ML20246B271
| ML20246B271 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1989 |
| From: | William Cahill TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| TXX-89569, NUDOCS 8908230307 | |
| Download: ML20246B271 (98) | |
Text
-
I. L
.I u r.
5^
s Nummm E
1 . m Log # TXX-89569 File # 10010 903.7 903.8
- RIELECTRIC . g,g, p $gh.34zyy
- Z,@,";ffi August 16, 1989 U.; S. Nuclear . Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk
- Washington.,'D. C. 20555
SUBJECT:
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES)
DOCKET N05. 50-445 and 50-446 .
ADVANCE FSAR SUBMITTAL {
RESPONSE T0' REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON FSAR SECTIONS 3.7 AND 3.8 Gentlemen:
On July 31, 1989, a public meeting was held in Bethesda, Maryland, to discuss the NRC's Request for Additional Information (RAI) on the amended FSAR Sections 3.7 and 3.8. This letter provides' TU Electric's response to the. RAI items discussed in the public meeting. Items 10A, 21 and 22B were resolved
'during the meeting and required no further action. 'As~ agreed to in the meeting, the enclosure to'this letter provides. responses to the RAI, advance FSAR. changes.(if applicable), and related supporting documentation. These changes will be included in a future FSAR amendment.
The enclosure to this letter. also includes an FSAR advance submittal regarding the temperature ranges inside and outside the containment (Section 3.8.1.3.1).
In orderjto facilitate NRC staff review of these responses and changes, the enclosure is organized as follows:
- 1. List of the RAI items and the response (background information at the end of'part 1 of the enclosure is provided if needed to clarify our-response).
- 2. Draft revised FSAR pages, with changed portions indicated by a bar in the margin, as they are to appear in a future amendment (additional pages immediately preceeding and/or following the revised pages are provided if needed to understand the change).
- 3. Line-by-line description / justification of each item revised.
- 4. A copy of related SER/SSER Sections.
E 5. An index page containing the title of " bullets" which consolidate and categorize similar individual changes by subject and related I' SER Section.
bb bbb bbOb 45 A. PDC ,
Obf 400 North Olive Street LB 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 i
- -i ' :,.
- { ,
.TXX-89569 LAugust 16, 1989 Page 2 of.2-L6. A discussion of each " bullet" which includes:
The .line-by-line description / justification for each item related to the " bullet" which has been screened as a group 1 or 2 item or a group 3 or 4 item which impacts the existing SER/SSER*s. -(The discussion of'these groups is contained in TU Electric letter TXX-88467 dated June 1, 1988)
The bold / overstrike version of the revised FSAR pages referenced by the description / justification for each item identified above. The bold / overstrike version facilitates review of the revisions by highlighting each addition of new text in bold type font- and overstriking with a slash
(/) the portion of the text that is deleted. In some cases, where'the bold / overstrike version is unavailable, a hand marked-up version will be provided.
-If:you have any questions regarding this submittal please contact Carl Corbin
'at (214) 812-8859.
Sincerely, t
e /
William J. Cahill, Jr.
CBC/cbc Enclosure L
c - Mr. R. 0. Martin, Region IV Resident Inspectors, CPSES (3)
_ - _ _ = __ --__:.
Encicsura 11to'TXX-89569 "d August 16, 1989 y hag 31'cf96 s
I Enclosure to TXX-89569 August 16, 1989 e
' Response to Request for Additional Information, Advance FSAR Changes to FSAR Sections 3.7, 3.8, and 0130 and Supporting Documentation e
Part 1- List of RAI items and responses, pg. 2 thru 23
- and background information Part 2 Draft Revised FSAR Pages pg. 24 thru 53 I
Part. 3. Description / Justification pg. 54 thru 64 Part 4. Related SER/SSER Pages pg. 65 thru 72 Part 5 Index Page Containing the pg. 73 Title of " Bullets" Part 6 Discussion of " Bullets" pg. 74 thru 96 i
m_ - _ _ . -
b
- < EnclosurG 1 to-TXX-89569.
August 16, 1989
,- Page'2 of 96 I:
p RESPONSE TO REVIEW OF AMENDED FSAR SECTIONS 3.7 & 3.8 1
FSAR Section 3.7
- 1. The correction to FSAR Section 3.78.1.2 on page 3.78-2, identified as evaluation 3.7-007-3.7.1-0 has not been implemented in the current version of the FSAR (Amendment 68). Revise the FSAR to incorporate your commitment for evaluation 3.7-007-3.7.1-0.
Resp: The original FSAR discussed the use of five.(5) horizontal and five (5) vertical artificial time history records to envelope the design spectra for the various damping factors. Actual analyses were performed using only one (1) vertical and one (1) horizontal artificial time history input motion which enveloped all the design spectra for various damping factors. The FSAR Section 3.7B.1.2 (pages 3.7B-2 aad 3) will be revised to clarify this issue.
- 2. Evaluation No. 3.7-009-3.7.1-N [page 3.78-4, Section 3.78.1.3] discusses the approval of Code Case N-411, which is endorsed by Regulatory Guide 1.84, Revision 24 and states that." conditions of approval require FSAR documentation of all stress problems using this code case." This information is not found in Amendment 68 to the FSAR.
Resp: It has'been the practice for CPSES to evaluate all piping systems for earthquake using Code Case N-411. Certain restrictions (i.e.
independent support motion) and exceptions may exist which can best be detailed subsequent to completion of the final reconciliation process. In compliance with the established commitment, a complete list of stress problems utilizing Code Case N-411 will be provided as an advance FSAR submittal by September 15, 1989.
- 3. Figures 3.7B-41 through 50 have been intentionally deleted from the FSAR.
Indicate the reasons for this deletion and discuss it it represents a change in the proposed analysis procedure and potential implication of the change, as applicable.
Resp: Figures 3.78-41 through 49 were Interpointion Instructure Response Spectra. The intent of these spectra was to provide a simplistic method for calculation of instructure response spectra at specific locations. These simplistic spectra calculation procedures were not used at CPSES and, therefore the figures were deleted from the FSAR. When specific location spectra were required they were calculated at specific equipment locations. This represents no change in the analyses methodology used for the CPSES structures.
Figure 50 was Floor-by-Floor Instructure SSE Response Spectra for Safeguards Building el. 852*-6" for 2 percent damping. These 2 percent spectra were not used for any analyses at CPSES and were therefore removed.
4' Enc 1csure 1 to TXX-89569 August 16, 1989
, Page.3 of 96
- 4 '. Provide' clarification of the following entries related to FSAR Section L 3.7B.2.9 which addresses the effects of parameter variation on the floor b response spectra
A. The peaks should be widened by +/- 10% rather than only 10%.
Resp: The floor response spectre were in fact widened by +/-10 percent.
FSAR Sections 3.78.2.1.2(2) and 3.78.2.9 will be revised to state
+/- 10%.
B. Specify the parametric bounds that were used to obtain the referenced peaks used for widening (e.g, best estimate).
Resp: The parametric variation was per Section 3.7B.2.4 and is further clarified in Table 3.78-3 and Table 3.78-24 through 29.
C. Discuss the parametric study (e.g., the various parametric values used in the analyses and the resulting responses).
Resp: Refer to response to.48. Only the peak broadened design floor spectra were plotted.
D. Specify the use of maximum vertical ground acceleration lower than the maximum horizontal acceleration for the entire frequency range as opposed to the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.60.
Resp: The ground design response spectra are discussed in Section 3.79-
'1.1 and conform to the procedures developed by Newmark, Blume and Kapur. These procedures were the forerunner to Regulatory Guide 1.60 and differ from regulatory Guide 1.60 as described in FSAR Section 3.78.1.1.
Section 3.7B.2.9 should not present another discussion of ground response spectra. The last sentence of 3.78.2.9 will be deleted since this subject is included in 3.78.1.1. The statement "The ground design response spectra and design time history are discussed in FSAR Sections 3.7B.1.1 and 3.7B.1.2 respectively."
will be added to the end of Section 3.78.2.9. A similar discussion of ground response spectra will be deleted from Sections 3.78.2.1.2(2) and 3.78.2.1.5.
L___1- _ _ _ _ _ >
- ' Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569 August 16, 1989
.. Page 4 of 96
- 5. Evaluation 3.7-054-3.7.2 requires revision to the structural model for the Service Water Intake Structure. Discuss how the affects of the structural backfill for the Service Water Intake Structure was accounted for in the calculation of the soil spring stiffness values.
Resp: The effects of structural backfill on the Service Water Intake Structure (SWIS) foundation spring stiffness values were calculated on the basis of the average embedded depth. The SWIS is basically socketed into rock with soil backfill on three sides above the top of rock. The foundation springs were calculated for a surface founded structure and then increased because of er.bcdment effects. The embedment effects were calculated for all rock, and then for all soil .bove the founding level and an average was calculated to be representative of the actual soil / rock profile.
FSAR Section 3.7B.2.4.2, "Effect of Embedment on Foundation Rigidities," will be changed to reflect the methodology used to determine the effect of embedment for the SWIS.
- 6. The FSAR should include a discussion on the seismic analysis of Category I tanks.
Resp: There are three outdoor Seismic Category I tanks, i.e., the Refueling Water Storage Condensate Storage, and Reactor Makeup Water Storage Tanks. These are reinforced concrete structures with 2'-6" thick walls and 1* 9" thick roofs (see Section 3.8.4.1.6).
FSAR Section 3.8.4.1.6 will be amended to provide additional description of their geometry and the methods used to address hydrodynamic loads due to seismic excitations.
- 7. In your discussion for the development of floor response spectra (Section 3.78.2.5 page 3.7B-40) you mention the term " typical refined response spectra". Provide an explanation of this statement.
Resp: Computer generated floor response spectra were labeled " Refined Response Spectra". Figure 3.78-50A a typical example of such response spectra curves. The Refined Response Spectra are similar to the Floor-by-Floor response spectra, except that extra conservatism due to hand smoothing has been eliminated by use of computer and curves are plotted in terms of acceleration versus frequency. FSAR Section 3.78.2.5 will be revised to clarify this item.
l
_ _ _ _ - - - - - - . \
Enclosure I to.TXX-89569 August'16, 1989 4 Page 5 of 96
- 8. In Section 3.7B.2.8, you state that the internal bracing of the turbine building will prevent its failure during a seismic event. Provide information which will support his statement.
Resp: ORIGINALLY: " Structural failure in the direction of the adjacent Seismic Category I structure is prevented by anchoring.
the Turbine Building to the turbine generator pedestals."
PRESENTLY: " Structural failure in the direction of the adjacent Seismic Category I structure is prevented by internal bracing."
The bracing by itself will not prevent structural failure in the direction of the Seismic Category I building. The turbine building will bear against the turbine pedestal after the frame has translated horizontally sufficiently to close the surrounding one-inch gap (note: gap is filled with a compressible material).
The combination of the horizontal bracing internal to the steel frame and the bearing of the mezzanine and operating floor slabs on the turbine generator pedestal will resist collapse of the frame.-
FSAR Section 3.78.2.8 will be changed to read as follows.
FUTURE: " Structural failure in the direction of the adjacent Seismic Category I structure is prevented by the combination of the horizontal bracing internal to the steel frame and the bearing of the mezzanine and operating floor slabs on the concrete turbine generator pedestal.
- 9. Evaluation No. 3.7-039-3.7.2 [p.3.78-55, sect 3.78.3.2] identifies a reduction of the number of %e maximum amplitude loading cycles for OBE and SSE. Provide a correlation of, or the basis for, the proposed number ;
of cycles with those of the time history used in the analyses.
Resp: The number of equivalent stress cycles for earthquake loading (10 cycles / earthquake), has been, and continues to be, standard practice for Stone & Webster engineering as a general criteria for seissfc qualification of piping and equipment. Yhis criteria is consistent with Standard Review Plan 3.7.3 (NUGEG 0800), Paragraph II.2.0, which states (NUREG-75-007 contains the same wording):
During the plant life at least one Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) and five Operating Basis Earthquakes (OBE) should be assumed. The number of cycles per earthquake should be obtained-from the synthetic time history (with a minimum duration of ten seconds) used for the system analysis, or a minimum of 10 l
maximum stress cycles per earthquake may be assumed. 1 I
);
EnclosurG 1 to TXX-89569 gr dugust 16, 1989
. Page 6'of 96 Supplement 14 (Section 4.1.2.2. pages 4-6 thru 4-9) to the Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0797) contains the evaluation of the above amendment 61 FSAR change. The amendment 74 change was editorial. The above referenced SSER pages, a mark-up of the amendment 61 change, and a mark-up of the amendment 74 change are included elsewhere in part 1 of this enclosure.
- 10. Address the following editorial staff concerns:
A. (This item was resolved during the meeting on July 31, 1989.)
B.. Provide definitions for and in pages 3.7N-10 and 3.7N-18.
Resp: FSAR Sections 3.7N.2.1.1 and 3.7N.2.1.5 (pages 3.7N-10.11 and 18) will be revised as required.
- 11. Clarify whether "the envelope floor response spectra" identified in page 3.7N-29 envelopes the acceleration values for all pipe support locations at all applicable frequencies.
Resp: RCL Pipina The response spectrum used for the RCL piping analysis envelopes-at all frequencies the respective response spectra at all of the RCL pipe and equipment support locations.
Class 1 Auxiliary Pinina and Non-Class 1 Extensions within Westinghouse Scone The individual piping analyses are performed using spectra which envelope, at all frequencies, the RCL Spectra described above and the applicable auxiliary line response spectra at the piping and non-RCL equipment support locations. '
- 12. State whether you have used the power density function as stated in page 3.7B-14 in the seismic qualification of equipment. If it has been utilized, provide the applicable information in the FSAR.
Resp: The power density function has not been used at CPSES. FSAR Section 3.78.2.1.3 will be revised to delete the reference to the i power density function.
- 13. Clarify how the horizontal and vertical accelerations have been combined. )
The first paragraph of Section 3.78.3.8.2 is not clear and specific 1 enough to address this staff concern.
Resp: The combined effect of the three components of earthquake motion on the seismic design of piping is determined by the SRSS method (Section 3.78.2.6). The maximum modal responses are combined by the methods of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92. Revision 1. The methods presented in Regulatory Guide 1.99 paragraphs 1.1, 1.2.1. 1.2.2 or 1.2.3 are acceptable methods for vendor qualification.
i
'a (nclosurG 1 to TXX-89569~
August 16, 1989
- Page-7 of 96-FSAR Section 3.78.3.8.2 will be revised to clarify how the horizontal and vertical accelerations have been combined.
FSAR Section 3.8
- 14. Provide the results of your determination of the ultimate capacity of the containment structure and discuss the analytical procedures as per the requirements of USNRC SRP NUREG-0800, Section 3.8. Also specify the extent of plastic deformation allowed in the structural evaluation of CPSES components.
Resp. The ultimate capacity of the containment structure has not been evaluated. The previous issue of SRP 3.8.1 (NUGEG-75-087) did not address ultimate containment capacity. The ultimate capacity of the containment structure will be addressed as part of the analysis process, if required, by the Individual Plant Examination z For Severe Accident Vulnerabilities (Generic Letter No. BA-20).
- 15. Identify and discuss the design codes utilized in the determination of thermal stresses for CPSES (evaluation 3.8-012-3.8.1-U).
Resp: The ACI 349-76 code Appendix A. is identified in Section 3.8.1.2.2(3) au the applicable design code.
- 16. Specify the stud welding equipment that did not satisfy the requirements of CC-4543(a) and jus tify the basis of its acceptance.
Resp: CC-4543.5(a) stipulates " Studs shall be welded to steel members with automatically timed stud welding equipment connected to a suitable power source." The . licensing change was made to allow the use of manual welding equipment or other similar equipment that would provide a stud to steel member connection which develops the required strength of the anchor. Where the use of automatic welding equipment is not feasible due to space limitations during construction or repairs, it is necessary to use alternate equipment.
At CPSES the manual arc welding equipment was used for the attachment of, and repair of, anchor studs. The manual arc welding method used at CPSES develops the full capacity of the anchor.
- (ncicsure 1 to:TXX-89569 August 16, 1989 l Page 8 of 96 i, The weld procedure specifications (WPS) listed below were ,
qualified for stud welding (i.e. the full capacity of the anchor is developed)-in accordance with the rules and requirements of CPSES specification 2323-S5-14 " Containment Steel Liner."
