ML20213D920
| ML20213D920 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1981 |
| From: | Knight J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0432, CON-WNP-432 V, NUDOCS 8112020231 | |
| Download: ML20213D920 (20) | |
Text
.
NOV 181981 DISTRIBUTI0ft:
22Ja.L1~W^Q 0
00chct I;o.:
50-397 SEB ROG., F. ICE IEORA!iDU;! FOR:
Robert L. Todesco, Assistant Directer
- e.
s
.'V for Licensing
/s '
e.-
L '. T' Division of Licensing ff u...U
,~.. :
1.
..Ch @;.
..d ;jfcu,qf FR0!1:
Jancs P. Knight, Assistant Director c%fi for Cog onents and Structures Enginecring u,3 Division of Engincering y.
A, ORAFT SAFETY EVALUATIG!! P.EPORT
[/D tl/SIIt;GT0!! PUCLIC POUER SUPPLY SYSTEi! !it'CLE/? PROMO ]
C,.
SUBJECT:
s.
Plcnt I;aac:
ll FPS 5 Onit !;c. 2 Doct.et !:o.:
50-297 Pesponsible Branch and Project !!ancscr:
Licensing Eranch 2, E. Auluth Ecquested Capletion Cate:
October 12, 1001 The FSta su!nitted by the applicant has been revicued and evaluated by the Structural Enginccrir.g Cranch. A brief sumary of stctus and secpc of re-vicu findincs is contained in Enclosure 1.
Our sectic!s of the craft safety evaluation report are provided in Cnclosure2.Thit evaluation is based ca infernaticn provided by the applicant through Anerdnent to. 10 issued in Au?ust,1931, and results freu an audit necting with tht tpplicant held durir.g thc wcck of ilovenber 20,1931. The catioturcs ucre prenared by K. C. Lcu of Section A of the Structural Engineering Lrar.ch, p.u.s s V ^ ] 3'i '
p, p.1 @u
&ces P. !; night i.ssi:: tant Director for Cogonents ar.d $tructures EncincerIn?
Division of Engineering
Enclosures:
As statcJ cc:
R. Vollmer F. Schauer A Schwencer l
l
- b. Jcus C. Tan r., Auluck E. Lcu
-CO'! TACT 2'.Q. C. Leu, ' SED. xyM 8112020231 811118
)
s ooca osoooas7 J
g[g, W
omco
...pE :s a..
,rt:.ste...:J.:....ansta.d..x:mcst..j.
~
......-.......f............
l suomo....KLcu %[n..DJen,g ',,,',],l,,
, f,Scha,u,,er JSnight,,,
.11#4.zel.,
11/,.1,/,8L,,
11/3,/s1
,114. ;fal,
om sac rosu ais os.cou.ncu w OFFICIA: RECORD COPY vwo.m.-nwo l
~
m e.>
e w
4 e
ew 1
ENCLOSURE 1 SUW.ARY OF STATUS AND SCOPE OF WPPSS UNIT 2 REVIEW Section 3.3.1 Wind Loadings:
Review is complete, no open item exists.
Section 3.3.2 Tornado 1.cadings:
Review is complete, no open item exists.
Section 3.4 2 Water Level (Ficod) Design Procedures:
Review is complete, nc open item exists.
Section 3.5.3 Barrier Design Procedures:
Revie# is complete, no open item exists.
Section 3.7.1 Seismic Input:
Completion of review is pending receipt, review and stai'i acceptance of rad waste building analysis comparison results discussed in the Section, the applicant ccmitted to provide the information by November 13, 1981.
Section 3.7.'2 Seismic System Analysis and Section 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis:
Completion of the review is pending on the resolution of the following items:
(a)
Review and. staff acceptance 6f the comparison of SSI analysis for radwaste building using elastic half-space approach and finite element method, and (b)
Applicant's demonstration of conservatism of the equivalent static method used for the analysis of spray ponds retaining wall and slabs.
Section 3.7.4 Seismic Instrumentation Program:
Review is complete, no open item exists.
