ML20210T153

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Structural Engineering Branch Request for Addl Info Re Structural Aspects in Order to Complete second-round Review of PSAR
ML20210T153
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-1744 NUDOCS 8605290768
Download: ML20210T153 (4)
v • d • e


Text

I

d*QQCfse%$WY M

wmv&M i*" m c w w e

w

~. m

-4Q4Q&n.

.WA 'A 6 JFCyg 4M 1:.d ',

^

s

%g.y.

4 fid&rs:CAf Di s

/

N_

d5Efd$Mb7I[hkht

$b hk Docket STN 50-508/509 5

f L-Rdg

/

SEB RF Docket Nos. STN 50-508/509 '

ha 2 71976 J. w q.

~.

r

'.p s y,' O ',. s o.';..

<r-

..)f R. C. DeYoung. Assistant Director

'+

i..

X.-. ih,.:

g for Light Water Reactors. Group-1

- ~W A Division of Reactor Licensing

~

.~

.n v,. s -

WPPS5 NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 3 (WPPSS UNITS 3 & 5) t PRELIMINARY SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT. SECOND ROUND REVIEW Q:

, ~.

n Plant Name: WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3 Licensing Stage: Second Round Review of the PSAR Pmject Numbers: STN-50-508/509 Responsible Branch and Project Manager: LWR l-3, P. D. O'Reilly i

Requested Completion Date January 24. 1975 l

Applicant's Response Date Necessary for Cospletion of Next Action Planned on Project: April 15.1975 Description of Response:. Answers to Questions Review Status: Complete The second round review of the subject application has been completed

[

by the Structural Engineering Branch and we find that additional infor-motion is required before we can couplete our review.

The additional information requested, which concerns structural aspects, is contained in the enclosure. Please note that our acceptance review questions 130.21 and 130.23 have not yet been completely answered.

y.c T

Tg.

/

a

i. r,jfj$ 3p..

R. R. Maccary. Assistant. Director E

u

.: 3

. /Qfy't.

hr Engineering 4.:y @ y a.

m

'2-81 vision of Technical Review s'.

p p#wh.-

office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

+

,u q

Enclosure:

As Stated . i.t

- c

/

p.7.

,, y.g:

,.9 cc A/o enc 1:

cc w/ enc 1:

A. Giambusso

5. H. Hanauar P. D. O'Reilly W. 8. Mcdonald F. Schroeder
i.. Shao

\\

K. R. Goller I. Sihwell InEW4 8605293768 750127 PDR ADOCK 05000508 A

PDR u

L:SEB p5 L:SEB L:AD:E o,,,..

7807 v

.ISihweil:mb

-LCShao RRMaccary

- - ~ ~

  • 1/3 /75 1/t7D5 WHS-r

---2

'" ""?J""?.!M*_ * **

_..a Aw, * ::?""*"".~::";""~2 ?' '":*- '.'"

.,Lg

O l

130-1 JAM 2 7 'is75 I

130.0 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERIflG BRANCH j

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 i

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..

.;.~,..

. ".f

~

130.28 Your response to Ite:n 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-g-

your intent to. comply with the' staff position as stated in Ltem 130.10.

e 130.29

- Your justification for not conside'.-ing a post-LOCA flooding (3.8.2.3) of the contain: rent, 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 positicn for this requirementis contained. in Standard. Review Plan.3.8.2 Your

,F fntent to-compTy with this position should be indicated.

~ ~ ~

130.30

'Your response to Item 130.18 is not acceptable.

It is a i

(3.8.2.3)

Regulatory staff position that the containment should be de- -

signed for the external pressure in conjunction with the SSE.

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

f.

-~ position-fs.cleer}rcorttained-irrStandard-Review P7 art 3'.8 Zand-

.;your intent:to. comply therewith 'should be indicated.-

e

~g

.;-_.a;

._q t

1

. a. -- -

~.,

O l

ATTACHMENT JM 2 71975 J

TO f

ITEM 130.27 t

i 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 de ' base of the idealized soil profile.* The time history obtained should be such that when it

- is applied at the base of the ideal.ized soil profile and the

~

soil; 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 varfation irr the soiT properties at the site.

In addition,the

_ time history obtained should be such that when it is applied at I

the base of the idealized soil profile and the s' oil-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 aTT frequencies (0.2 cps to 50 cps)' in general not less than 1

60% of the corresponding design response ~ spectral values specified L

for the free field at the finished grade level.

If response spectral values in the free field at the foundation level and r

. at the, foundation _ level.of. the-interac. tion system are-less than.

_.._m.,

g; _.. _

' 60*of-the corresponding desigrr responsa spectral'vaTues specified 1

for the free field at the finished grade level, justification should be provided that they are adequ.ately conservative.

(

N'

  • Noter The idealized soir profire:is the soir-structure interaction l

system without the structure.

t 6

l w

k 0

g.

-2 JAN 27 197 5 l

j (3) Use the time history developed under (2) at the base of the i

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 onlyt 10% of the. frequenc.ies-. corresponding to the peaks.

ST.h'.

y_

-~.:_

_ ~......

~;_qL.. *y
y'e =

9 e

).

, e

.- ~

e

e. ai.

9 ow e-w

'"e,g O

3 y=

~ _

"~E

  • ~

~~

T ~ ~'._. ~f(7, Ti...

~~ - l}

-s

~.: ; ~,. -

.y i

t t

us.e.-

j i

.1

~

- - - -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20210T153&oldid=4015415"