- 1. WPS STUD WELDING (Automatically Timed Stud Weld Method)
- 2. WPS STUD WELDING-SMA (Shield Metal Arc Method)
- 4. WPS STUD WELDING (General Welding Procedure !
Specification for the Stud Welding Process)
- 17. Address the following staff concerns:
A. How do the [new). analysis results compare with the old analysis and, for the containment, compare them with the test results.
Resp: The new analysis and the old analysis were not compared. The following table was developed per your request, for the comparison of the new analysis and the containment's structural acceptance
. test case. ;
RADIAL DISPLACEMENTS ,
i ELEVATION NEW ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS *
(FEET) (INCHES) (INCHES) 1001.5 0.53 0.34 968.0 0.64 0.48 932.0 0.65 0.49 903.0 0.64 0.60 I
870.0 0.66 0.58 838.0 0.57 0.49 VERTICAL DISPLACEMENTS ELEVATION 'NEW ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
- i (FEET) (INCHES) (INCHES) !
i e 1068.0 0.72 0.34 j 1058.96 0.64 0.48 :
1034.25 0.48 0.39 l 1000.5 0.32 0.33 ** l l
- The worst case measurement is listed )
- At elevation 1000.5, four test measurements were taken: j 0.33, 0.30, 0.30, and 0.25 ,
j
E,nclesurs 1 to TXX-89569 August 16, 1989
. Page 9 of 96 B. .For the containment analysis, state how do the strains from the [old]
cylinder wall analysis compare with those from the new analysis at or near the boundary location.
Resp: Strains were not measured during the structural acceptance test as the containment is not considered a prototype. Results of the-test demonstrate that the containment structure performed as expected. The displacements were bounded by the computed values and the degree of cracking was in the normal range. Therefore, the strains-are also within acceptable limits.
C. Also justify and discuss the following statement: " Properties of material are known with sufficient accuracy, and assumptions made are sufficiently conservative so that other variations need not be considered " (Top of page 3.8-40)
Resp: This quote comes from Section 3.8.1.4.3(3) Evaluation of Effect of Variations in Assumptions and Materials. This statement has never changed from the original issuance of the FSAR. A mark-up of the amendment 68 change is included elsewhere in part 1 of this enclosure.
The material properties used are based on standard ACI criterie as stated other Sections of the FSAR. Section 3.8.1.6.1(2) " Concrete Strength" specifies the minimum concrete strength as 4000 psi, in 28 days when tested in accordance with ASTM C 39-72. Section 3.8.1.6.2(1) and (2) " Reinforcing Steel" specifies the reinforcing steel conforms to the requirements of ASTM A 615-72 Grade 60' the specified minimum yield strength is 60,000 psi and the specified minimum ultimate strength is 90,000 psi. The structural acceptance criteria is given in Section 3.8.1.5 including that the concrete tensile strength is not relied upon to resist flexural and/or membrane tension. Section 3.8.1.4 discusses the design and analysis procedures used for the containment structure.
- 18. Provide a more descriptive detail of the electrical penetrations, e.g.,
o-ring, pressure monitoring, junction box, etc. identified in ,
d Figure 3.8-8.
Resp: The sketch of the electrical penetration in Figr'e 3.8-8 will be a revised to provide detail (i.e. o-ring, pressure monitoring, and junction box).
l 1
I L I L_ ___ _ --- - -_ - - _ i
- EnclosurG 1 to TXX-89569 August 160 1989'
. Page 10 of 96
- 19. Identify the controlling weights of the equipment supported by the overlay plates and structural shapes cttached to the liner plate.
Resp: Overlay plates and/or structural shapes are provided in accordance with the requirements of ASME B&PV Code Section III, Division 2, Subsection CC: specifically CC-4543 " Welding of attachments," for the attachment of supports and/or equipment using other industry standards such as AWS. The overlay plates and/or structural shapes are designed in accordance with the requirements of the ASME B&PV Code Section III, Division 2. Subsection CC, specifically CC-3600 "Metalic Liner Design Analysis Procedures."
The size of the overlay plate and/or struc*,aral shape is determined by the design parameters of CC 3600 based on the size, type, and loads of the attaching equipment.
- 20. The overlay plate welded to the liner plate is similar to a second liner plate. Discuss why the. requirements for the second liner plate should not be applied to an overlay plate as well.
Resp: The overlay plates are attachments to the liner as described by subsubarticles CC-3600 and CC-3750 of the ASME B&PV Code Section III, Division 2. Subsection CC. The subsubarticles stipulate that the attachments shall be designed and analyzed using the accepted techniques applicable to beams, columns, and weldments, such as those illustrated in AISC-1969. The subsubarticles further stipulate the design allowables for the attachments shall be the same as those given AISC-1969.
- 21. (This item was resolved during the meeting on July 31, 1989)
- 22. Supply clarification regarding the use of the following requirements of AISC and ACI design codes:
A. Sttte that this development length criteria satisfies ACI 318-83. If not, provide details and basis for the nonconformance, j Resp: TU Electric assumes the Section in question is 3.8.3.4.7 (3) " Bond and Anchorage requirements of Reinforcing Steel". The standard detail for development of reinforcement using a 900 hook is not ]
in agreement with Chapter 12 of ACI 318-71. However, ACI 318-71 does allow the use of test data for anchorage requirements of reinforcing steel. Test Data is available which allows a reduction of development length. It should also be noted that, utilizing the same test data, the anchorage requirements for standard 900 hooks were revised in ACI 318 83 to allow a similar reduction of development length.
B. (This item was resolved during the meeting on July 31, 1989.) ;
i i
Cm._m2.sm_______--m_ . _ _ . - . -
E,nclosure-1 to TXX-89569 August 16, 1989
. Page 11 of 96
- 23. The response to questions 130.25 and 130.28 do not provide the requested specific information. You stated compliance with SRP 3.8.3 and 3.8.4.
However, Question 130'25 requests a listing and' discussions of physical changes and Question 130.28 requests information pertaining to the controlling Sections of Category I structures resulting from the use of criteria identified in ACI 318, SRPs 3.8.1, 3.8,3, and 3.8.4. Address Question 130.25 and Question 130.28 for more pertinent information for staff issue and evaluation.
Resp: The response to FSAR 0130.25 and 0130.28 will be revised as follows:
Question 130.25 In response to question AEC 3.6 of the PSAR (which was originally-based on the ASME-ACI-359) and questions 130.15, 130.16, and 130.18 of the FSAR, some design requirements were changed to agree with the additional requirements in the SRP (NUREG-75-087). The above question requested'the !
identification of how these additional requirements affected the final design of containment and other structures. Changes that may have resulted from this change in criteria would have been implemented prior to the Corrective Action Program (CAP).
Therefore the identification of any changes that may have resulted prior to the CAP are not pe: 5.inent at this tice.
The Corrective Action Program for the e vil/ structural aiea was implemented to validate the design and hardware at CPSES.
The various Seismic Category I structures were designed to conform to the loading combinations and their related acceptance criteria which are specified by U.S. NRC Standard Review Plans 3.8.1, 3.8.3, and 3.8.4 (NUREG-75-087).
Mv ifications to the design and hardware were implemented as rtquired. The Civil Structural Project Status Report (PSR) describes the methods used to validate the safety-related hardware. Supplement 17 to the Safety Evaluation Report (HUREG-0797) contains the NRC's evaluation of the CAP related to the civil / structural discipline.
Ouestion 130.28 ;
In response to question AEC 3.6 of the PSAR (which was I originally based on the ASME-ACI-359) and questions 130.15, 130.16, and 130.18 of the FSAR, some design requirements were changed to agree with the additional requirements in the SRP (NUREG-75-087). The above question requested the identification of how these additional requirements affected the final design of containment and other structures. Changes l that may have resulted from this change in criteria would have been implemented prior to the Corrective Action Program (CAP).
Therefore the identification of any changes that may have resulted prior to the CAP are not pertinent at this time. 1 L ;
E,nclosure 1 to TXX-89569
- August 16, 1989
! .. Page 12 of 96 The Corrective Action Program for the civil / structural area was implemented to validate the structural design of the
~
Category I structures at CPSES. The design of Seismic Category I structures conformed to the loading combinations .I which are specified by U.S. NRC Standard Review Plans 3.8.1, 3.8.3, and 3.8.4 (NUREG-75-087).
The methodology and results of this validation effort are.
described in the. Civil Structural Project Status Report (PSR).
Supplement 17 to the Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0797) ,
contains the NRC's evaluation of the CAP related to the j civil / structural discipline.
Also'the response to Quc<tions'130.15, 130.18, 130.25, and 130.28 will be changed to clarify which version of the Standard Review Plan- was referenced (NURTG-75-087). The reference to Question 130.5 in Questions 130.25 and 130.28 appears to be incorrect and will.be' changed to Question 130.15.
- 24. The last paragraph on page 3.8-23 allows the reduction of a fillet weld by not more than 1/16". Provide justification for the acceptance criteria. Also justify why only indications greater than 1/16" are required to be examined by liquid penetrant or magnetic particle methods.
Resp: The justification for the reduction of a fillet weld by 1/16 inch for no more than 10 percent of the weld is the conservatism of design and codes (ASME-ACI 359, Section CC-4545.2(a), " Elimination of Surface Defects," and AWS D1.1 Section 8.15.1.6, " Quality of Welds").
The criteria that only indications with major dimensions greater than 1/16 inch shall be considered relevant is based on the following.
Magnetic Particle Examination-Section CC-5533.2 of the proposed 1973 ASME B&PV Code Section III Division 2 states:
All linear discontinuities are unacceptable and shall be removed and repaired in accordance with the applicable provisions of this Article.
h___m___. ____ __._
' Enclosure 1.to TXX-89569 August 16, 1989-
'- Page 13 of 96 Liquid Penetrant Examination-Section CC-5534.2 of the proposed 1973 ASME B&PV Code Section III Division 2 states:
All surfaces required to be examined shall be free of linear indication (cracks, laps, fissures..etc.) and of four or more rounded indications in a line separated by 1/16 inch or less (edge to edge), except where the specification for the material establishes different requirements for acceptance so far as indications are concerned.
The base material for the containment liner is SA-537 Class 2.
The material specification references SA-20 which states " Plate furnished under this specification shall be free from injurious defects and shall have workmanlike finish." The material specification is vague and does not provide a definite acceptance criteria for defects.
The magnetic particle and liquid penetrant acceptance standards in FSAR Section 3.8.1.2.5.2.a states, "Only indications with major dimensions greater than 1/16 inch are considered relevant."
The 1/16 inch criteria was established based on the sensitivity of the nondestructive examination method for developing perceivable linear indications. The magnetic particle method uses metal particles that require a break in the magnetic flux and the retention of the metal particles to detect an indication. The approximate size of the minimum perceivable indication that would be detected is 1/32 inch. The liquid penetrant method uses liquid j penetrant and developers for the detection of an indication. The approximate size of the minimum perceivable indication detected by i the capillary action of the penetrant bleeding out into the developer is about the same as the magnetic particle examination method, i.e. 1/32 inch. As stated in Section CC-5534.1(a) of the proposed 1973 ASME B&PV Code Section III Division 2, linear indications are those indications in which the length is more than twice the width. Thus the linear indication would be 1/16 inch in length based on the minimum perceivable indication width of 1/32 3 inch. l l
Fundamentally there is no difference between existing code requirement that 1/16 inch indications are relevant and require rework and the CPSES effective code requirement for all linear indications to be reworked, as the method for detecting perceivable indications for the effective code was limited to 1/16 .
inch long defects. Thus the 1/16 inch criteria for relevant j indications provides sufficient criteria ter the construction of the reactor containment liner while providi.1g adequate assurance of the structural and leak tight integrity of the reactor containment liner.
)
(nclosurG 1 to TXX-89569 August 16, 1989
- Page 14 of 96
- 25. Discuss why you do not address the following Regulatory Guides: 1.69, 1.91, 1.94, 1.115, 1.136, 1.142, 1.143, in the FSAR. You recognize that various concrete codes were used for CPSES at different times and that certain exemptions have been taken to these codes as stated in the FSAR. !
However, you should clearly state as to the extent CPSES complies with current codes referenced in the SRP (e.g. ASME Section 3, Division 2 and ACI-349) and the applicable provisions of the above listed regulatory guides.
Resp: Appendix 1A(B) discusses the CPSES position on the above Regulatory Guides.
- 26. In page 3.8-90 you state that " Local Section strength may be exceeded for CPSES Structural components." Specify the maximum strength the local strength capacity has been exceeded for the effective CPSES designs and basis for accepting the local section strength exceedances.
Resp: The above criteria that, " local section strength capacities may be exceeded under these concentrated loads provided there will be no loss of function on any safety-related system " is assured by using the ductility acceptance criteria specified in Section 3.5.3.2 (note, this is identified on FSAR page 3.8-88).
To provide additional clarification, Sections 3.8.3.5.7 and 3.8.4.5.3, on pages 3.8-103 and 3.8-123 respectively, will be amended to reference the ductility limits in Section 3.5.3.2 as the criteria for assuring that functional requirements are not impaired.
- 27. In evaluation 3.8-068-3.8.2 it is implied that the structural material list is not complete and that the engineer may approve the use of equivalent materials. State if this practice applies for any major and miscellaneous structure components or just minor non-safety related components. Discuss how this approach would geerintee adherence to the design requirements of the design codes, SRPs, Regulatory Guides, and other applicable standards.
Resp: The material lists in the applicable specifications would provide complete identification. A complete listing was not provided in the FSAR due to the large number of unique materials involved.
3 Engineering approval of equivalent material is obtained and documented in accordance with project procedures and specifications, which guarantees adherence to the applicable design requirements. In Section 3.8.3.6.4 the phrase, "...when specified by the engineers on design documentation," will be changed to, "...as specified by prcject specifications / design drawings."
l l
- E,nclosure 1 to TXX-89569 August'160 2989
- .Page 15 of 96 l
- 28. In evaluation 3.8-078-3.8.3, you state that the PCI acceptance criteria can be used for brackets and corbels designed in place and the ACI 318-71 acceptance criteria. The FSAR requires adherence to the ACI requirements, therefore, provide a comparison of the applicable requirements and a discussion of the acceptability of the PCI criteria.
Specific examples need to be discussed in you submittal. J
(
Resp: The FSAR was amended to allow the PCI 1978 criteria for the design of corbels, because the ACI 318-71 criteria.does not provide j specific guidance on choosing a minimum effective d distance. The ACI only provides the method to determine the maximum d distance.
The corbel affected by this change supports the crane rail in the
. Fuel Building at elevation 831. The corbel also meets the ACI J minimum reinforcement requirements when the d distance based on strength requirements is used. Based on strength this corbel design meets both the ACI 318-71 and PCI 1978 criteria. The corbel meets the PCI criteria (but not ACI) for minimum reinforcement based on gross cross-section dimensions.
.]
ACI 318-71 Section 11.14.1 requires that the maximum effective d distance (de ) not exceed "twice the depth of the corbel or bracket at the outside edge of the bearing area." However, no limit is specified on the minimum effective d distance (de). ]
The FSAR will be revised to state that the PCI criteria applies only for the fuel building crane corbel supports at elevation 831.
- 29. Identify the missing information between Section 3.8.5.3.3 and 3.8.5.4.3 or address why this information has been deleted.
Resp: The missing information was deleted due to an administrative error. The missing text will be reinserted.
{
I 4
1 l
)
_ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ . - _ _ ._ k
Y (nclosure 1 to TXX-89569 s 1 1989 bAC.K GQ o uv o }N Foq N Areora 1"o R
~
(2.Al -86 0) .
in ARe.-oe o1:- AmCN Dmtmri 6i C4AN60 ,
The seismic response loads obtained by either the modal response analysis or equivalent static load method are combined wtth all other external loads such as operating loads, hydrodynamic loads, 20 '
and piping interaction loads for design purposes. Non-linear responses of subsystems are considered on an individual basis where such phenomena are identified as existing, and are
,, , accounted for by analysis. Such an analysis was perfomed to account for the predetersdned support clearance tolerances of the Service Water Intake Structure pumps.
i For further details on seismic analysis authods, see Section 3.78.2.1, 3.78.3.2 Determination of Num6er of Eshhouake Cycles l The product of maxistse dominant natural frequency, niiich governs the
(, maximum msponse, and the established duration of strong shaking yields ' i )
the number of maximum amplitude loading cycles. These loading cycles '
include a portion of residual vi> ration of lightly damped structures, systems, and equipsont that arises from continuous oscillations after ;
Qhestrongmotionterminates.. ,/
The num6er of maximum amplitude loading cycles 15 determined ~ is specified for seismic Category I structures, systems, and components as 20 a minimum of 600 loading cycles for the OBE, and 120 loading cycles for the $$E.