Section 3.8.1 Concrete Containment:
Not applicable t
l Section 3.8.2 Steel Containment:
The evaluation is subject to the resolution of the following items:
(a)
Containment shell faticue analysis, (b)
The effects of shell stiffening and opening On the applicability of ASME Code,Section III, NE-3133 for buckling analysis, (c)
The design of the concrete above and below the steel centainment bottom head, ana (d)
Assessment of WNP-2 containme'nt witn respect to the effect of revisions to pool dynamic /SRV load definitions.
l l
Section 3.8.2 The applicant will submit steel containment ultimate capacity analysis information by November 13, 1981 for staff review.
l l
i
1 s
o The-applicant comitted to prohide information for items (a), (b), and (e) by November 13,1981, and the information for (d) will be submitted during the first half of 1982.
Section 3.8.3 Concrete end Structural Steel Internal Structures:
The evaluation is subject to the resolution of the following items:
(a)
Compliance with ACI-349 Code as auamented by Regulatory Guide 1.142 fdb the appI1 cable internal concrete sturctures, and (b)
Compliance with ASME Code,Section III, Division 2 for the containment concrete basemat structure.
The applicant corraitted to prohide information for the abohe two items by November 13, 1981.
Section 3.3.4 Other Categcry I Structures:
Thechaluationissubject to the resolution of the following items:
(a)
Assessment to demonstrate comoliance with the requirements of ACI-349 Code as amended by Regulatory Guide 1.142 for tne design of Category I concrete structures, and (b)
Evaluation of the design and analysis of spent fuel pool structures used in WNP-2 TheapplicantcommittedtoprohideinformationfortheseitemsbyNovember13, 1961.
Se: tion 3.8.5 Foundations:
Thechaluationissubjecttotheresolution of the following items:
(a)
Compliance with.the requirenents of the ASME Code i
l Lection III, Division 2 for the reactor building foundation, and l
(b)
Complunca wf th the requirements of the ACI-349 i
Cooe as amended by Regulatery Guide 1,,142 for Category I structure foundations other than reactor building foundation.
l The aoplicant cocrnitted to prchide information for these items by Nohember 3,1931.
l t
(
\\
l
s ENCLOSURE-2 9
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH DRAFT SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT 3.3.1 Wind Loadings f
All Category I structures exposed to wind forces were designed to withstand the effects of the design wind. The design wind specified has a velocity of 100 mph based on a recurrence of 100 years.
The procedures that were used to transform the wind velocity into pressure load-ings on structures and the associated vertical distribution of wind pressures and gust factors are in accordance with ASCE paper 3269. This document is acceptable to the, staff.
The procedures that were utilized to determine the loadings on seismic Category I structures induced by the design wind specified for the plant are acceptable since these procedures provide a conservative basis for engineering design to assure that tne structures will withstand such environmental forces.
The use of these procedures provides reasonable assurance that in the event of design basis wincs, the structural integrity of the plant seismic Category I structures will not be impaired and, in consequence, seismic Category I systems and comparents located within these structures are adequately protected and will perform their intended safety functions, if needed. Conformance with these procedures is an acceptable basis for satisfying, in part, the requirements of General Design Criterion 2.
3.3.2 Tornado Loadings All Category I structures exposed to tornado forces and needed for the safe shutdown of the plant, were designed to resist a tornado of 300 mph tangential WPPSS 1
-a
}
wind velocity and a 60 mph translational wind velocity. The simultaneous atmos-pheric pressure drop was assumed to be 3 psi in 3 seconds. Tornado missiles are also considered in the design as discussed in Section 3.5 of this report.
The procedures that were used to transform the torando wind velocity into pres-sure loadings are similar to those used for the design wind loadings as discussed in Section 3.3.1 of this report. The tornado missile effects were determined using procedures to be discussed in Section 3.5 of this report.
The total effect of the design tornado on Category I structures is determined by appropriate combinations of the individual effects of the tornado wind pressure, pressure drop, and tornado associated missiles. Structures are arranged on the plant site and protected in such a manner that collapse of structures not designed for the 1ornado will not affect other safety-related structures.
