.y.: .w . > . - . sy :--. --g_.:-::&.:=.-~:s office of.Nuc1 ear. Reactor Reguia tion. .: : -

g_ ..

.....-.......-...-_-;..--~- . . -

a ._ _ _. ; -. . - -~. m- (..;

-.x : ._- - .--Se -.

am. "..-

Enclosure:

., Asa .. Stated mz

_:r'.  :, n,n, .ys +; i - . a. . ;. w: ,  ;

_ .9 + --

c. --- ..= .

v y;

. . we u.

.. .a, . .

.ac. . . ~ " g.'... ,

.cc w/ encl:r ,

q_REj.cci/oe.ncl

;:.

' - ~ - '- ~-< ~

-A'. Giambusso 'S. H. Hanauer.. P. D. O'Reilly

' =< +F -

W. G.'..McDon'ald - f F. Schroeder L. Shao ..

5 g.--7 :. S +.e c f c..w ' V C:R.~Goller

=11. Sihwell' V '=~~

- M._ " 2 8603290655 750127 PDF; ADOCK 05000508 -i -

D '" . .

A PDR * ~

.  :: 2

~

~ ' ~ . .. .c o. .L:SEB_[.(._, .L:SEB L:AD:E 7807

• -.-'*. .ISihweil:mb -LCShao g RRMaccary-- -

-l / t7. / 75- 4/-/75

.. n

• _.1/22 /75 - - --- - -- - --

i-b 130-1 y p B75 130.0 STRUCTURAL ErlGilEERIflG BRAflCH

'130.26 The description of the ground water drainage system provided (3.4.5) in Section 3.4.5 is not sufficient. Provide details of the

- system and the applicable design criteria including seismic classification, effects of potential failure and the extent to which the structures are designed to resist hydrostatic pressures particularly in conjunction with other loads.

130.27 The application of the design response spectra at the grade (3.7.1.6) -level in the free field is acceptable to the Regulatory staff provided the attached procedure is satisfied. Confirm that the procedures and results described in Section 3.7.1.6 and

. Appendix 3.7.A meet these requirements or otherwise revise accordingly.

130.28 ~ Your response to Item 130.10 is not completely acceptable.

(3.7.2.7) It is a Regulatory staff position that relative displacements between support points shall always be considered. Your proposed procedure to evaluate whether such displacements.are significant or not is redundant and unnecessary. Indicate your intent to comply with the staff position as stated in Item 130.10.

130.29 Your justification for not considering a post-LOCA flooding (3.8.2.3) of the containment, as presented in item (j),of Section 3.8.2.3, is not acceptable. If post-LOCA flooding of the containment is to be relied upon for post-LOCA fuel recovery, then the con-tainment should be designed for this condition in conjunction with at least an OBE. The Regulatory staff position for this requirement is contained in Standard Review Plan 3.8.2. Your intent to comply with this position should be indicated.

130.30 Your response to Item 130.18 is not acceptable. It is a (3.8.2.3) Regulatory staff position that the containment should be de-signed for the external pressure in conjunction with the SSE.

This load combination should therefore be specified even though it.may not be controlling as you so claim. The staff's 5

position is clearly contained in Standard Review Plan 3.8.2 and your intent to comply therewith should be indicated.

i e

a T

ATTACHMENT pg '; 7 YE5 TO ITEM 130.27 In developing the design time history to be used at the base of the soil-structure interaction system the following represents an accept-able procedure:

(1) The design response spectra are defined for the free field and are applied at the finished grade level of Category I structures.

(2) Using an acceptable analysis method with appropriate soil pro-perties, obtain a time history at the base of the idealized soil profile.* The time history obtained should be such that when it is applied ct the base of the idealized soil profile and the sofi-structure interaction system, the time history response

~

obtained in the free field' at the finished grade level should give response spectra that envelop the design response spectra.

This time history developed should appropriately account for

~

variation in the soil properties at the site. In addition,the time history obtained should be such that when it is applied at the base of the idealized soil profile and the soil-structure interaction system using appropriate soil properties, the time history response obtained in the free field at the foundation level and that obtained at the foundation level of the soil-structure interaction system should give response spectral values at all frequencies -(0.2 cps to 50 cps) in general not less than 60% of the corresponding design response spectral values specified for the free field at the finished grade level. If response spectral values in the free field at the foundation level and at the foundation level of the interaction systen are less than 60% of the corresponding design response spectral values specified for the free field at the finished grade level, justification should be provided that they are adequately conservative.

• Note: The idealized sof t profiTe is the sof1-structure interaction system without the structure.

K JAH 2 71370

, (3) Use the time history developed under (2) at the base of the soil-structure interaction system with appropriate soil properties for subsequent soil-structure interaction analysis.

The analysis method used should account for the strain depen-dency of soil modulus and damping. The peaks in the floor response spectra obtained from such a time history need be broadened by only ! 10% of the frequencies corresponding to the peaks.

2 r

t O

q e.s 'm=

5-

• N

+M