Iwud 3.78.3.3 Procedure Used for Modeline The dynamic analysis of any complex system requires the discretization of its mass and elastic properties. This is accomplished by i concentrating the pass of the system at distinct characteristic points 20 or nodes, and interconnecting them by a network of elastic springs representing the stiffness properties of the systems, which are .
MAY 21, 1981 3.7B-58b
. .. - . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . .. . . . j
' (nclosure 'l to TXX-89569'
. August 16, 1989
. Page 17 07 96 6AcJ4GRourJO IN FORM ATlDrd Fort rat 4-3 1 M Al2v -O P OI AM END/ GENT 61 CMAIJGtr b sa<k b aae.1'7I KAL
.. For AsME ILL Sa ne f = ' .I ,. sIJ. .,e sumfamn
' - -- 'nt l i J *n,
.a s
~
iugust-16,1989- CPSES/FSAR AmsNomm ,"f4 CRAN 6C o Page 18 of 96 Structurally. simple equipment and systems, which can be represented -
1 l 20 either by a single degree-of-freedom model or a simple mathematical l
model, and equipment and subsystems which have been found to have no l
natural frequencies below.33 Hz are generally analyzed by the l equivalent static load method as described in Section 3.78.3.5.
l The' seismic response loads obtained by either the modal response l20 analysis or equivalent static load method are combined with all other l
external loads such as operating loads, hydrodynamic loads. and piping l interaction loads for design purposes. Non-linear responses of l
subsystems are considered on an individual basis where such phenomena I are. identified as existing, and are accounted for by analysis. Such l an analysis was performed to account for the predetermined support l clearance tolerances of the Service Water Intake Structure pumps. l For further details on seismic analysis methods, see Section 3.78.2.1.
l20 l~
3.78.3.2 Determination of Number of Earthquake Cycles Thenumberofmaximumamplitudeloadingcycles(odetermine specified for seismic Category I structures, systems, and components l [
(
as a minimum of 600 loading cycles for the 08E and 120 loading cycles l for the SSE.
l For ASME Code Class 2 and 3 piping systems including supports for ASME l 61 Code Class 1, 2, and 3 piping a minimum of 50 loading cycles for the l
-OBE and 10 loading cycles for the SSE is specified.
[
L 3.78.3.3 Procedure Used for Modelino The dynamic analysis of any complex system requires the discretization of its mass and elastic properties. This is accomplished by ,
concentrating the mass of the system at distinct characteristic points x,
w February 15, 1968 3.7B-55
"), 3 3 9 N@mP % M & *9 4 -
Page 19 of 96
- 4.1.2.2 Design Criteria and Methodology The'CPSES pipe stress and p1~pe support design criteria in CPPP-7 (Reference 30) have been oeveloped by SWEC for the design validation of ASME Code Class 1, 2
- and 3 pipe supports and ASME Code Class 2 and 3 piping systems. The controlling documents for the SWEC design validation effort are contained in Comanche Peak Project Procedures CPPP-1 through CPPP-35 (Appendix E of this supplement).. The piping stress analyses and pipe support calculations will become the CPSES analyses of record and provide assurance that the structural qualification of the piping and pipe supports within the CAP scope are in accordance with CPSES licensing comitments and the applicable requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (References 27 and 28). The following sections discuss the staff review and evaluation of the CPSES design criteria and analytical methodologies used in the piping and pipe support design validation.
Review of Final Safety Ar.41ysis Report Amendment 61 In Amendment 61 (Reference 31) to tne CPSES Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)
(Reference 32), the applicant provided the changes made to the FSAR piping design criteria as a result of the CAP design validation effort. As a result of its review of the FSAR Amendment 61 changes, the staff concludes that.the changes do not significantly alter the staff findings in the previous CPSES SEP and supplements (Reference 11) except in the areas related to (1) the combinationofloss-of-coolantaccident(LOCA)andsafe-shutdownearthquake (SSE) loeds (Section 3.9.2.3 of the SER) and (2) the piping system damping values (Section 3.7.1 of the SER).
The staff evaluated the combination of LOCA and SSE loads for reactor coolant system heavy component supports in its safety evaluation provided in a letter from C. I. Grimes (NRC) to W. Counsil (TU Electric) dated June 8,1987 (Reference 33), in conjunction with the implementation of the final rule o'n the modification of 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 4 requirements for protection against the dynamic effects of postulated pipe ruptures (51 Federal Recister 12505, dated April 11,1986). Similarly, the staff found that the use of revised damping values per ASME Code Case N-411 (Reference 34) was acceptable for CPSES as discussed in a letter from V. Noonan (NRC) to W.
Counsil(TUElectric)datedMarch 13, 1986 (Reference 35).
The staff also reviewed the technical acceptability of the FSAR Amendment 61 changes and the use of later ASME Code provisions as permitted in paragraph NA-1140(f) of the ASME Code,Section III (Reference 27). The staff's review of the use of later ASME Code provisions focused primarily on the technical justifications provided in the applicant's report entitled, " Documentation of ASME III NA-1140 Review for Piping and Supports," Revision 2, dated September 30, 1987 (NA-1140 report). This report documented the applicant's review performed to ensure that the use of design criteria in CPPP-7 is in conformance with paragraph NA-1140(f) of the ASME Code and, in particular, that all related
.ASME Code requirements are met. The code of record for CPSES piping is ASME Code,Section III, 1974 Ecition, including Summer 1974 Addenda Subsections NC/ND (Reference 27). The code of record for CPSES pipe supports is the 1974 Edition including Winter 1974 Addenda Subsection NF (Reference 28). On the basis of its review of the NA-1140 report, the staff finds that all related 9
Comanche Peak SSER 14 4-6
< E,nclosure I to TXX-89569 August 16. 1989 6Acu:Gf2ouw o IN Fo FWa RAI +9 a Page 20 of 96 requirements associated with the use of specific provisions of a Code edition
.or addenda were met and thus, the use of later Code provisions as specified in the NA-1140 report is acceptable. The specific provisions from later Code
. editions and-addenda reviewed and approved by the staff for CPSES are Itsted tbelow:-
-(1) 1977 EDITION . WINTER 1978 ADDENDA Appendix 0 - Rules for Design of Safety Valve Installations (2) 1983 EDITION NC-3658.2 - Standard Flange Joints at Moderate Pressures and Temperatures NC-3658.3 - ANSI B16.5, Flanged Joints with High-Strength Bolting ND-3658.2 - Standard Flange Joints at Moderate Pressures and Temperatures ND-3658.3 - ANSI B16.5, Flanged Joints with High-Strength Bolting (3) 1983 EDITION - WINTER 1984 ADDENDA Figure NC-3673.2(b) Flexibility and Stress Intensification factors (Do/tm less than or equal to 100)
(Branch Connections, Buttwelds, and Fillet Welds)
Figure NC-3673.2(b) Branch Dimensions Figure ND-3673.2(b) Flexibility and Stress Intensification 3 Factors (Do/tm less than or equal to 100) l (Branch Connections, Buttwelds, and Fillet Welds)
FigureND-3673.2(b)-2-BranchDimensions (4) 1977 EDIT 10h - WINTER 1978 ADDENDA XVII-2211 - Stress in Tention Figure XVIl-2111(c) Illustrations of Maximum Design Stress in Through Thickness Direction of Plates and i' Elements of Rolleo Shapes (Figure Deleted) 1 hf-3226 - Through Plate Thickness Tensile Limit Figure AF-3226.5 Illustrations of Maximum Design Stress in I 1
Thrcugh Thickness Direction of Plates and l Elements of Rolled Shapes (Figure Deleted) J NF-33?1.1 - Design Ccnditions Counche Peak SSER 14 4-7
E * -+ E;nclosure 1 to TXX-89569
. August.16. 1989 BAcAGRoVDlD IN Fo FDR RLu 4t 0)
- ' Page 21 of 96 .
(5) 1977 EDITION - WikTER 1979 ADDEhDA NF-3391.1 - Allowable Stress Limits (Class 2 and MC Plate /Shell)
NF-3392.1 - Allowable Stress Limits (Ciass 2 and MC Linear)
(6) 1960 EDITION NF-1133 - Intervening Elements in Rela?. ion to Jurisdictional i' Boundarles hF-1131.6 - Portion F
.(7) 1980 EDITION XVII-2462 - Minimum Ed9e Distance (8) 1983 EDITION - SUfetER 1983 ADDENDA NF-3225 - Design of Bolting NF-3324.6 - Design Requirements for Bolted Joints (9) 1983 EDITION - Suf08ER 1985 ADDENDA NF-4721 - Bolt Holes (10) 1974 EDITION - WINTER 1975 ADDENDA
. NC-6221 - Minimum Required Hydrostatic Test Pressure (11)1974 EDITION - WINTER 1975 ADDENDA XVII-2410 - General Requirements (for the Des 19n of Connections and Joints (12)1960 EDITION - WIhTER 1982 ADDENDA NF-3324.5 - Design Requirements for Wales (13)1974 EDITION - SL200ER 1975 ADDENDA N8-3630(d)-ExemptionsforClass1 Piping It should be noted that 10 CFR 50.55a " Codes and Standards." currently references the ASME Code.Section III. Division 1 up to the 1983 Edition including the Summer 1984 Addenda. Although the portion of 10 CFR 50.55a pertaining to ASME Code Class 2 and 3 piping is not directly applicable to CPSES, it does provide the staff position regarding the latest Code edition and addenda found suitable for use. Several provisions listed above from later Code addenda (i.e., Winter 1984 Addenda and Summer 1985 Addenda) are not referenced currently in 10 CFR 50.55a. A final rule hn taen developed to update 10 CFR 50.55a to incorporate by reference the Winter 1984 Addenda, Summer 1985 Adaenda, Winter 1985 Addenda, and 1986 Edition of Section III, Comanche Peak SSER 14 4-8
--_____.________.__________.2.__m_ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _
- E;nclosure 1 to TXX-39569
' August 16, 1989 DAC.KG R0 uM D INFD FoR % -g-c3
- Page 22 of 96 pivision 1 and its issuance is awaiting final staff approval. Thus, contingent upon final acceptance of those Code editions and addenda for which final staff approval is pending, the staff finds the use of the above listed cme provision to be acceptable for CPSES.
The staff's findings as a result of its review of the FSAR changes in Amendment 61 related to the design of piping and pipe supports are given below.
In FSAR Section 3.78.3.1, an analytical technique, developed in accordance with NUREG/CR-1161, " Recommended Revisions to Nuclear Regulatory Comunission Seismic Design Criteria," May 1980 (Reference 36), is usec by SWEC for piping systems to account for the modal contribution above the cutoff frequency. The NUREG/CR-1161 methodology ensures participation of high frequency seismic responses in the zero period acceleration re71on of the seismic response spectra and is thus acceptable.
In FSAR Section 3.78.3.2, the maximum amplitude loading cycles for an operating basis earthquake have been revised from 600 cycles to $0 cycles and for a safe shutdown earthquake from 120 cycles to 10 cycles. The number of cycles specified by this change is applicable to ASME Code Class 2 and 3 piping systems. The revised number of earthquake cycles is in conformance with the acceptance criteria in Section 3.9.2 of the NRC Standard Review Plan (Reference
- 37) and is thus acceptable.
In FSAR Section 3.98.1.1.1, the SSE has been removed from the emergency conditions (but remains in the faulted condition). This change is applicable to ASME Code Class 2 and 3 piping systems and Class 1, 2, and 3 pipe supports.
The FSAR change as such is in conformance with the service conditions specified in Appendix A tn Section 3.9.3 of the NRC Standard Review Plan (Reference 37) and is thus acceptable.
In FSAR Section 3.98.3.1.1, Amendment 61 changed the combination of peak dynamic responses from the absolute-sum method to the square-root-of-the-sum-of-the-squares (SRSS) method. The SRSS method for combining dynamic responses is consistent with the guidelines of NUREG-0484, " Methodology for Combin69 Dynamic Responses," Revision 1 dated May 1980, (Reference 38) and is thus acceptable.
In FSAR Section 3.98.3.1.2, the applicant has established stress limits in addition to those established by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (Reference 27) to ensure that during and after a design basis accident condition, essential piping systems will maintain their capability to deliver the rated flow and retain their dimensional stability. These stress limits used to ensure the piping functional capability are in accordance with the General Electric Company topical report, " Functional Capability Criteria for Essential Mark II Piping," NEDO-21985 dated September 1978 (keference 39),
which has been approved by the NRC staff for all nuclear facilities. As an alternative criteria for stainless steel elbows and bends, the applicant will continue to use the stress limits for functicnal capability that had been approved for CPSES in Sections 3.9.3.1 of Supplements I and 3 (Reference 11).
The criteria used to ensure piping functional capability are thus accepteble.
Comanche Peak SSER 14 4-9
i
-89569
- Enclosure 1 to TgA(
August 16, 1989 KC5ROUND INf=o Fo n. RAI =* 17 C Page 23 of 96 CPSES/FSAR-
- 3. Evaluation of Effect of Variations in Assumptions and Materials The fact that reinforced concrete is not a homogeneous material
[' is accounted for in th'e design; stiffness properties are altered where the section is assumed to crack. TMdAddJfilsdffMd .
666%6M fin 66si ditittil t66tl66ti 156 6116tti 6i idtilng 666titi df itdtkidd (dddiddd ddd dididdd stitKdd ifdfdll Properties of materials are known with sufficient accuracy,-and assumptions j made are sufficiently conservative so that other variations need not be considered.
- 4. Temperature Effects i
The temperature gradient titrough the containment wall during ]
operation is essentially linear and is a function of the internal operating temperature and the average external ambient temperature. The accident temperature primarily affects the i
liner, rather than the concrete and reinforcing steel, due to l
insulating properties of the concrete. By the time the ,
temperature of the concrete within the interior of the concrete I shell begins to rise significantly, the internal accident pressure within the Containment has fallen off to a point below I the peak values. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider peak accident temperature in the concrete coincident with peak pressures in the Containment. (The thrust caused by the instantaneously hot liner against the reinforced concrete wall is considered simultaneously with the peak pressure.) Also, temperature stresses of the reinforcing steel in the Containment !
shell caused by the maximum thermal gradient do not significantly ;
influence the capacity of the structure to resist membrane forces. Temperature gradients induce stresses in the structure which are internal in nature, causing tension on one face and comprnsion on the other face; the resultant membran" forre is b
3.8-42
1 :a
~
- C
- q. E,nclosure 1 to TXX-89569 CPSES/FSAR 4
.. August'16. 1989 e -
Page' 24 49d990de' shapes where n equals-the number of dynamic degrees of-h -freedom of the system.. The mode shapes are all orthogonal to.each other and are sometimes referred to as normal mode vibrations. For a
' single degree of freedom systemi the stiffness matrix and mass matrix-are: single; terms _and the determinant [K] ' - w 2 [H]lwhen set equal to zero yields simply:'
1
< 1
-k .w2m 0
.-or:
iii" (3.7N-9).
where w 'is the' natural angular frequency in radians per second.
The natural-frequency in cycl u per secondLis therefore:
if '= h (3.7N-10)-
To find the mode shapes, the natural frequency corresponding to a-particular mode, en, can be substituted in Equation (3.7N-8).