The procedures utilized to determine the loadings on structures induced by the design basis tornado specified for the plant are acceptable since the procedures provide a conservative basis for engineering design to assure that the struc-tures withstand such environmental forces. The use of these procedures provides reasonable assurance that in the event of a design basis tornado, the structural integrity of the plant structures that have to be designed for tornadoes will not be impaired and, in consequence, safety-related systems and components located within these structures will be adequately protected and may be expected to perform necessary safety functions as required. Conformance with these pro-cedures is an acceptable basis for satisfying, in part, the requirements of General Design Criterion 2.
3.4.2 Water Level (Flood) Design Procedures The design flood level resulting from the most unfavorable condition or combina-tion of conditions that produce the maximum water level at the site is discussed in Section 2.4, Hydrology. The hydrostatic effect of the flood was considered in the design of all Category I structures exposed to the water head.
Tne procedures utilized to determine the loadings on seismic Category I struc-tures induced by the design flood or highest groundwater level specified for the plant are acceptable since these procedures provide a conservative basis WPPSS 2
r for engineering design to assure that these procedures provide a conservative basis for engineering design to assure that the structures will withstand such environmental forces.
The use of these procedures provides reasonable assurance that in the event of floods or high groundwater, the structural integrity of the plant seismic Category I structures will not be impaired and, in consequence, seismic Category I systems and components located within these structures will be ade-quately protected and may be expected to perform necggsary safety. functions, as required. Conformance with the design procedures is an acceptable basis for satisfying, in part, the requirements of General Design Criterion 2.
3.5.3 Barrier Design Procedures The plant Category I structures, systems, and components are shielded from, or designed for, various postulated missiles. Missiles considered in the design of structures include tornado generated missiles and various containment internal missiles, such as those associated with a loss-of-coolant accident.
Information has been provided indicating that the procedures that were used in the design of the structures, shields, and barriers to resist the effect of missiles are adequate. The analysis of structures, shields, and barriers to determine the effects of missile impact was accomplished in two steps.
In the first step, the potential damage that could be done by the missile in the immediate vicinity of impact was investigated. This was acccmplished by i
estimating the depth of penetration of the missile into the imparted structure.
Furthermore, secondary missiles are prevented by fixing the target thickness well above that determined for penetration.
In the secono step of tra ar.alysis, the overall structural respcnse of the target then impacted by a missile is determined using established methods of impactive analysis. The equivalent loads of missile impact, whether the missile is environmentally generated or accidentally generated within the plant, are combined with other applicable loads as is discussed in Sectinn 3.8 of this report.
The procedures that were utilized to determine the effects and loadings on seismic Category I structures and missile shields and barriers induced by WPPSS 3
design basis missiles selected for the plant are acceptable since these pro-cedures provide a conservative basis for engineering design to assure that the structures or barriers are adequately resistant to and will withstand the effect of such forces.
The use of these procedures provides reasonable assurance that in the event of design basis missiles striking seismic Category I structures or other missile shields and barriers, the structural integrity of the structures, shields, and barriers will not be impaired or degraded to an extent that will result in a loss of required protection. Seismic Category I systems and components pro-tected by these structures are, therefore, adequately protected against the effects of missilet and will perform their intended safety function, if needed.
Conformance with these procedures is an acceptable basis for satisfying, in part, the requirements of General Design Criteria 2 and 4.
3.7.1 Seismic Inout In the design of WNP-2 seismic Category I structures, systems, and components, an operating basis earthquake (OBE) of 0.125g and a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) of 0.25g were specified.
The input seismic design response spectra (OBE and SSE) are defined at foundation level of the nuclear power plant structures.
These design response spectra, corresponding to those of Newmark and Hall, are not identical to the design response spectra as defined in Regulatory Guide 1.60, Revision 1, scaled to 0.25g maximum horizontal ground acceleration; however, the latter are used with higher damping values as defired in Regulatory Guide 1.61, Revision 0.
In order to prove the adequacy of the design response spectra used by the applicant, we requested the applicant to compare the struc-
[
tural responses in the reactor building and other Category I structures using the two design response spectra mentioned above. The applicant has provided the comparisons for reactor building which show that the structural responses due to each of the two methods are within 10% at almost all locations. This is acceptable to the staff. As to the comparisons of other Category I structures, it is agreed that the applicant will submit the comparison results for radwaste building by November 13, 1981 for staff review. This item is considered as unresolved pending staff review and acceptance of the results.
WPPSS 4
b 9
The synthetic time history used for seismic design of Category I plant structures, systems, and components is adjusted in amplitude and frequency content to obtain response spectra that envelop the response spectra specified for the site.
The following conclusion is subject to the resolution of the item discussed above.
The seismic inputs to Category I structures, systems, and comconents are ade-quately defined. The applicant has demonstrated that the reauirements of Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61 are met. Theehalustfonisbasedonanop-erating basis earthquake (OBE) of 0.125g and a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) of 0.259 The discussion of the free field ground motion response spectrum development and its adequacy is addressed in Section 2.5.2 of the draft SER.
3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis The secpe of review of the Seismic System and Subsystems Analysis for the plant included the seismic analysis methods for all Category I structures, systems, and components. It included review of procedures for modeling, seismic soil-structure interaction, development of ficor response spectra, inclusion of torsional effects, evaluation of Category I structure overturning, and deter-mination of composit damping. The review has included design criteria and procedures for evaluation of interaction on non-Category I structures and piping with Category I structures and piping and effects of parameter varia-tions on floor response spectra. The review has also included criteria for seismic analysis procedures for reacter internals and Category I buried piping outside the containment.
The system and subsystem analyses were perfomed by the applicant on elastic basis. Modal response spectrem multidagree of freedom and time history methods form the bases for the analyses of all major Category I structures, systems, and components. When the medal response spectrum method was used, governing response parameters were combined by the square root of the sum of the squares rule, including the closely soaced modes. However, for modes with closely I
5 l
h y
spaced frequencies, assessment was made by the appitcant ahd shown to meet the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.92.
The absolute sum (AL3) of two earthquake components of the maximum codirectional responses was usad instead of 3RSS of three components cf the earthquake motion for both the time history and response spectrum methods. Comparisons of the results obtained from both the ABS and SRSS methods were made by the applicant and it was demonstrated that for all frequencies ihrger than 1.25 Hz the ABS method used by the applicant is conservative.
This finding is acceptable to the staff since the frequency range of interest / concern in WNP-2 Category I structures and systems is always larger than 5 Hz.
The present technical position of the staff requires that the accidental torsion, minimum of 5% of the base dimension, be included in the design of structures. This is in addition to that which results from the actual geometry and mass distribution of the building.
In response to staff request, the applicant provided calculation of design margin accounting for the accidental torsion for all Category I structures and showed that even for the structures with the lowest design margin, tne factor safety values change by less than 2%
and are still adequate.
This is acceptable to the staff.
Floor spectra inputs used for design and test verifications of structures, systems, and components were generated from the time history method, taking into account variation of parameters by peak widening. A vertical seismic system dynamic analysis is employed for all structures, systems, and components where analyses show significant structural amplification in the vertical direction. Torsional effects and stability against overturning are considered.
The lumped mass-spring method was used to evaluate soil-structure interaction and structure-to-structure interaction effects upon seismic responses. However, the current staff position regarding the soil-structure interaction requires, in addition to the use of elastic half-space approach, the use of finite element l
method. The applicant provided the comparisons of the original soil spring analysis versus the finite element approach at different key Incations in the I
reactor building and concluded that the soil spring analysis results envelop those from the finite element method. Furthermore, the applicant will perform WPPSS 6
l
t the analysis using the two different methods for radwaste building and submit the results by November 13, 1981 for staff review and acceptance.
The applicant used the equivalent static analysis for the spray ponds retaining wall and slabs and committed to provide analysis procedures and calculations demonstrating the conservatism of the method used for staff review and acceptance.
The acceptance of the applicant's seismic system andssubsystem analysis is pending on the resolution of the above cited items.
3.7.4 Seismic Instrumentation Program The type, number, location, and utilization of strong motion accelerographs to record seismic events and to provide data on the frequency, amplitude, and phase ~
relationship of the seismic response of the Category I structures comply with Regulatory Guide 1.12.
Supporting instrumentation is being installed on Category I structures, systems, and components in order to provide data for the verification of the seismic responses determined analytically for such Category I items.