Modal' Equations The response of a structure or component is always some combination of its normal modes. Good accuracy can usually be obtained by using only the first few modes of vibration. In the normal mode method, the mode shapes are used as principal coordinates to reduce the equations of motion to a set of uncoupled differential equations that describe the motion of~each mode n. These equations may be written as'(Reference
-[4], pages 116'through 125):
- =
An+2wnPnA n + wgA n
- rnYs (3.7N-11) n i
Draft Version 3.7N-10 j
_ . - _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - _ - 1
< 'Jl , :* E,nclosurG;1 to TXX-89569
' August 16, 1989 CPSES/FSAR
.Page 25 efie94 the. modal displacement or rotation, An, is related to the displacement or rotation'of mass point r in mode n, urn, by'the p
equation:
urn = An+rn (3.7N-12) where '
4rn = the modal displacement for mode n at ' mass point r- DRAFT wn := natural. frequency of mode n in radians per second pn = critical damping ratio of' mode n rn = modal participation factor of mode n given by:
n Tn=r m,,$ rn (3.7N-13) n 2
I mr $ rn where 4'rn = value of'*rn 'in the direction of the earthquake The essence of the modal analysis lies in the fact that Equation (3.7N-11) is analogous to the equation of motion for a single degree-of freedom system that will be developed from Equation (3.7N-4).
Dividing Equation (3.7N-4) by m gives:
i U + c u + b u = -ys m m (3.7N-14)
The critical damping ratio of a single degree of freedom system, p, is i defined by the equation:
(3.7N-15) p E h
3.7N-11 Draft Version 3
i* '
Enclosure:
1 to TXX-89569- 'CPSES/FSAR' August. 16.~ 1989 Page 26'We9(alue of gis chosen equal to 1/3 in order to provide a margin of numerical' stability for nonlinear problems. Since the numerical stability.of Equation (3.7N-24) is mostly detemined by the left hand side tems of-that equation, the right hand side terms were replaced.
by Fn+2 Furthermore, since the time increment may vary between
-two successive time substeps, Equation (3.7N-24) may be modified as follows: , '
2 n+2 - *n+1 -
- n+1 *n, + 1'
[M]<
xn+2 ~ *U (At+At) y At At g (At+6t)[C]
y a
+ [X] {x +2n + Xn+1 + Xn} "
{fn+2} (3.7N-25)
By . factoring xn+2, Xn+1, and x, and rearranging tones, Equation (3.7N-26) is obtained as follows:
{C5 [M] +' C3[C]+-(1/3)[K]}{x+2} n =
(Fn+2}
+ {C7[M]-(1/3)[K]}{x+1} n L
+ {-C2 [M] + C3[C].-(1/3)K}{x} n (3.7N-26) where C
2 " Ati $t +6t i)
C3 = At +At1 C
5"AtSt + At t)
C7 = C2_+ C5 Draft Version 3.7N-18
_ _ = _ - _
Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569 August 166 1989 CPSES/FSAR
" Page 27 of 96 structural demping. Because the design response spectra have been developed from a large number.of real records, following the procedures recommended by Newmark, the effect of strong motion duration and distance of focal depth are included [29).
There are, of course,. general associations between duration of strong motion and the size of an event. Longer durations of strong motion are expected with greater-sized earthquakes. Higher frequency accelerations are attenuated with' greater distance from the epicenter of the earthquake. These conditions are inherent in the strong motion records which are the source of Newmark's-work. In no case are the amplification factors less than one.
3.78.1.2 Desian Time History DRAFT One horizontal and one vertical SSE artificial time history have been developed for the design response spectra requirements presented in this section and Section 3.7B.1.1.
As an alternative to a site-dependent analysis, these artificial time history records are suitable for use as base excitations for the dynamic structural analysis.
-The mathematical procedures used to generate these' artificial time history records can be briefly summarized as follows:
- 1. The spectral characteristics of the selected site SSE design response spectra are extracted to construct a frequency response function with proper phase factor modification.
- 2. A fast Fourier transform of the frequency response function is performed to obtain a filter impulse response function.
. Draft Version 3.7B-2
4
- E,nclosuro 1 to TXX-89569 August 16. 1989 CPSES/FSAR
- ' Page 28 of 96
- 3. The filter impulse response function is then integrated with a set of-pseudorandom numbers to obtain an artificial time history record.
- 4. A comparison is made between the response spectrum derived from the artificial time history and the site SSE design response e
spectrum. Any unacceptable deviations are corrected by adding a series of sinusoidal impulses with proper amplitude and phase angles until the desirable fit is achieved.
0130.6 0130.7
- 5. The artificial time history records meet the minimum acceptance 68 criteria given by Table 3.7.1-1 in Section 3.7.1 of the Standard Review Plan.
68 The response spectra derived from the horizontal artificial time DRAFT history record and the . elected site SSE design response spectra are presented in Figures 3.78-2 through 3.78-6, for five structural damping values. The corresponding artificial time history is presented in Figure 3.78-14. The response spectra from the vertical 68 artificial time history record and the SSE design response spectra are presented on Figures 3.78-8 through 3,78-12, and the corresponding artificial time history is presented on Figure 3.7B-19.
Time history durations of approximately 10 see have been found necessary to allow the modifications of the time histories to match response spectra values at periods of three to four sec. A 10 sec record allows two to three cycles for modification by sinusoidal impulses. A record length of 10.24 see is obtained because the fast Fourier transform used for this purpose operates on sets of numbers which are as powers to time: 1.e., 1024 is equal to two raised to the tenth power.
The artificial time history records are generated at 0.01 sec equal time intervals with a time duration of 10.24 sec. They are in the digitized form of 1024 acceleration values.
3.7B-3 Oraft Version
r ,
' E,nclosure 1 to TXX-89569 CPSES/FSAR August 16, 1989 i i
- Page 29 of #a the idealization of structure with lu;psd casses and elastic i l properties.in discrete parts, parametric studies are performed in order to take into account these effects for the construction of .
instructure response spectra. These effects result in the shifting of the resonance peaks of the instructure response spectra. The peaks are widaned by at least 110 percent of the DRAFT resonance frequencies to account for these effects. The widening exceeds t10 percent if the parametric studies indicate that such j widening is necessary to achieve conservative results. The ground design response spectra and design time history are discussed in Section 3.7B.1.1 and 3.78.1.2 respectively.
Parametric studies and spectra widening are discussed in 68 Subsection 3.7B.2.9.
The preceding analyses are accomplished by using suitable computer programs as presented in Section 3.7B(A) and in accordance with References [30], [31), [36], and [38].
3.78.2.1.3 Testing and Analysis for Equipment Seismic Category I equipment, equipment supports, and components are designed to ensure functional operability during and after an earthquake of magnitude up to and including the SSE (refer to Section 3.2 for the list of seismic Category I mechanical and electrical equipment). The capability of all seismic Category I electrical and mechanical equipment and equipment supports to satisfy this requirement is verified by testing or analysis, or both.
3.78-11 Draft Version
1 ~E;n' closure 1.to TXX-89569
. August 16c 1989~ CPSES/FSAR
'Page 30 of 96-
- 1. Seismic testing for equipment operability conforms to the following:
- a. A test required to confirm the functional operability of
-seismic Category I electrical and mechanical equipment and instrumentation during and after an earthquake of magnitude up to and including the SSE is performed. Analysis without testing may be performed only if structural integrity alone can. ensure the design intended function. When a complete seismic testing is impracticable, a combination of test and analysis is performed.
- b. The characteristics of the required input notion are specified by one of the following:
- 1) Response spectrum DRAFT 2) Time history Such characteristics,'as derived from the structures or systems seismic analysis, are representative of the input motion at the equipment mounting locations. 3
)
- c. Where practicable, equipment which is required to function during and/or after an earthquake is tested in the operational condition. Operability is verified during and/or after the testing.
- d. The actual input motion is characterized in the same manner ,
as the required input motion and the conservatism in amplitude and frequency content is demonstrated. The frequency spectrum covers the range from 1 through 33 Hz.
1 I
Draft Version 3.78-14
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ -. - --. l
~
F L' . ' - Enclosuro 1 to TXX-89569' CPSES/FSAR August 16,':989
-' Page 31 of %6bsection 3.7B.2.5. The analysis of these subsystems or components follows the same. considerations as those described in Subsection 3.7B.2.1 for seismic Category I structures. The i vertical analysis is combined with both horizontals, according to the statement in_ Subsection 3.78.2.1.2 to produce basic dynamic loading conditions.
- 2. The same multimass lumped parameter model is subjected to a stress analysis due to. differentia 1' displacements of the support points.; The displacements used are consistent with the directions of structural excitation being considered in the spectrum analysis. .This results in basic differential displacement loading conditions.
- 3. The results obtained from the spectrum analysis and differential displacement analysis are then combined directly. The effects of these loading conditions on the components and the supporting structures are determined.
3.78.2.1.5 Stress and Deformation Criteria The ground design response spectra and design time history are DRAFT discussed in Section 3.78.1.1 ano 3.78.1.2 respectively.
Primary steady-state stresses including the effects of the normal operating loads plus the OBE loads are maintained well within the elastic limit of the material affected.
i 3.78-21 D, raft Version r -
,w.m _ - - _ _ . - . _ _ _ . . _ . - _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _
[ __
~* Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569
-August 16, 1989 CPSES/FSAR
- ' Page 32 of 96 Incidentally, this value and the values obtained for the ratios of the depth to the length of embedment less than one are in close agreement with the values-obtained on the basis of the approach to the problem for cohesive soils as presented in References [39] and [40]. These U
values also compare well for practical purposes with the ones obtained using_ formulation presented in Reference [7].
L 68 For the dynamic analysis of seismic Category I structures which have relatively shallow depths of embedment (such as the Safeguards, Electrical and Auxiliary, and Fuel buildings), the effect of embedment on rotational foundation rigidities (torsion and rocking) is b ' DRAFT negligible. The Service Water Intake Structure (SWIS), which has a greater depth of embedment, is analyzed by including the effects of embedment according to procedures recommended in References 42. 43, 44 and 45. The Service Water Intake Structure is basically socketed into rock with soil backfill on three sides above the top of rock.
The embedment effects were calculated for all rock and then for all soil above the founding levels and an average effect representative of
'the actual soil / rock profile was selected.
3.78.2.5 Development of Floor Responst- Soectra The' methods of seismic analysis are covered in Subsection 3.78.2.1.
'The response spectrum 2ethod for the development of instructure response spectra is not used.
Instructure response spectra at selected locations of interest are developed on the basis of computed responscs to an artificial time history input of ground motion. The time history of the simulated earthquake ground motion is developed to be compatible to the given ground response spectra. Having established the time history of the ground motion, the lumped mass mathematical models of seismic Category I structures are analyzed cnd time histories at desired masses lumped at floor levels or any other location of interest are generated. Once the time history of the floor motion is obtained, the next step consists of sub.jecting a single degree-of-freedom system with the
.; Draft. Version 3.7B-38
A
.' E,nclosure 1 to TXX-89569 August 16, 1989 CPSES/FSAR 9 Page 23 of 96 DRAFT Typical response spectra for floor elevation 852.5 ft. of the Safeguards Building and corresponding to 2-percent equipment damping and SSE excitations are shown on Figure 3.7B-50A. Curves Ax, Ay. and 44 Az represent the spectra in the X, Y, and Z directions for the combined effect of the three simultaneous earthquakes. The coupling DRAFT effects of the nonsymmetric structure are included. These design spectra were generated and peak broadened by computer and are therefore labelled refined. Some other design spectra were generated by computer but not peak broadened by computer and therefore have extra conservatism due to the hand smoothing technique.
68 For certain special subsystems such as the RCL subsystem, response spectra at the exact locations of the subsystems considered (e.g., at the steam generator support or the reactor nozzle) are developed as follows: Floor time histories for the three transnational and three rotational degrees-of-freedom and for each earthquake excitation (SSE and OBE) are derived at the nodes corresponding to the floors which contain the selected locations. Response spectra are developed at these nodes by subjecting a single-degree-of-freedom system with the natural frequency range of interest and various damping ratios to the floor time history motions obtained. The response spectra at the selected points are then developed by rigid body transformations.
Figures 3.7B-51, 3.78-52, and 3.78-53 represent the response spectra of transnational accelerations in three orthogonal directions at the location of the outermost support of the steam generator for two percent equipment damping and for SSE excitations in X, Y, and Z directions, respectively.
3.7B.2.6 Three Components of Earthouake Motion The three orthogonal components of the design earthquake motion are assumed to act simultaneously. The combined responses (shears.
Draft Version 3.7B-40 l:
lL
'* Enc 1csure 1 to TXX-89569 p3 g p
-August.I6, 1989 "I"
3.hb.8 Interaction of Non-Cateoory I Structures with Seismic Cateaory I Structures A number of structures such as the Turbine Building, the Switchgear Buildings,- the Circulating Water Intake and Discharge Structures, the Maintenance Building, and the Administration Building are designated as non-Category I.
The only non-Category I structures which are adjacent to any seismic Category I structure are the Turbine Building and the Switchgear Buildings. These structures do not share a common mat with the adjacent seismic Category I structure, and all structures are founded on firm rock. Therefore, there is r.o possible interaction of non-Category I structures with seitmic Category I structures resulting from seismic motion. Sufficient space is provided between the Turbine and Switchgear Buildings and the adjacent seismic Category I structure so as to prevent contact because of deformations occurring in the structures during a seismic event.
The possibility of structural failure during a seismic event is DRAFT considered for the Turbine Building. Structural failure in the
' direction of the adjacent seismic Category I structure is prevented by the combination of the horizontal bracing internal to the steel frame and the bearing of the mezzanine and operating floor slabs on the concrete turbine generator pedestal. The Switchgear Buildings are design to withstand a seismic event equal to the SSE.
54 Non-Category I equipment and components located in seismic Category I buildings are investigated by analysis or testing, or both, to ensure that under the prescribed earthquake loading, structural integrity is maintained, or the non-Category I equipment and components do not adversely affect the integrity or operability, or both, of any Draft Version 3.7B-42 l - - - . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- 4 Epclosure I to TXX-89569 August 16 1989 CPSES/FSAR
- Page 35 of 96
- 68. The enveloping technique used-for the construction of instructure response spectra consists of enveloping the maximum peaks. Since the frequencies of the structures can only be computed approximately because of the linear _and nonlinear reformability, the energy ;
dissipation, variation in elastic properties of both structure and
' foundation, and the idealization of structure with lumped masses and elastic properties in discrete parts, parametric studies are performed in order to take into account these effects for the construction of instructure response spectra. These effects result in the shifting DRAFT of the resonance peaks of the instructure response spectra. The peaks are widened by at least 110 percent of the resonance frequencies to account for these effects. The widening exceeds i10 percent if the parametric studies-indicate that such widening is necessary to achieve conservative results. The grouad design response spectra and design time history are discussed in Section 3.7B.1.1 and 3.78.1.2 respectively.
68 The preceding analysis are accomplished by using suitable computer programs as presented in Section 3.7B(A) and in accordance with References [30], [313 [36], and [383.
3.78.2.10 M}e of Constant Vertical Static Factors Constant static factors such as vertical response loads for the seismic design of seismic Category I structures, systems, and components are not used. Instead, multimass dynamic analysis for both horizontal and vertical directions of excitation is performed as described in Subsection 3.78.2.1.
Draft Version 3.78-44
- c. _
- Epciosure 1 to TXX-89569 August 16, 1989 CPSES/FSAR dhenallofthepointsoffixityarelocatedonasinglestructure,
~
'8' 20 the rigid body motions of the structure, translation and rotation, do not result in relative motion of the points of fixity. Since the third category of displacement, deformation of the structure, represents a small portion of the total displacanent profile, the effects of this displacement on the points of fixity are neglected.
For t i.ng passing between buildings or equipment mounted on individual structures nr foundations (such as big tanks), the relative displacement of support points located in different structures is considered in piping stress analysis.
20 Maximum relative displacements in two herizontal and the vertical direction between piping supports and anchor points between buildings are used as equivalent static displacement boundary conditions in order to calculate the secondary stresses of the piping system.
Relative seismic displacements used are obtained from a dynamic analysis of the structures, and are always considered to be out-of-phase between different buildings and the equipment if applicable to obtain the most conservative piping responses. c 66 3.78.3.8.2 Basis for Computing Combined Responses 61 For tha seismic design of piping, the horizontal and vertical loadings are obtained from the instructure response spectra that have been generated for the appropriate structures and elevations as outlined in Subsection 3.78.2.1.2, and References [30], [31], and [36].
DRAFT The combined effect of the three components of earthquake motion on the seismic design of piping is determined by the SRSS method (section 3.78.2.6). The maximum modal responses are combined by the methods of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92, Revision 1. The methods presented in Regulatory Guide paragraphs 2.1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2 or 1.2.3 are acceptable methods for vendor qualification.