The installation of the specified seismic instrumentation in the reactor con-tainment structure and at other Category I structures, systems, and components constitutes an acceptable program to record data on seismic ground motion as well as data on the frequency and amplitude relationship of the response of major structures and sy:tems. A prompt readout of pertinent data at the control room can be expected to yield sufficient information to guide the operator on a timely basis for the purpose of evaluating the seismic responses in the event of an earthquake. Data obtained from such installed seisric instrumentation l
will be sufficient to determine that the seismic analysis assumptions and the analytical model used for the design of the plant are adequate and that allowable stresses are not exceeded under conditions where continuity of operation is intended. Provision of such seismic instrumentation complies with Regulatory Guide 1.12.
I I
WPPSS 7
,L o
3.8.1 Concrete Containment Not applicable for this facility.
3.8.2 Steel Containment The WNP-2 containment is a steel shell structure consisting of a truncated cone closed by a dome on the top and connected to a cylinder which is closed by an inverted dome on the bottom. The truncated cone and kne cylinder are separated by a diaphragm thus forming a drywell on the top and a suppression pool on the bottom. The suppression pool is connected to the drywell by a series of pipes penetrating through the diaphragm. The containment is supported on a reinforced concrete foundation mat. The containment as described is designated by General Electric Company as Mark II containment. The containment is enclosed in a reinforced concrete biological shield wall.
The WNP-2 containment was originally designed to resist various combinations of dead loads, live loads, environmental loads, including those due to wind and tornado, operating basis earthquake (OBE) and safe shutdown earthquake (SSE),
and loads generated by the design basis accident (DBA) resulting mainly in high pressure and temperature. However, it was later identified that besides these loads traditionally associated with normal operation and DBA, additional sup-pression pool hydrodynamic loads had not been included explicitly in the original design basis of all Mark II containments of BWR plants under construc-tion including WNP-2, These additional loads will occur not only from postulated LOCA but also as a result of the actuation of safety relief valve (SRV) in normal plant operation. The required consideration of the additional loads is generic to all plants using Mark II containments.
In an attempt to resolve the issue gererically, a Mark II Owners Group was formed and the l
applicant of WNP-2 is a member of the group.
l l
The initial effort of the group resulted in the issuance of the Dynamic Forcing l
Function Information Report (DFFR). The information contained in DFFR either is preliminary or needs further verification. Consequently, there is some uncertainty in the information contained in the DFFR and it can only be resolved on a long-term basis.
In order to meet the needs of the lead plants, WPPSS 8
e me e
g' a
that is, plants in the later stage of construction, the staff issued NUREG-0487 reportentitled"MarkIIContainmentLeadPlantProgramLoadEhaluationand Acceptance Criteria," dated October 1978, with Supplements 1 and 2 dated August 1980 end January 1981, respectively.. In August 1981, the regulatory staff issuedNUREG-0808reportentitled,"MarkIIContainmentProgramLoadEhaluation and Acceptance Criteria'.' in which the staff concludes that the improved condensation-oscillation and chugging loads for the suppression pool boundary as proposed by the Mark II Owners' Group and the lead plant pool-swell loads adoptedbytheMarkIIownersasthefinalleadspecificationsareconserhatihe.
In order to meet the requirements of the SRF Section 3.8.2.II.4d which states that an analysis should be performed to detemine the, ultimate capacity of the containment, the applicant will submit information of such an analysis by November 13, 1981 for staff review and acceptance.
On the basis of DFFR and NUREG-0487, the concrete structural components feming theboundaryofthesuppressionpoolwereeYaluatedbytheapplicantfortheir capability to resist the effects of the additional hydrodynamic loads and were found to have adequate margins of safety.' Through the use of a finite element model with the inclusion of the water as fluid mass, the effect of fluid-structureinteractionwasconsideredintheehaluation. Thee0aluationiscon-tained in the applicant's Design Assesment Report (DAR). Thestaffhasrehiewed the DAR and found additional infomation in the following areas is required:
(a) analysis df fatigue for the steel containment sh' ell, (b) the effects of shell stiffening and opening on the applicability of ASME Code,Section III, NE-3133 for buckiing analysis, and (c) the desigri of the concrete abohe and below the steel containment bottom head. Assoonaswereceivetheaboherequired l
infomation and have reviewed and found it to be satisfactory, we shall be in s l
position to concur with the applicant's conclusion. Additionally,theRehision 2 to the DAR was completed in August 1979. Since then more information has been generated from the Mark II Geheric Program. Therefore, the criteria used in the evaluation are not totally.in conformance with those delineated in NUREG-0808.
In view of this fact, the coplicant has comitted to make an assessment of WNP-2 containmentwithrespecttotheeffectofrehisionstoloaddefinitionsasde-l lineatedinNUREG-0808asaconfirmationoftheadequacyoftheehaluationas l
presented in the August 1979 DAR.
1 l
l Thefollowingconclusionissubjecttothesatisfactoryresolutionoftheabohe l
unresolved items.
e Based on our review as described above, we conclude that the procedures and criteria used to account for anticipated loadings and postulated conditions that may be imposed upon the containment structure during its service lifetime are in conformance with established criteria, codes, standards, regulatory guides, and staff positions.
The materials of construction, the quality control procedures, and the fabrica-tion and construction requirements are in accordance with established criteria, codes, standards, guides, and specifications acceptatQe to the Regulatory staff.
The use of these criteria as defined by applicable codes, standards, guides, and specifications; the loads and loading combinations; the design and analysis procedures; the structural acceptance criteria; the materials, quality control programs, and the commitment of the applicant to implement necessary reassessment, if found necessary; and the testing and inservice surveillance requirements provide reasonable assurance that, in normal plant operation and in the event of winds, tornados, earthquakes, and various postulated accidents occurring within the containment, the structure will withstand the specified design con-dition without impairment of structural integrity or safety function. Confor-mance with these criteria constitutes an acceptable basis for satisfying the applicable requirement of Criteria 2, 4,16, and 50 of the General Design Criteria.
3.8.3 Concrete and Structural Steel Internal Structures The containment interior structures consist of sacrificial shield wall, radial beam framing and stabilizer truss in the drywell, and drywell floor and its suppart columns, reactor pedestal, concrete lining above the steel bottom head l
and catwalks in the suppression pool. The major code used in the design of concrete internal structures was American Concrete Institute Standard 318-71,
" Building Code Requirerents for Reinforced Concrete." For steel internal structures, the American Institute of Steel Construction Specification,
" Specification for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings," was used.
1 f
WPPSS 10 l
The containment concrete and steel internal structures are designed to resist various combinations of dead and live loads, accident-induced loads, including pressure and jet loads, and seismic loads. The design of the containment internal structures to withstand the effects of suppression pool hydrodynamic-loads was accomplished in the same manner as that for the containment s,tructure as described in Section 3.8.2. The detailed reevaluation of the capability of containment internal structures to resist these newly identified loads is described in the applicants' Design Assessment Report. We have reviewed the design and analysis procedures and criteria that weredused for the original design and for the reevaluation of the internal structures in the suppression pool. The containment internal structures were designed and proportioned to remain within limits established by the Regulatory staff under various load combinations. These limits as well as the design and analysis procedures are, in general, based on the American Concrete Institute 318-71 Code and on the American Institute of Steel Construction Specification for Concrete and Steel Structures, respectively, modified as appropriate for load combinations that are considered as extreme.
The applicant will provide impact assessment to demonstrate compliance with ACI-349 Cod! as augmented by Regulatory Guide 1.142 for the applicable inturnal concrete structures and also to demonstrate compliance with ASME Code,Section III, Division 2 for the containment concrete basemat structure.
The loads and load combinations used in Tables 3.8-10 and 3.8-11 in Section 3.8.3 of the FSAR are different from those of Section 3.8.4 of the SRP.
However, the applicant provided reevaluation design calculations and showed that the structures internal to containment have enough capacity to meet the applicable requirements of Section 3.8.4 of the SRP. The staff reviewed the results of the reevaluation and accepted the applicant's justification.
The following conclusion is subject to the resolution of the unresolved items discussed in this section.