Draft Version 3.7B-60
' ' Enclesure 1.to TXX-89569' CPSES/FSAR
> August 16, 1989 Page 37 38f. !Etoykovich, M. Seismic Design and Analysis of Nuclear Plant Components, American Society of Civil Engineers Proceedings-Specialty Conference on Structural Design of Nuclear Plant Facilities Chicago, Illinois, December 17-18, 1973, vol. I, pp.
1-28.
39..Pauw A., 1953, A Dynamic Analogy for Foundation - Soil Systems, Symposium-Dynamic Testing of Soils American Society for Testing and Materials Special Technical Publication no.156.
- 40. Leonards, G.A., ed., 1962 Foundation Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York.
61 41. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-1161, Recommended Revision to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seismic Design Criteria, December 1979.
DRAFT 42. Johnson, G. R., et al., " Stiffness Coefficients for Embedded Footings," ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 1975 GTS, pp. 789-800.
DRAFT- 43.-Analyses for Soil-Structure Interaction Effects for Nuclear Power Plants, ASCE Publication, 1979, p. 155.
DRAFT 44. Elsabee, F., et al., " Dynamic Stiffness of Embedded Foundations "
in Advances in Civil Engineering Through Engineering Mechanics, ASCE Publication, 1977, pp. 40-43.
DRAFT 45. Kaldjian, M. J., " Torsional Stiffness of Embedded Footings," ASCE Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Fondations Division, 1971, SM7, pp. 969-980.
3.7B-79 Draft Version
- 'Epciosuro~1 to TXX-89569 August.16, 1989 CPSES/FSAR
'V Page 38 of 96 3.8.1.3 Loads and Load Combinations 3.8.1.3.1 Loads The following_ loads are considered in the design of the steel-lined, reinforced concrete Containment structure (essentially in accordance with the ASME-ACI-359 document):
l '. D - dead load of the Containment, and all superimposed permanent loads
- 2. L - live loads, comprising conventional floor and roof live loads, movable equipment loads, cables, and lateral soil pressure
- 3. Pa - Containment pressure load due to the DBA, at 50 psig 4 T - thermal effects
- a. To -. thermal loads during normal operating conditions, including liner expansion and temperature gradients in the wall
- 1) Normal operating temperature range inside the . DRAFT-Con"-inment is 500F to 1200F.
- 2) Ambient temperature range at the outside face of the DRAFT Containment wall is 200F to 1100F.
- b. Ta - added thermal loads (over and above operating thermal loads), exerted by the liner, which may occur during an accident and which correspond to the factored accident pressure (i.e., 1.0 Pa. 1.25 Pa or 1.5 Pa); the accident temperature causes an almost instantaneous increase in the liner temperature, with little initial l-l 3.8-29 D' raft Version I
t_ _ - - -
' *LEpclosure'l to TXX-89569 CPSES/FSAR August 16, 1989
+: Page 39 30 0-@6 5 7 Missile Load and Pipe Break Criteria at Local Areas
-When. subjected to impact loads by missiles and forces caused by a pipe DRAFT rupture.., localized yielding is permitted when it is demonstrated that the deflections or deformations of the structures-and supports are
'within the ductility limits (Section 3.5.3.2) necessary to ensure that functional requirements are not impaired.
3.8.3.5.8 Criteria for Reactor Coolant System Supports The stress criteria for the RCS supports are presented in Section 349N.1.4.8.
3.8.3.6 Materials. Quality Control and Special Construction Techniaues 1
3.8.3.6.1 Concrete
- 1. ' Materials
- a. Cement is in conformance with the requirements of ASTM C 150-74, Specification for Portland Cement Type II.
- b. Aggregates are in conformance with the requirements of ASTM C 33-74, Specification for Concrete Aggregates.
- c. Mixing water is potable or nonpotable, but is clean and free from injurious amounts of oils, acids, alkalis, salts, and
. organic materials or other substances which are deleterious to concrete or steel. Tests are in accordance with the requirements of CC-2223 of the ASME-ACI 359 document.
(
1 \
i i
l i
3.8-103 Draft Version l w _ =_-__-_-
~
- E,nclosuro l'to TXX-89569-CPSES/FSAR
, A{ gust 40 39.3 .M;chanical Butt Splices (Cadwelds)
Refer to Subsection 3.8.1.6.3 and to Appendix 1 A (B).
3.8.3.6.4 Structural and Miscellaneous Steel
- 1. Materials Listed below are specifications for structural and miscellaneous steel generally used. Other ASTM, conforming materials may be DRAFT used as specified by project specifications / design drawings.
ASTM A 36-74, Specification for Structural Steel ASTM A 537 74a Specification for Pressure Vessel Plates, Heat Treated, Carbon-Manganese-Silicon ASTM A 307-74, Specification for Carbon Steel Externally and Internally Threaded Standard Fasteners ASTM A 325-74, Specification for High-Strength Bolts for Structural Steel Joints, Including Suitable Nuts and Plain Hardened Washers ASTM A 540-70, Specification for Alloy Steel Bolting Materials for Special Applications ASTM A 240-74a, Specification for Heat-Resisting Chromium and Chromium-Nickel Stainless Steel Plate, Sheet, and Strip for Fusion Welded Unfired Pressure Vessels-Type 304 L 3.8-105 Draft Version L - _ _ _
- 3 a-(NelosuraL1 to TXX-89569' CPSES/FSAR August' 16, 1989 Page410$,g6.1.5 3 Drawings For various details of o r seismic Category I structures, see Figures 3.8-1 through 3.L and. Figure 3.8-16, 3.8.4.: s6 Outdoor Seismic Category I Tanks (Refueling Water Storage. Condensate Stcrage, and Reactor Makeup Water Storage)
The outdoor seismic Category I tanks are reinforced concrete 68 structures, cylindrical in shape, with stainless steel liners to provide leaktightness and prevent absorption of radioactive material by the concrete (Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) only). The RWST is provided with a concrete trough external to-the tank to collect incidental leakage.
REFUELING WATER STORAGE AND CONDENSATE STORAGE TANKS: DRAFT Outside diameter of wall 50*-0" DRAFT Outside diameter of mat 53*-0" DRAFT Concrete wall thickness 2*-6" DRAFT Concrete mat thickness 5'-0" DRAFT Concrete roof thickness l'-9" DRAFT Total height 54'-6" DRAFT REACTOR MAKE UP WATER STORAGE TANK DRAFT Outside diameter of wall 30*-0" DRAFT Outside diameter of mat 33*-0" DRAFT Concrete wall thickness 2'-6" DRAFT Concrete mat thickness 4'-0" DRAFT Concrete roof thickness l'-9" DRAFT Total height 39*-6" DRAFT 3.8-111 Draft Version
- T*
Enclosura-1 to TXX-89569 CPSES/FSAR
. August 16, 1989 Page. 42 fg,9panks are designed to withstand all credible loadings and to DRAFT maintain their integrity during operation. These loadings include both normal operating loads such as structure weight, hydrostatic pressure of the contained fluid, live loads on the roof, thermal loads and environmental loads such as the 1/2 SSE, SSE, normal wind and tornados (wind, differential pressure and missiles), and hydrodynamic forces caused by seismic effects on the contained fluid in accordance with methods as shown in Reference 21.
The load combinations given in Subsection 3.8.4.3 are used for the design of the structures, using design methods and strength requirements in accordance with ACI 318-71. Flexural tensile cracking is permitted but is controlled by reinforcing steel. A minimum of 0.25 percent reinforcing steel is provided in the tank walls in both directions, vertical and hoop.
Draft Version 3.8-112
- Enclosuro 1 to TXX-89569 CPSES/FSAR August 16, 1989 ofsbetyisprovidedbyACI318-71inthatthecalculatedultimate
'N' capacity of the member is reduced by a capacity reduction factor, as indicated in Subsection 3.8.3.5.2.
The magnitude of the load factors applied to each type of 1 cad varies, L depending on the factors discussed in Subsection 3.8.3.5.2.
- l. 1 3.8.4.5.3 Hissile Load and Pipe Break Criteria at Local Areas 1
' DRAFT For local areas subjected to loads, such as missiles, and to forces caused by pipe rupture, localized yielding is permitted when the l
deflections or deformations of the structures and supports are within
~the (ductility) limits (Section 3.5.3.2) necessary to ensure that functional requirements are not impaired.
68 l3.8.4.5.4 Bracket or Corbel Criteria at Local Areas DRAFT The fuel building crane corbel supports at elevation 831 are designed in accordance with the PCI Design Handbook Second Edition 1978. Fdt 68 s idid1 dtidt istiditdd fd Edditi intK di EtitKdti dt idttdit ditM iMidt fritffddl dddfdd df td/Wdit Wdidd dd PCI 5difdd MdddeddK Sdiddd
, Ediffdd 1978 ff pdtdiffdd WMdd 7Nd Idddi dd fMd idppdtid dt iftdtidtdf did difMid EMt Ifditt ridiffidtf fd ddid/d fMdt'fddtffddd! /d(ditddddfs s
- did Adt fdtditddl 3.8.4.6 Materials. Quality Control. and Special Construction Techniaues The materials and QC procedures used in the construction of other seismic Category I structures are as discussed in Subsection 3.8.3.6.
No special construction techniques are required for these structures.
3.8.4.7 Testinc.and Inservice Insoection Requirements With the exception of the stainless steel liners for the spent fuel pool and the outdoor seismic Category I tanks, no special testing of the completed structure or inservice inspection is required for Draft Version 3.8-124 -
B
p g JEpclosureil tolTXX-89569
August. 16,:19893 CPSES/FSAR
, 10 Page 44'of'96j
- 3. :The base -shear is transferred from the foundation to rock through -
, / bond >and' surface friction and is not a probben for structures y founded.on competent rock,=such as that which exists at the Comanche Peak' site..
F E: m 3.8.5.3.3 Loads Transferred from Supported Components to 1, Foundations u
r The load combinations considered in the determination of the total p loads. transferred from supported components, such as the NSSS equipment, to.the foundations are the same load combinations as those described in: Subsection 3.8.5.3.1. For additional discussion, see Subsection 3.8.3.4.3.
3,8.5.4 Desian and Analysis Procedures 3.8.5.4.1- ' Foundation and Supports for Containment and Internal-Structure The analysis of the foundation' mat for the Containment and internal structure is described in Subsection 3.8.1.4.1. Item 1. The output of this analysis includes the displacements, rotations,- forces, shears, moments, and stresses which are used for the~ design of the foundation mat.
- 1. Determination of Rock Contact Area Under the Foundation For' load combinations which' include the overturning effects of earthquake or tornado forces, some lift-off may occur, resulting in a condition where only a portion of the foundation is in contact with the rock. Tne area of contact between the bottom i 1 . .;'
surface of the foundation and the rock is dependent on the resultant forces applied to the entire structure, based on the load combination being-considered. The rock reaction is simulated by attaching appropriate springs to the nodes on the foundation mat
~
. Draft Version 3.8-128 l
- Epciosure.1 to TXX-89569 L : August 16, 1989 CPSES/FSAR l'
L
. Page 45 of 96 that are within the area of contact. The predicted amount of
)1 i
foundation contact area affects the results of the analysis j described in Subsection 3.8.1.4.1, Item 1.
l :
i The following procedures are used to determine th7 contact area. l Before proceeding with the analysis of the structure under a combined loading, which includes earthquake loads or tornado '
)
loads,.an area of rock contact is postulated. This postulated contact area is determined by first assuming that the structure is rigid with respect to the foundation springs. Then, by considering equilibrium of the applied force and the rock-spring reactions, the postulated contact area is determined by trial and error through a systematic search process. After the analysis based on the postulated contact area is performed, the resulting contact area is checked. If the postulated and resulting contact areas are significantly diffe'ent, a new postulated contact area is determined based on analysis results, and the structure is reanalyzed. The checking cycle is terminated when the postulated contact area and the resulting contact area of the same analysis 1
J converge within a tolerable limit (approximately 5 percent difference).
- 2. NSSS Equipment Concrete Supports The concrete supports for the NSSS equipment are designed for all the loading combinations (listed in Subsection 3.8.3.3) which include seismic and blowdown effects. A discussion of the blowdown effects as a result of a LOCA is contained in Sections 3.6 and 3.9. The dynamic analysis under seismic loading is described in Section 3.7.
I I
I
)
3.8-129 Uraft Version
mq: gy7--
'I I Epciosure:1 to.TXX-89569
'.'Augusti16.'1989. CPSES/FSAR
- .- Page 46 of.96-DRAFT 21.:.U. S. Atomic Energy Comm., " Nuclear-P.eactors and Earthquakes",
. ' TID-7021, Office of Technical Service, Wash. 25, D. C. 1963
~
LDRAFT- p. '83-195 1 'and 367-390.
1 i
1 1 .
p: Draft Version 3.8-138 -
I
. Enclosure 1 to TXX 89569 A'ugust 16, 1989 ,
. 'Page 47 of 96
.. 5 4 m
e +. e -
/"I .p ..jP, 2 6 5 pp; .- !
y u , . .. p 2 -i : :
'a 1 e s a p ~
Y h.m g, ?,';
. . #:hi'g, 5 EI
. . g el.
s., - ,
g e
e ll= - -
m
- m. j
.sl .
- ! 13 .ig ! -
3 3 is tit! ia 2 l l 18 tv .
.m m
- 8 8
! f I$,,! /- III n
.s 4,Il+yih.
i . i p Q ik ff i'
s j a
+
[E E, '
+
y.
5 2;i g
N $$ii ! k,}s g fb
- = '--"
a (d,,g!?
n --
14_ __
..,g
- u. .q wa.
,s II I ,
I(?. ai_t +1 1 8 r _. r sg pv w l,di a ,
a s
. r a
_v 6
. us M
- at
- l-
~
' E,nclosure l' to TXX-89569 August f6, 1989' ,,f
- Page A8 of 96 .
'e [ ,
j .)
N p,b s r j
f'f
- 1 (* x
,I g
'////////ffffff/7] :
" b[///M N///A musammama 'k , l 3
3 W kY.hi.U, it 3g
^$NE
- l 1 3;'
2 t , , >>,., .
yy ,
r --'- - - - - ' ' - ' - -
1 l !4 I
14 d I
i i n n t /Z// W /1 f
' ~
%- a j
_._< r ~. =J Tj$ ' jf E
i 4 1 4
ta 1
1 a' at ,
, a
__ _.. __ \
. I L__
E,nclosure I to TXX-89569 CPSES/FSAR'
, August 16, 1989
.-' Page '49 41f39G5 Discuss in details any exception taken'from the accepted requirements identified in the SRP. Note that the SRP accepts the ACI 359 code (1973) with certain exceptions as identified in the applicable section of SRP 3.8.1.
Also, as applicable, expand on the deviation from the code identified in the FSAR.
R130.15 See revised Section 3.8.1.3 which indicates compliance DRAFT with the requirements identified in the applicable section of SRP 3.8.1 (NUREG-75-087),
a 130-15 )
') Enclosure 1 to'TXX-89569
- August 160 1989 CPSES/FSAR-
- Page 50 of 96-0130.18 The review of the load combination equations and their related acceptance criteric in this section of the FSAR shows deviations from those identified in the SRP 3.8.3.
l Provide detailed information and discussions related to the deviations to facilitate staff review of their u technical bases for the deviations.
I R130.18 We will comply with the SRP 3.8.3 (NUREG-75-087). See ORAFT
. revised Sections 3.8.3.3 and 3.8.4.3.
130-18
b _ Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569' o* -v August 16, 1989 Page 51 of-96 CPSES/FSAR 0130.25 In your answers to 0130.15, 0130.16 and 0130.18, you DRAFT changed the load combinations for the Containment
' Building to agree with the requirements of=ACI 359 Code (1973) with certain exceptions as identified in the epplicable sections of SRP 3.8.1. For the internal structures and for other Category I structures, you stated compliance with the respective requirements identified in SRP 3.8.3. and 3.8.4. In view of these changes, identify in detail how these changes in the design criteria have affected the final design of the Containment and other structures, if any. Specifically, state if they have resulted in any changes in the-physical sizes of the structural components, rebar placement, properties,. design stress levels, etc...