The materials of construction, their fabrication, construction, and installa-tion, are in accordance with the American Concrete Institute 318-71 Code as WPPSS 11
s.
s amended by ACI-349 Code and Regulatory Guide 1l142 and American Institute of.
Steel Construction Specification for Concrete and Steel Structures, respectively.
The criteria that were used in the design, analysis, and construction of the containment internal structures to account for anticipated loadings and postu-lated conditions that may be imposed upon the structure's during their service lifetime are in conformance with established criteria, and with codes, standards, and specifications acceptable to the Regulatory staff.
/
The use of these criteria as defined by applicable codes, standards, and speci-fications; the loads and loading combinations; the design and analysis procedures; the structural acceptance criteria; the materials; quality control programs, and the testing and inservice surveillance requirements provide reasonable assur-ance that, in the event of earthquakes and various postulated accidents occurring within the containment, the interior structures will withstand the specified design conditions without impairment of structural integrity or the performance of required safety functions. Conformance with these criteria constitutes an acceptable basis for satisfying, in part, the requirements of General Design Criteria 2 and 4.
3.8.4 Other Cateocry I Structures Category I structures other than containment and its interior structures are all of structural steel and concrete. The structural components consist of slabs, walls, beams, and~ columns. The major code used in the design of con-crete Category I structures is ACI 318-71, " Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete." For steel Category I structures, the AISC, "Specifica-tion for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings,"
is used.
l The concrete and steel Category I structures were designed to resist various combinations of dead loads; live loads; environmental loads including winds, tornadoes, OBE, and SSE; and loads generated by postulated ruptures of high energy pipes such as reaction and jet impingament forces, compdrtment pressures, and impact effects of whipping pipes.
l WPPSS 12 i
The design and analysis procedures that were used for these Category I struc.
tures are the same as those approved on previously licensed applications and in general, are in accordance with procedures delineated in the ACI 318-71 Code and in the AISC Specification for concrete and steel structures, respectively.
The various Category I structures are designed and proportioned to remain within limits established by the Regulatory staff under the various load combinations. These limits are, in general, based on the ACI 318-71 Code and on the AISC Specification for concrete and steel strudtures, respectively, modified as appropriate for load combinations that are considered extreme.
The materials of construction, their fabrication, construction, and installation, are in accordance with the ACI 318-71 Code and the AISC Specification for concrete and steel structures, respectively.
Th'e applicant committed to submit assessment report to demonstrate that the design of Category I concrete structures is in compliance with the requirements of ACI-349 Code as amended by Regulatory Guide 1.142.
The loads and load combinations used in Table 3.8-15 and 3.8-16 in Section 3.8.4 of the FSAR are different from those presented in Section 3.8.4 of the SRP.
The applicant has reevaluated the design of WNP-2 and indicated that the load combinations and acceptance criteria specified in Section 3.8.4 of the SRP are satisfied. This is acceptable to the staff.
The applicant committed to submit an evaluation of the design and analysis of spent fuel pool structures used in WNP-2 for staff review. A copy of " Minimum l
Requirements for Design of Spent Fuel Pool Racks" has been given to the applicant.
l The applicant confirmed that there are no safety-related masonry walls for WNP-2 facility.
l The following conclusion is subject to the satisfactory resolution of the above l
noted unresolved items.
t I
WPPSS 13 l
The criteria that were used in the analysis, design, and construction of all, the plant Category I structures to account for anticipated loadings and postu-lated conditions that may be imposed upon each structure during its service lifetime.are in conformance with established criteria, codes, standards, and specifications acceptable to Regulatory staff.
The use of these criteria as defined by applicable codes, standards, and speci-fications; the loads and loading combinations; the design and analysis procedures; the structural acceptance criteria; the laaterials, quality control, and special construction techniques; and the testing and inservice surveillance requirements provide reasonable assurance that, in the event of winds, tornadoes, earthquakes, and various postulated accidents occurring within the structures, the structures will withstand the specified design conditions without impairment of structural integrity or the performance of required safety functions. Confor-mance with these criteria, codes, specifications, and standards constitutes an acceptable basis for satisfying, in part, the requirements of General Design Criteria 2 and 4.