R130.25 In response to question AEC 3.6 of the PSAR (which was DRAFT originally based on the ASME-ACI-359) and questions 130.15, 130.16, and 130.18 of the FSAR, some design requirements were changed to agree with the additional requirements in the SRP (NUREG-75-087). The above question requested the identification of how these additional requirements affected the final design of Containment and other structures. Changes that may have resulted from this change in criteria would have been implemented prior to the Corrective Action Program (CAP). Therefore, the identification of any changes that may have resulted prior to the CAP are not pertinent at this time.
The Ccrrective Action Program for the civil / structural DRAFT area was implemented to validate the design and hardware at CPSES. The various Seismic Category I structures were designed to conform to the loading combinations and 68 their related acceptance criteria which are specified by U.S. NRC Standard Review Plans 3.8.3. and 3.8.4 (NUREG- DRAFT 75-087). {
130-25
[. .
- y. . . -Enc 1csura 1 to TXX-89569 -
' August 16, 1989 CPSES/FSAR Page'52 of_96 Modifications to the design and hardware have been DRAFT L implemented as required. The Civil / Structural Project 4 Status Report (PSR) describes the methods used to validate the safety-related hardware. Supplement 17 to the Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0797) contains'the NRC's. evaluation of the CAP related to the civil / structural discipline.
9 130-26
. Enclosura 1 to TXX-89569
~ . August 16, 1989 Page 53 of 96 CPSES/FSAR 0130.28 In your answers to 0130.15 16, 18 and 25, you stated DRAFT how you considered the design and acceptance criteria identified in ACI-359 and SRP 3.8.1., 3.8.3 and 3.8.4.
to validate the actual structural design of the Category I structures of the Comanche Peak NPP. In your conclusions, you stated that the actual design meets the requirements of ACI-359 and SRP 3.8.1., 3.8.3., and 3.8.4. Provide a detailed description of the specific controlling sections and components investigated in your reevaluation, including pertinent sketches and results.
R130.28 In response to question AEC 3.6 of the PSAR (which was DRAFT originally based on the ASME-ACI-359) and questions 130.15, 130.16, and 130.18 of the FSAR, some design requirements were changed to agree with the additional requirements in the SRP (NUREG-75-087). The above question requested the identification of how'these additional requirements affected the final design of Containment and other structures. Changes that may have resulted from this change in criteria would have been implemented prior to the Corrective Action Program (CAP). Therefore, the identification of any changes that may have resulted prior to the CAP are not pertinent at this time.
The Corrective Action Program for the civil / structural DRAFT area was implemented to validate the structural design of the Category I structures at CPSES. The design of Seismic Category I structures conformed to the loading 68 combinations which are specified by U.S. NRC Standard DRAFT Review Plans 3.d.1., 3.8.3 and 3.8.4 (NUREG-75-087).
The methodology and results of this validation effort are described in the Civil / Structural Project Status Report (PSR). Supplement 17 to the Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0797) contains the NRC's evaluation of the CAP related to the civil / structural discipli,ne. j
. i 130-30
CPSES FSAR ANENDNENT 77 p '- ,.
Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569 DETAILEO DESCRIPTION Page 1
' August 16, 1989
-Pag] 54 of 96 FSAR Page
.(AL,asended) Group Description 3.7N-10 4 Adds Greek symbol which was inadvertently omitted during the processing of Amendment 68.
Editorial:
Greek symbol was inadvertently omitted during the processing of Amendment 68.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-567.1 Related SER Section: 3.7.2 SER/SSER Impact: No
- 3.7N-11 4 Adds definition for Greek symbol.
Editorial:
Adds definition for Greek symbol.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-567.2 Related SER Section: 3.<.2 SER/SSER Impact: No 3.7N-18 4 AddsGreeksymbolwhich$tasinadvertentlyomitted
, during the processing of Amendment 68.
Editorial:
Greek symbol was inadvertently omitted during the processing of Amendment 68.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-567.3 Related SER Section: 3.7.2 SER/SSER Impact: No I
e ~ ---_~
DETAILED DESCRIPTION p,g,3
- e Enclostr61 tb TXX-89569 August 16 1989 y g g 5 of 96 (as amended) Group ]lpscrintion l
3.7B-2, 3. 4 Clarifies that one earthquake was used to develop the design time history.
Clarification:
'The original FSAR di: cussed the use of 5 horizontal and 5' vertical artificial time history records to el velope the design spectra for the various damping factors.
Actual analyses were performed using only 1 vertical and I horizontal artificial time history input motion which enveloped all the design spectra for various damping factors.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-568.1 Related SER Section: 3.7.1 SER/SSER Impact: No 3.7B-11 4 Clarifies text by stating that the peaks of the floor response spectra were widened by "+/ " 10 percent.
Clarification:
Clarifies text by stating that the peaks of the floor response spectra were widened by "+/ " 10 percent.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-568.2 Related SER Section: 3.7.2 SER/SSER Impact: No
'3.78-11 4 Removes discussion of ground design response spectra and design time history from Section 3.78.2.1.2(2), as they are covered by Sections 3.7B.1.1 and 3.7B.1.2
.respectively.
Clarification:
The ground design response spectra are discussed in Section 3.7B.1.1 and conform to the procedures devel-oped by Newmark, Blume and Kapur. These procedures were the forerunner to Regulatory Guide 1.60 and differ from Regulatory Guide 1.60 as described in FSAR Section 3.7B.1.1.
The discussion of greund design response spectra and design time history will be deleted from 3.7B.2.1.2(2) since this subject is included in 3.78.1.1 and 3.7B.1.2 respectively. A statement will be added to section
) 3.7B.2.1.2(2) to reference the applicable sections.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-568.3 Related SER Section: 3 7.2 SER/SSER Impact: No
- 3.78-34 2 Deletes the power density function as a method which may be used to specify the input motion for seismic testing of equipment.
Correction:
The power density function has not been used at CPSES.
__________-____m_--_-______m _____
n - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
-Enclosura 1 to TXX-89569 DETAILED DESCRIPTION Page 2
' August 16. 1989 Page 56'of 96 {
FSAR Page (as amended) Group Description FSAR section 3.7B.2.1.3 will be revised to delete the l reference to the power density function.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-568.4 Related SER Section: 3.7.2 SER/SSEi! Impact: No i
3.78-21 4 Removes the discussion of ground design response spec-tra and design time history from section 3.7B.2.1.5, as they are covered by sections 3.7B.1.1 and 3.78.1.2, ] '
respectively.
Clarification:
The ground design response spectra are discussed in Section 3.78.1.1 and conform to the procedures devel-oped by Newmark, Blume and Kapur. These procedures were the forerunner to Regulatory Guide 1.60 and differ from Regulatory Guide 1.60 as described in FSAR section 3.78.1.1.
The discussion of ground design response spectra and design time histor.v will be deleted from 3.7B.2.1.5 since this subject is included in 3.7B.1.1 and 3.7B.1.2 I respectively. A statment will be added to section 3.78.2.1.5 to reference the applicable sections.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-568.5 Related SER Section: 3.7.2 SER/SSER Impact: No j 3.78-38 4 Revises the text to discuss how the effects of the structural backfill for the Service Water Intake Struc-ture were accounted for in the calculation of the soil spring stiffness values.
Clarification:
The effects of structural backfill on the Service Water Intake Structure foundation spring stiffness values were calculated on the basis of the average embedded depth. The SWIS is basically socketed into rock with soil backfill on three sides above the top of rock.
The foundation springs were calculated for a surface 8
founded structure and then increased because of embed-ment effects. The embedment effects were calculated for all rock, and then for all soil, above the founding level and an average was calculated to be representa-tive of the actual soil / rock profile.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-568.6 Related SER Section: 3.7.2 SER/SSER Impact: No l
l l 3.7B-40 4 Provides en explanation of " refined response spectra".
l Clarification:
Computer generated floor response spectra were labeled
~ 4
N'. . Enclosure I to TXX-8956fPSES FSAR AMENDMENT 77
. August 16, 1989 . DETAILED DESCRIPTION Page 3 Page 57 of 96 FSAR Page (as amended) Groun Amigrintion
" Refined Response Spectra". Figure S.7B-50A is such an example of these typical spectra curves. The Refined Response Spectra are similar to the Floor-by-Floor response spectra, exe.ept that extra conservatism due to hand smoothing has been eliminated by use of computer and curves are plotted in terms of acceleration versus
. frequency.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-568.7 Related SER Section: 3.7.2 SER/SSER Impact: No 3.7B-42 2 Corrects statement describing structural failure of the Turbine Building in the direction of the adjacent Seismic Category I building.
-Correction:
The bracing by itself will not prevent structural fail-ure in the direction of the Seismic Category I build-ing. The Turbine Building will bear against the tur-bine pedestal after the frame has translated horizon-tally sufficiently to close the surrounding one-inch gap (note: gap is filled with a compressible material).
The combination of the horizontal bracing internal to the steel frame and the bearing of the mezzanine and operating floor slabs on the turbine generator pedestal will resist collapse of the frame.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-568.8 ;
Related SER Section: 3.7.2 SER/SSER Impact: No
-3.78-44 4 Removes the discussion of ground design respor.se spectra and design time history from 3.7B.2.9. as they are covered by sections 3.7B.1.1 and 3.78.1.2, respectively.
Clarification:
The ground design response spectra are discussed in section 3.78.1.1 and conform to the procedures devel-oped by Newmark, Blume and Kapur. These procedures l were the forerunner to Regulatory Guide 1.60 and differ l
from Regulatory Guide 1.60 as described in FSAR section 3.78.1.1.
The discussion of ground design response spectra and i design time history will be deleted from section j 3.7B.2.9 since this subject is included in sections I i 3.78.1.1 and 3.76.1.2 respectively. A statement will I be added to section 3.7B.2.9 to reference the applicable sections.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-568.10 Related SER Section: 3.7.2 SER/SSER Impact: No l
CPSES FSAR AMENDMENT 77 Enclosura 1 to TXX-89569 DETAILED DESCRIPTION Page 4
' August 16.'1989.
.. Paga 58 of 96 FSAR Page (as amended) fitpjgt Description
.3.78-44 4- Clarifies text by stating that the peaks of the floor responte spectra were widened by "+/ " 10 percent.
Clari ficati on:
See justification for page 3.78-11 (#89-568.2).
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-568.9 Related SER Section: 3.7.2 SER/SSER Impact: No 3.7B-60 2 Revises text to clarify how the horizontal and vertical accelerations have been combined.
Correction:
The discussion in this section did not adequately add-ress the subject of the section heading. This change contains no new technical information. The added text is similar to the discussions presented in sections 3.78.3.6 and 3.78.3.7.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-568.11 Related SER Section: 3.7.3.3 SER/SSER Impact: No 3.78-79 4 Adds references to support the change on page 3.7B-38 regarding soil spring stiffness values.
Clarification:
Adds references to support the change on page 3.78-38 regarding soil spring stiffness values.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89 568.12 Related ! R Section: 3.7.2 SER/SSER Impact: No l
1 2 \
l ;
e 1
Enclosura1toTXX-89569b II.NDDES5PiibN Page 1
' August 16, 1989
. Page 59 of 96_
FSAR Page (as amended) Group description 3.8-29 2 Section 3.8.1.3.1 changes the lower limits of normal operating temperatures inside and outside of containment from (inside) "60F" to "50F" and from (outside) "0F" to "20F".
Revision:
As a result of design validation activities the temperature limits were revised.
FSAR Change Request Number: 88-935 Related SER Section: 3.8.1 SER/SSER Impact: No 0
e' m____-mm._- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Enclosure 1 to TXX-89'569 DUIII.EDEShiPTibN Page 1
' August 16, 1989 t Paga 60 of 96'
..FSAR Page (as amended) Group Description 3.8-103 4 Clarifies tne design criteria used to evaluate the loc-alized yielding of structures and supports (provided functional requirements are not impaired).
Clarification:
The criteria " local section strength capacities may be exceeded under these concentrated loads provided there will be no loss of function on any safety-related sys-tem." is assured by using the ductility acceptance cri-teria specified in Section 3.5.3.2 (note, this is iden-tified on FSAR page 3.8-88).
To provide additional clarification, Sections 3.8.3.5.7 and 3.8.4.5.3, on pages 3.8-103 and 3.8-123, respec-tively, will be amended to reference the ductility lim-its in Section 3.5.3.2 as the criteria for assuring that functional requirements are not impaired.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-569.1 Related SER Section: 3.8.2 SER/SSER Impact: No 3.8-105 4 Provides clarification as to which types of design doc-umentation are used to specify the approved structural and miscellaneous steel.
Clarification:
The materia 1 lists in the applicable specifications /de-sign drawings would provide complete identification. A complete listing was not provided in the FSAR due to the large number of unique materials involved. Engin-eering approval of equivalent material is obtained and documented in accordance with project procedures and specifications, which guarantees adherence to the app-11 cable design requirements. In Section 3.8.3.6.4 the phrase, "...when specified by the engineers on design documentation," will be changed to, "...as specified by project specifications / design drawings."
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-569.2 Related SER Section: 3.8.2 SER/SSER Impact: No j 0
3.8-111, 112 2 Clarifies the discussion on the seismic analysis of the Category I tanks.
Correction:
Provides additional description of the Category I tanks' geometry and the method used to address hydrody-namic loads due to seismic excitations. >
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-569.3 I Related SER Section: 3.8.3 SER/SSER Impact: No
- . Encicsuro 1 to TXX-89569 DETAILED DESCRIPTION Page 2
' August 16, 1989
, Page 61 of 96 FSAR Page (as amended) 1r..g.ug Description 3.8-124 4 Clarifies the design criteria used to evaluate the loc-alized yielding of structures and supports (provided L
functional requirements are not impaired).
Clarification:
See justification for page 3.8-103 (#89-569.1).
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-569.4-L Related SER Section: 3.8.3 SER/SSER Impact: No 3.8-124 2 Clarifies that PCI criteria applies only for the Fuel Building crane corbel supports at elevation 831.
Correction:
The FSAR was amended to allow the PCI 1978 criteria for the design of corbels, because the ACI'318-71 criteria does not provide specific guidance on choosing a mini-mum effective d distance. The ACI only provides the
' method to determine the maximum d distance. The corbel affected by this change supports the crane rail in the Fuel Building at elevation 831. The corbel also meets the ACI minimum reinforcement requirements when the d distance based on strength requirements is used. Based on strength this corbel design meets both the ACI 318-71 ar.d PCI 1978 criteria. The corbel meets the PCI criteria (but not ACI) for minimum reinforcement based on gross cross-section dimensions.
ACI 318-71 Section 11.14.1 requires that the maximum effective d distance not exceed "twice the depth of the corbel or bracket at the outside edge of the bearing area." However, no limit is specified on the minimum effective d distance.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-569.5 Related SER Section: 3.8.3 SER/SSER Impact: Yes The SER makes the statement that ACI 318-71 is tre major design code. The PCI could be referenced as the code for the subject case. However, the SER would not be incorrect if left as is, since the word " major" implies there may be exceptions tc the ACI Code.
3.8-128 4 Provides missing text which was inadvertently deleted l during Amendment 68 due to an administrative error.
Editorial:
Provides missing text which was inadvertently deleted during Amendment 68 due to an administrative error.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-569.6 Aelated SER S 7 tion: 3.8.4 SER/SSER Impact: No 1
3.8-138 4 Adds reference used to address hydrodynamic loads due to seismic excitations.
- _ _ - _ _ - _ - . - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ - . _ _ . . - _ _ - . - . . - _ . - _ _ . _. E
~ Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569 DETAILED DESCRIPTION Pag 2 3
' August 16..1989
. .. : Page 62 of 96..
FSAR Page (as amended) GrouD Description Editorial:
See justification for page 3.8-11 (#89-569.3).
FSAR Change-Request Number: 89-569.7 Related SER Section: '3.8.3 SER/SSER Impact: No L Figure 3.8-8 4 Revises sketch of the electrical penetration to provide additional detail.
Clarification:
Revises sketch of the electrical penetration to provide additional detail.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-569.8 Related SER Section: 3.8.1 SER/SSER Impact: No
- p. . :
i 3
a
,' . .[Aug E 16 [1589 [ ' @NO86@ @@@@8W8E ' Page_1 Page 63 of 96
- FSAR Page (as amended) Group Description Q&R 130-15.18 4 Clarifies which version of the Standard Review Plan was referenced. (Questions 130.15 & 130.18)-
Clarification:
Clarifies which version of the Standard Review Plan was referenced (NUREG-75-067).
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-570.1 Related SER Section: 3.8.1 SER/SSER-Impact: No Q&R 130-25 4 Changes the reference to the previous Question from "130.5" to "130.15" (Question 130.25).
Clarification:
Corrects what appears to be an incorrect reference to an earlier question. Question 130.15 and 130.25 dis-cuss the applicability of-the SRP section 3.8.1.
Question 130.5 addressed subject matter contained within FSAR section 3.5.3.2.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-570.2 Related SER Section: 3.8.1 q SER/SSER Impact: No Q&R 130-25. 26 2 Corrects response (Question 130.25) to address the issue of physical changes which may have resulted from the change in design criteria.
Correction:
In response to previous questions, some design require-ments were changed to agree with the additional requirements in the SRP (NUREG-75-087). Changes that may have resulted from this change in criteria would have been implemented prior to the Corrective Action Program (CAP). Therefore the identification of any changes that may have resulted prior to the CAP are not pertinent at this time. The CAP was implemented to validate the design and hardware at CPSES. Modifica-tions to the design and hardware were implemented as )'
required. The methodology and results of this valida-tion effort are described in the Civil Structural 3 Project Status Report (PSR).
Supplement 17 to the Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0797) contains the NRC's evaluation of the CAP related to the civil / structural discipline.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-570.3 Related SER Section: 3.8.2 SER/SSER aIrpact: No i
i O&R 130-30 4 Changes the retercace to previous Question from "130.5" I
to "130.15" (Question 130.28).
l Clarification:
. 4.
- ; Enclosure ~ 1 to TXX-89569 : DETAILED DESCRIPTION Page 2 August 16o 1989
.Page 64 of'96
. 1 FSAR Page-(as amended) - Grous Description l
See justification for page 130-25 (#89-570.2).
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-570.4 4 Related SER Section: 3.8.1 SER/SSER Impact: No
'O&R.130-30 2 Corrects response (Question 130.28) to address how the-design at CPSES was validated.
Correction:
'In response to previous questions, some design require-ments were changed to agree with the additional re-quirements in the SRP (NUREG-75-087). Changes that may have resulted from this change in criteria would have been implemented prior to the Corrective Action Program (CAP).- Therefore the identification of any changes that may have resulted prior to the CAP are not pertin-ent at this time.
The Corrective Action Program for the civil / structural area was implemented to validate the structural design-of the Category I structures at CPSES. The methodology and results of this validation effort are described in the Civil Structural Project Status Report (PSR).
Supplement 17 to the Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-l 0797) contains the NRC's evaluation of the CAP related' to the civil / structural discipline.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-570.5 Related SER Section: 3.8.1 SER/SSER Impact: No l
)
l l
Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569
^Augus% 16. 1989
. Page 65 of.96 Based on the review described above, the staff concludes that the app 1tcant has not met the requirements of GDC 4 regarding~pfpe breaks. The staff will provide the resolution to the open items described above in a supplement to this report.
3.7 Seismic Desfon 3.7.1 Seismic Input The input seismic design response spectra (operating-basis earthquake (08E) and safe.-shutdown earthquake (SSE)) applied in the design of seismic Category I structures and components were developed from numerous real records, following the procedures recommended by Mousark, Blume, and Kapur* and conform to the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.60. Revision 1, with the exception of those in the 33-Hz to 50-Hz frequency ran In this range, the vertical response i spectrum of Regulatory Guide 1.60. ge. Revision 1, differs free the vertical i
response spectrum used by the applicant. Because this deviation only affects the modes that have low amplification, the effect of this deviation on the results of the analyses of structures and systans is negligible. Similarly, the method recommended by Neumark and his colleagues for the construction of vertical response spectra leads to a slight deviation from the Regulatory Guide 1.60. Revision 1, recommendations for accelerations corresponding to 3.5 Hz. The segnitude of these differences is negligible.
The horizontal and vertical design response spectra are scaled to the maximum ground acceleration of 0.12g and 0.08g selected for the SSE. For the 08E, a scaling factor of 0.5 is applied to the SSE design spectra. The site design response spectra are applied at the various foundations of seismic Category I structures.
The specific percentage of critical desping values used in the seismic analysis i of Category I structures, systems, and components is based on material, stress levels, and type of connections of the particular structure or component.
These values are determined in accordance with the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.61 and those in Neumerk's work. The synthetic time history used for the seismic design of Category I structures, systems and components is adjusted in amplitude and frequency content to obtain response spectra that enveloped the response spectra specified for the site.
3.7.2 Seismic Structural System and Subsystem Analyses The review of the seismic system and subsystes analysis for the plant included g the seismic analysis methods for all Category I structures, systems, and components, in addition to procedures for modeling, seismic soil-structure interaction, development of floor response spectra, inclusion of torsional effects, evaluation of Category I structure overturning, and determination of composite damping. The review included design criteria and procedures for evaluation of interaction of non-Category I structures and piping with Category I
""Desfgn Report Spectra for Nuclear Power Plants" presented by N. B. Newmark, J. A. Blume, and K. K. Kapur, at the ASCE Structural Engineering Meeting, Sah Francisco, April 1973.
3-14
- Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569
' . August 16. 1989 Page 66 of 96 structures and piping and the effects of parameter variations on floor response spectra. The review also included criteria and seismic analysis procedures for reactor internal and Category I buried piping outside the containment.
The system and subsystem analyses were performed by the applicant on an elastic basis. Modal response spectrum multidegree of freedom and time-history methods fore th's basis for the analyses of all major Category I structures, systems and components. When the modal response spectrum method is used, governing response parameters will be combined by a method that is generally more con-servative than the square-root-of-the-sum-of-the-squares rule adopted as the staff position. However, the absolute sum of the modal response was used for modes with closely spaced frequencies. The square root of the sum of the squares of the maximum codirectional responses was used in accounting for three components of the earthquake motion for both the time history and risponse l
spectrum methods. Floor spectra input for design and test verification of structures, systems, and components wu generated from the time-history method, taking into account variation of parameters by peak widening. Peaks were broadened i 105 and connected without leaving valleys. When the peak broadening is less than i 155, the smoothing method is conservative and acceptable. A vertical seismic system #namic analysis was employed for all structures, systems, and components where analysis showed significant structural ampli-fication in the vertical direction. Torsional effects and stability against overturning were considered. The appifcant has demonstrated to the staff that the eccentricities used in the analysis of Category I structures for the evaluation of torsional effects exceed the einfaum value of i 55 recommended by the staff. The staff finds the eccentricity values considered in the design acceptable.
The lumped-mass-spring approach is used to evaluate soil-structure interaction I and structure-to-structure interaction effects and seismic responses.
For the analysis of Category I dams, a finite element approach that takes into consideration the time history of forces, the behavior and deformation of the dam caused by the earthquake, and applicable stress-strain relations is used.
The staff concludes that the seismic system and subsystem analysis procedures and criteria proposed by the applicant provide an acceptable basis for the seismic design.
3.7.3 Seismic Nechanical subsystas Analyses The review under sitP 5ection 3.7.3 included the applicant's seismic analysis of the reactor coolant system; reactor internals, core, and control rod drive J mechanisas; and seismic Category I piping systems (excluding the reactor coolant systas). Each of these areas is discussed below.
3.7.3.1 Reactor Coolant System The reactor vessel, pumps, steam generators and their supports, and the inter-connecting piping system were evaluated as a coupled system. The mathematical model provides a three-dimensional representation of the dynamic response of the coupled components to seismic excitations in both the horizontal and 1
3-15 -
4
- . Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569~ ,
August 16, 1989 '
Page 67 of 96 vertical directions. The analysis was conducted using methods of dynamic analyses employing time-history and modal response spectra techniques.
For both types of analyses, the applicant has appropriately considered the )
combination of modal responses by the rule of the square root of the sum of (
the squares. The absolute sum of the modal responses is used for modes with j closely spaced frequencies. The applicant has also considered combination of j the three spatial components of earthquake motion by the square root of the '
sum of squares, and has provided an evaluation of nultiple-supported components with distinct inputs applied at each support.
The staff concludes that the seismic analysis procedures described by the applicant for reactor coolant systems are acceptable.
3.7.3.2 Reactor Internals, Core, and Control Rod Drive Mechanism The applicant described mathematical models and analysis techniques for reactor internals, core, and control rod drive mechanism that are analogous to those ,
described for the reactor coolant systems. The input response spectra used '
are based on the acceleration of the reactor vessel supports. Also, the adequacy of the control rod drive mechanism when subjected to seismic loadings is verified by a combination of test and analysis. The seismic analysis of the reactor internals is in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.92, and system l structural damping values are in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.61.
The staff concludes that the seismic evaluation techniques and procedures described by the applicant for reactor internals, core, and control rod drive mechanism are acceptable.
3.7.3.3 Seismic Category I Piping Systems (Excluding the Reactor Coolant System)
All seismic Category I piping systems are seismically analyzed. Code Class 1 piping systems are analyzed by the model response spectra method. In the analysis of complex systems where closely spaced modal frequencies (the difference is less than 15 of the lower frequency) are encountered, the responses of the closely spaced modes are combined by the summetion of the absolute values and are then combined with the responses of the remaining significant modes by the square root of the sum of the squares method. The approach used by the applicant for modal combination provides an equivalent level of safety to that provided in Regulatory Guide 1.92. The analysis method used for Class 1 Seismic Category I equipment depends on its dynamic p characteristics. Flexible equipment, characterized by several modes in the frequency range that could produce amplification of the base input motion, was analyzed by the model analysis techniques. Rigid equipment and equipment cf limited flexibility, which are characterized by only one predominant mode in the frequency range subject to possible amplification in the input motion, are generally analyzed using the static analysis method. Class 2 and 3 piping systems are analyzed by one of three methods:
(1) the same modal response spectra method as used for Class 1 piping systems 3-16
Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569
' August 16. 1989
, Page 68 of 96 (2) an equivalent static load method (3) the simplified design method .
The app 1tcant has indicated the analysis method used for each piping system and has provided technical justification for use of the equivalent static load and simplified design methods. Both of these methods are based on static seismic analysis. The applied seismic loads correspond to accelerations equal to at least the zero period accelerations of the appropriate floor response spectra. The staff has reviewed the appifcant's procedures and concludes that the seismic evaluation methods and procedures described by the applicant for nuclear steam supply system and nonnuclear steam supply system Seismic Category I piping systems and equipment are acceptable.
3.7.4 Seismic Instrumentation Program The type, number, location, and utilization of strong-sotion accelerographs to record seismic events and to provide data on the frequency, amplitude, and phase relationship of the seismic response of the containment structure comply with Regulatory Guide 1.12. Sgporting instrumentation is being installed on Category I structures, systems, and components to provide data for the verifica-tion 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 structu.res, systems, and components constitutes an acceptable program to record data en seismic ground motion as well as data on the frequency and amplitude relationship of the response of major structures and systeme. A prompt readout of pertinent data at the control room can be expected to yield sufficient information to guide the operator on a timely be. sis for the purpose of evaluating the seismic response in the event of an earthquake. Data obtained from such installed seismic instrumentation 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 escoeded under' conditions where continuity of operation is intended. Provision of such seismic instrumentation complies with Regulatory Guide 1.12. , ,,
- 3. 8 Desion of Seismic Catemory I Structures 3.8.1 Concreta Containment -
1 The reactor coolant system is enclosed in a gteel-lined, reinforced concrete containment structure. This structure consists of a vertical cylinder and a
, hemispherical dame, and is supported on an essentially flat foundation est with a reactor cavity pit projection. The containment structure was designed ir, accordence with American Concrete Institute (ACI)/ASE Code (ACI-359) and f.egulatory Guides 1.10, 1.15, 1.18, 1.19, and 1.55. Vertous costinations of dead loads, live loads, environmental loads (including these caused by wind, tornadoes, OBE, and SSE), and loads generated by the design-basis accident >
(including pressure, temperature, and associated pipe rupture effects) were considered. The load combinations used and presented in the ESAR are more {
conservative than those specified in SRP Section 3.8.1. ~
~
, 3-17
Enclosure.1 to TXX-89569 August 16. 1989 '
Page6ggggg6 analysis of the containment shell and base is founded on Bethods pre-
.viously applied. Likewise, the liner desi p for the conta 5 ent employs methods similar to those previously accepted by the stc N.
The choice of asterials, the arrangement of anchors, the desi p cHteria, and the desip methods are similar to those evaluated for previously licensed nuclear plants. Meterials construction methods, and quality assurance and quality control osasures ar,e covered in the FSAR. In general, they are similar to those used for previously licensed facilities.
Beforetheplantbeginsoperation,thecontainmentwillbesubjectedtoan acceptance test in accordance with Aegulatory Guide 1.18. During this test, the internal pressure will be 1.15 times the containment desip pressure.
and construction of the concreta The criteriastructure containment used intothe analysis, account desip,ipated for antic loadings and postulated conditions that may be imposed on the structure during < ts service lifetime are in conformance with established criteria, codes, standards, guides, and specifications acceptable to the staff.
The use of these cHteH a (as defined by applicable codes standards, cuides and specifications); the lueds and loading codinations; he desip and analhis procedures; the structural acceptance crite H a; the materials, quality control programs, 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 occuring within and outside the containaset, the structure will withstand the specified {
desip conditions without 1spairment of structural integrity or safety functions Confoneance with these criteria constitutes an acceptable basis for satisfying, in part, the requimments of SC 2, 4,18, and 50.
3.8.2 Concrete and 5tructurel Staal Internal Structures The containment internal structures are constructed primarily of reinforced concrete and consist of the following or elements: pH anry shield mell-operating floor; refueling cavity; i er base slab mediate noors; removable slabs ared ualls; supporting polar crane; missile shie elements; and Sapports for reactor pressure vessel steen generators, reactor coolant pumps, pressurizer, and loop piping. Theeconcreteandsteelinternal structures are dost te resist various combinations of dead and live londs, and acident-i Ioeds, including pressure, jet loads, and seismic loads.
The applicant has verffted that the internal structures meet the desip require-monts stated in SRp Section 3.8.3.
)
The criteria used in the desian analysis, and construction of the containment internalstructurestoaccountforanticipatedloadingandpostulatedconditions l that any be isposed upon the structures during their service lifeties, are in !
full conformance with established criteria, and with codes, standards, and i specifications acceptable to the staff.
The use of these criteria (as defined by applicable codes, standards, and specifications); the loads and loading codinations; the desip and analysis procedures; the structural acceptance criteria; the meterials, quality control 3-18 _
,,.,__,___--_,,_,--,---,-,-----------,---''m
Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569
- August 16, 1989
, Page 70 of 96 programs, and special construction techniques; and the testing and inservice surveillance requirements provide reasonable assurance that, in the event of an earthquake and various postulated accidents occurring within the contain-ment, the interior structures will withstand the specif<ed design conditions without impairment of structural integrity or the performance of required safety fune.tions. Conformance with these criteria constitutes an acceptable
~ basis for satisfying, in part, the requirements of GDC 2 and 4.
3.8.3 Other Seismic Category I Structures The structural systems for all Category I structures except the outdoor seismic Category I tanks consist of reinforced concrete floor slabs, beams, girders, walls, columns, and raft-type foundation mats. The outdoor seismic Category I tanks are circular reinforced concrete structures, with stainless steel 'iners to provide leak tightness. Floor systems and walls are designed for vertical and lateral loads. Seismic, tornado, and other lateral loads applied to the total structure are resisted by the diaphrage action of the floors and shear walls and are transmitted to the foundation mets. Because the columns have relatively low lateral stiffness, they are not assumed'to participate in resisting these lateral loads. The tanks are designed to withstand all credible loadings and to maintain their integrity during operation.
These Category I structures were designed to resist various combinations of dead loads, live loads, environmental loads including those caused by winds, tornadoes, OBE, and $$E; thermal loads; leads generated by postulated rgtures of high-energy pipas such as reaction and jet 'apingeant forces, compartment pressure, and impact effects of whipping pipes; and Iqydre@ namic loads caused by seismic effects of the containment f utd.
The majorCode "Butiding codeRequirements used in the design of concrete for Reinforced Catege7 I structures is ACI 318-71, Concrete. For steel Category I structures, the AISC " Specification for the Design. Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel of Su11 dings" is used.