3.8.5' Foundations Foundations of' Category I structures are described in Section 3.8.5 of the SAR.
Primarily, these foundations are reinforced concrete of the mat type. The major code used in the design of these concrete mat foundations is ACI 318-71 Code.
These concret'e foundations have been designed to resist various combinations of dead loads; live loads; environmental loads including winds, tornadoes, OBE, and SSE; and loads generated by postulated ruptures of high energy pipes.
The design and analysis procedures that were used for these Category I founda-tions are the same as those approved on previously licensed applications and, in general, are in accordance with procedures delineated in the ACI 318-71 Code.
The various Category I foundations were designed and proportioned to remain
)
within limits established by the Regulatory staff under the various load combinations. These limits are, in general, based on the ACI 318-71 Code modified as appropriate for load combinations that are considered extreme. The materials of construction, their fabrication, construction, and installation, are in accordance with the ACI 318-71 Code.
WPPSS 14
.c w
The staff requested the applicant to demonstrate that the reactor building foundation mat design complies with the requirements of the ASNE Code Section III, Division 2, and also that the foundation design of Category I structures other than reactor building complies with the requirements of the ACI-349 Code as amended by Regulatory Guide 1.142.
In both cases, the applicant has previously used ACI-318 Code in design..The applicant committed to perform an evaluation and submit the results by November 13, 1981 for staff review and acceptance.
The following conclusion is subject to the resolutiomfof the above unresolved items.
The criteria that were used in the analysis, design, and construction of all the plant Category I foundations to account for anticipated loadings and postu-lated conditions that may be imposed upon each foundation during its service lifetime are in conformance with established criteria, codes, standards, and specifications acceptable to the NRC staff.
The use of these criteria as defined by applicable codes, standards, and speci-fications; the loads and loading combinations; the design and analysis procedures; the structural acceptance criteria, the materials, quality control, and special construction techniques; and the testing and inservice surveillance requirements provide reasonable assurance that, in the event of winds, tornadoes, earthquakes, and various postulated events, Category I foundations will withstand the specified design conditions without impairment of structural integrity and stability or the performance of required safety functions. Conformance with these criteria, codes, specifications, and standards constitutes an acceptable basis for satisfying, in part, the requirements of General Design Criteria 2 and 4.
l l
WPPSS 15 l
o ??
- Bibliography Section 3.3 - Wind and Tornado Loadings 3.3-1
" Wind Forces on Structures," Final Report of the Task Committee on Wind Forces of the Committee on Load and Stresses of the Structural Division, Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 345 East 47th Street, New York, NY, 10017, Paper No. 3269, Vol. 126, Part II, 1961, p. 1124-1198.
-or-3.3-1 "American National Standards Building Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in Buildings and Other Structures," American National Standards Institute, A58.1 - 1972.
Section 3.5 - Missile Protection 3.5-1 A. Amirikian, " Design of Protective Structures, "8ureau of Yards and Docks, Publication No. NAVDOCKS P-51, Department of the Navy, Washington, DC, August 1950.
3.5-2 Williamson, R.
A., and Alvy, R. R., " Impact Effect of Fragments Striking Structural Elements," Holmes and Narver, Revised Edition, 1973.
Section 3.7 - Seismic Design 3.7-1 USAEC Regulatory Guide 1.60, " Design Response Spectra for Nuclear Power Plants."
3.7-2 USAEC Regulatory Guide 1.61, " Damping Values for Seismic Analysis of Nuclear Power Plants."
3.7-3 USAEC Regulatory Guide 1.12, " Instrumentation for Earthquakes."
WPPSS 16 ema
,e eamaoe.a..+ee.
e
O l'
Section 3.8 - Design of Category I Structures 3.8-1 American Institute of Steel Construction, " Specification for Design, Fabrication & Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings," 101 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Sixth Edition, 1969.
3.8-2 American Conciete Institute, " Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-1971)," P.O. Box 4754, Redford Station, Detroit, MI 48219.
3.8-3 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, "ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,"Section III, and Addenda United Engineering Center, 345 East 47th Street, New York, NY 10017.
i l
l l
i WPPSS 17
%