The applicant has verified that all of the other Category I structures meet the design requirements stated in SRp 3.8.4. The construction meterials and their fabrication, construction, and installation are in accordance with ACI 318-71, and the AI5C " Specification for Cencrete and Steel Structures,"
respectively. -
The applicant was requested to submit information en the use of masonry walls in Category I structures, including their location, design and analysis methods, piping, and equipment supports. In an earlier reply to futC, the applicant s stated that same masonry walls are located within Category I structures but do not support safety components. During the Structural Engineering Branch (SER) audit, however, the applicant identif<ed specific walls that may affset safety components. The applicant identified in some detail the major safety-related masonry walls within the service water intake structure and the auxiliary building, and stated that safety-related masonry blocks are used as access blockouts, as required. The applicant has committed that the major masonry walls wC1 either be designed in conformance with "$EB Interim Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry ifall Evaluation," or seismically designed walls of other materials will be constructed in their places. In addition, all masonry l
3-19 -
1
. . Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569 4 August 16. 1989 .
Page 71 of 96 access blockouts will be supported by seismically designed steel supports to prevent the collapse of the blocks. The staff agrees with the proposed design considerations. The details of the final designs will be submitted for staff review and acceptance before operation of the plant. With the understanding the applicant will not change the current commitments, the staff considers this item resolved.
The use of these criteria as defined by appitcable codes, standards, and specifications; the loads and loading combinations; the design and analysis procedures; the structural acceptance criteria; the meterial, 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 eccidents occurring within the structures, the structures will withstand the specified design conditions without impaiment of structural integrity or the performance of required safety functions.
Conformance with tasse criteria co an acceptable basis for satisfylng,indes,part,specifications, and the requiressats standards of GDC 2 and constitutes 4.
3.8.4 Foundations Foundations of Category I structures are described in Section 3.8.N of the FSAR. The foundation est for the containment and internal structav is essentially a flat est approxiestely 12 ft thick, with a reacter cavity pit projection. The foundation met is covered with a steel liner that is an integral part of the containment liner systas, which is covered with a 30-in.-thick interior base slab. The foundations for other seismic Category I structures are generally flat slabs that vary in thickness free approximately 3 to 6 ft, depending on the requirement for shear and bending assent. Reinforcing steel is provided in two mutually pe nsndicular directions, at both the top and bottes faces. Shear reinforcement is provided uhere required by the provisions of ACI 314-71, the principal code used in the design of these concrete foundations.
These concreta foundations are designed to. resist various loads and load coahinations stated for each pertinent structure in Sections 3.8.1, 3.8.3, and 3.8.4 of the FSAR. In addition, the applicant has considered in the design of the foundations the effects of overturning, sliding and floatation, and has ;
adopted the minimum safety facters stated in SRp 3.8.5. j The design and analysis pre'cedures used for Category I foundations are the same as those approved on previously licensed facilities and in ral, areinaccordancewithpreceduresdelineatedintheACI318-h . The asterials of construction their fabrication, construction, and installation areinaccordancewithACI318-71..
j~
- The criteria used in the analysis, design, and construction of all Category I foundations to account for anticipated oedings and postulated conditions that may be imposed upon each foundation during its service lifetime are in confor-mance with established criteria, codes, standards, and specifications acceptable to the staff.
The use of these criteria as defined by applicable codes, standards, and specifications; the loads and loading combinations; the design and analysis procedures; the structural acceptance critaria; the materials, quality con-trol, and special construction techniques; and the testing and inservice
. 3-20 ,'
l
- .- Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569 'l
. August 16. 1989 Page 72 of 96 i
i surveillance requirements provide reasonat le assurance that, in the event of winds, tornadoes, earthquakes, and varic;. postulated events, Category I i foundations will withstand the specified design conditions without tapairment j 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 GDC 2 and 4.
'3.9 Mechanical Systems and C m nents The review performed under SRP Sections 3.9.1 through 3.9.6 pertains to the i
{
structural integrity and operability of various safety-related mechanical l components in the plant. The staff review is not limited to ASME Code com-ponents and supports, but extends to other components such as control rod drive mechanisms, certain reactor internals, ventilation ducting, cable trays, and any safety-related piping designed to industry standards other than the ASME Code.
l 3.9.1 Special Topics for Mechanical Components The review performed under SRP Section 3.9.1 pertains to the design transients,
- computer programs, experimental stress analysis, and elastic plastic analysis methods that were used in the analysis of seismic Category 1 ASE Code and non-Code items. The appiteant has provided a complete list of transients to be used in the design and fatigue analysis of all Code Class 1 and CS components and of component supports and reactor internals within the reactor coolant pressure boundary. The number of events postulated for each transient has been included and is acceptable..
l The applicant has listed the computer program used in the dynamic and static analysis to determine the structural and functional integrity of seismic Category 1 Code and non-Code items. Verification of one of these programs, WECAN, is described in topical report WCAP-8929 "Senchnerk Problem Solutions l:
Employed for Verification of WECAN Computer Program." The staff is currently reviewing this topical report and will present the results of its evaluation in a supplement to this SER.
The methods of analysis that the applicant has employed in the design of all seismic Category I ASE Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components, component supports, reactor internals, and other non-Code items are in conformance with SRP Section 3.9.1 and satisfy the applicable portions of GDC 2, 4,14, and 15.
l a
The use of these criteria in defining the applicable transients, computer codes used in analyses, and analytical methods provides reasonable assurance ,
j j that the stresses, strains, and displacements calculated for the above items j are as accurate as the current state of the art permits and are adequate for the design of these items.
3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis The review performed under SRP Section 3.9.2 pertains to the criteria, testing procedures, and dynamic analyses employed by the applicant to ensure the structural integrity and operability of piping systems, mechanical equipment, 3-21
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a
Enclosura 1-to'TXX-89569-L /ugust 16, 1989
- 1. : e -- Page 73 of:96' 3.7 Seismic Desian 3.7.2 Seismic Structural System and Subsystem Analyses
- 6. Deletes the power density function as a method which may be used to specify the input motion for seismic testing of equipment.
- 7. Corrects statement describing structural failure of the Turbine Building in the direction of the adjacent Seismic Category I building.
3.7.3 Seismic Mechanical Subsystem Analyses
- 11. Revises text to clarify how the horizontal and vertical accelerations have been combined.
3.8 Desian of Seismic Catecory I Structures 3.8.1 Concrete Containment
- 19. Section 3.8.1.3.1 changes the lower limits of normal operating temperatures inside and outside of containment from (inside) "60F" to "50F" and from (outside) "0F" to "20F".
- 20. Corrects response (Question 130.28) to address design changes prior to the Corrective Action Program.
3.8.2 Concrete and Structural Steel Internal Structures
- 9. Corrects response (Questions 130,25 and 130.28) to address design changes prior to the Corrective Action Program.
3.8.3 Other Seismic Catecory I Structures
- 7. Clarifies the discussion on the seismic analysis of the Category I tanks.
- 8. Clarifies that PCI criteria applies only for the Fuel Building crane corbel supports at elevation 831.
- 9. Corrects response (Questions 130.25 and 130.28) to address design changes prior to the Corrective Action Program, i
1 J y1 (nclosure:1-to-TXX-89569 August 16,-1989
- 1 'Page 74 of 96-3.7 Seismic Desian 3.7.2 Seismic Structural System and Subsystem Analyses
- 6. Deletes the power density-function as a method which may be used to'specify the input motion for seismic testing of equipment.
3.75-14 2 Deletes the power density function as a method which may be used to specify the input motion for seismic testing of equipment.
Correction:
The power density function has not been used at CPSES.
FSAR section 3.78.2.1.3 will be revised to delete the reference to the power density function.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-568.4 Related SER Section: 3.7.2 SER/SSER Impact: No I.
_ .___.._m_ _ _
i I
- Enclosura 1 to TXX-89569 Iugust 16, 1989 CPSES/FSAR
- Page 75 of 96 . .
- 1. Seismic testing for equipment operability conforms to the following:
- a. A test required to confirm the functional operability of q seismic Category I electrical and mechanical equipment and instrumentation during and after an earthquake of magnitude up to and including the SSE is performed. Analysis without testing may be performed only if structural integrity alone can ensure the design intended function. When a complete seismic testing is impracticable, a combination of test and analysis is performed.
- b. The characteristics of the required input motion are specified by one of the following:
- 1) Response spectrum ZJ Pdddf spdiffd7 dddsfff fdddffdd 2 3) Time history Such characteristics, as derived from the structures or systems seismic analysis, are representative of the input motion at the equipment mounting locations.
- c. Where practicable, equipment which is required to function ,
during and/or after an earthquake is tested in the operational condition. Operability is verified during and/or after the testing.
- d. The actual input motion is characterized in the same manner as the required input motion and the conservatism in amplitude and frequency content is demonstrated. The frequency spectrum covers the range from 1 through 33 Hz.
Bold /0verstrike 3.78-14 -
Version
- Enclosuro 1 to TXX-89569-Iugust.160 1989
_Page 76~of 96-3.7 Seismic Desion 1
3.7.2 Seismic Structural System and Subsystem Analyses
- 7. Corrects statement describing structural failure of the Turbine Building in the direction of the adjacent Seismic
, Category I building.
~3.7B-42 2 Corrects statement describing structural failure of the Turbine Building in the direction of the adjecent Seismic Category I building.
. Correction:
The bracing by itself will not prevent structural fail-ure in the direction of the Seismic Category I build-ing. The Turbine Building will bear against the tur-bine pedestal after the frame has translated horizon-tally sufficiently to close the surrounding one-inch-gap (note: gap is filled with a compressible material).
The combination of the horizontal bracing internal to the steel frame and the bearing of the mezzanine and operating floor slabs on the turbine generator pedestal will resist collapse of the frame.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-568.8 Related SER Section: 3.7.2 SER/SSER Impact: No
Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569 CPSES/FSAR dugust 16, 1989
- Page 77 Pf7062.8 Interaction of Non-Cateoory 1 Structures with Seismic Cateaory I Structures A number of structures such as the Turbine Building, the Switchgear Buildings, the Circulating Water Intake and Discharge Structures, the Maintenance Building, and the Administration Building are designated as non-Category I.
The only non-Cotegory I structures which are adjace.nt to any seismic Category I structure are the Turbine Building and the Switchgear Buildings. These structures do not share a common sat with the adjacent seismic Category I structure, and all structures are founded on firm rock. Therefore, there is no possible interaction of non-Category I structures with seismic Category I structures resulting from seismic motion. Sufficient space is provided between the Turbine and Switchgear Buildings and the adjacent seismic Category I structure so as to prevent contact because of deformations occurring in the structures duritto a seismic event.
The possibility of structural failure during a seismic event is considered for the Turbine Building. Structural failure in the 69 direction of the adjacent seismic Category I structure is prevented by the combination of the horizontal bracing internal to the steel frame and the bearing of the mezzanine and operating floor slabs on the concrete turbine senareter pedestal ididtddl 5fddidd. The Switchgear Buildings are design to withstand a seismic event equal to the SSE, Non-Category I equipment and components located in seismic Category I 54 buildings are investigated by analysis or testing, or both, to ensure 1
that under the prescribed earthquake loading, structural integrity is maintained, or the non Category I equipment and components do not adversely affect the integrity or operability, or both, of any l l
Bold /0verstrike 3.7B-44 42 Version
" Enclosure'l to TXX-89569 August:16. 1989 _]
. Page 78 of 96 {
3.7- Seismic Desian 3.7.3 Seismic Mechanical Subsystem Analyses
- 11. Revises text to clarify how the horizontal and vertical
-accelerations have been combined.
3-.7B-60 2 Revises text to clarify how the horizontal and vertical accelerations have been combined.
Correction:
'The discussion in this section did not adequately add-ress the subject of the section heading. This change contains no new technical information. The added text is similar to the discussions presented in sections 3.78.3.6 and 3.78.3.7.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-568.11 Related SER Section: 3.7.3.3 SER/SSER Impact: No L _ _ _-_- -
6 EnclosurG 1 to TXX-89569 CPSES/FSAR
' August 16, 1989 Page 79 Q 6all of the points of fixity are located on a single structure, 20 the rigid body motions of the structure, translation and rotation. do not result in relative motion of the points of fixity. Since the third category of displacement, deformation of the structure, represents a small portion of the total displacement profile, the effects of this displacemeist on the points of fixity are neglected.
For piping parsing between buildings or equipment mounted on individual structures or foundations (such as big tanks), the relative displacement of support points locattd in different structures is considered in piping stress analysis.
Maximum relative displacements in two horizontal and the vertical 20 direction between piping supports and anchor points between buildings are used as equivalent static displacement boundary conditions in order to calculate the secondary stresses of the piping system.
Relative seismic displacements used are obtained from a dynamic analysis of the structures, and are always considered to be out-of-phase between different buildings and the equipment if applicable to obtain the most conservative piping responses.
66 3.78.3.8.2 Basis for Computing Combined Responses For the seismic design of piping, the horizontal and vertical loadings 61 are obtained from the instructure response spectra that have been generated for the appropriate structures and elevations as outlined in Subsection 3.78.2.1.1, and References [30), [31), and [36).
The combined effect of the three camponents of earthquake motion en the seismic design of piping is determined by the SR$$ method (section 3.75.2.5). The maximum sedal responses are cambined by the methods of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.91, Revisten 1. The methods presented in Regulatory Guide paragraphs 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.2.1 or 1.2.3 are acceptable methods for vender qualification.
3.78 4 @ Bold /0<erstrike Version L
4 Enc 1csure l'to TXX-89569 August 16. 1989 La- Page 80 of 96 !
x ,
-3.8 Desion of Seismic Cateaory 1' Structures 3.8.1 Concrete Containment
- 19. Section 3.8.1.3.1 changes the lower limits of normal operating temperatures inside and outside of containment from (inside) "60F" to'"50F" and from (outside) "0F" to "20F".
3.8-29 2 Jection 3.8.1.3.1 changes tne lower limits of normal operating temperatures inside and outside of containment from (inside) "60F" to "50F" and from (outside) "0F" to "20F".
Revision:
As a result of design validation activities the temperature limits were revised.
FSAR Change Request Number: 88-935 Related SER Section: 3.8.1 SER/SSER Impact: No i
I Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569 CPSES/FSAR L August 160 1989 L
Page 81 p,f8.
5@.3 Loads and Load Combinations 3.8.1.3.1 Loads The following loads are considered in the design of the steel-lined, reinforced concrete Containment structure (essentially in accordance with the ASME-ACI 359 document):
- 1. D - dead load of the Containment, and all superimposed perhanent loads
- 2. L - live loads, comprising conventional floor and roof live loads, movable equipment loads, cables, and lateral soil pressure
- 3. Pa - Containment pressure load due to the DBA, at 50 psig
- 4. T - thermal effects
- a. To - thermal loads during normal operating conditions, including liner expansion and temperature gradients in the wall
- 1) Normal operating temperature range inside the Containment is 50 SpoF to 1200F.
- 2) Ambient temperature range at the outside face of the j Containment wall is 20 00F to 1100F.
' Ta - added thermal loads (over and above operating thermal b.
loads), exerted by the liner, which may occur during an accident end which correspond to the factored accident pressure (i.e., 1.0 Pa, 1.25 Pa, or 1.5 Pa); the accident temperature causes an almost instantaneous increase in the liner temperature, with little initial 3.8~29
> ' Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569 August 16, 1989
.. Page 32 of 96 3.8 Desion of Seismic Cateoory I Structures 3.8.1 Concrete Containment
- 20. Corrects response (Question 130.28) to address design changes prior to the Corrective Action Program.
O&R 130-30 2 Corrects response (Question 130.28) to address how the design at CPSES was validated.
Correction:
In response to previous questions, some design require-ments were changed to agree with the additional re-quirements in the SRP (NUREG-75-067). Changes that may have resulted from this change in criteria would have been implemented prior to the Corrective Action Program (GAP). Therefore the identification of any changes that may have resulted prior to the CAP are not pertin-ent at this time.
The Corrective Action Program for the civil / structural area was implemented to validate the structural design of the Category I structures at CPSES. The methodology and results of this validation effort are described in the Civil Structural Project Status Report (PSR).
Supplement 17 to the Safet) Evaluation Report (NUREG-0797) contains the NRC's evaluation of the CAP related to the civil / structural discipline.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89 570.5 Related SER Section: 3.8.1 SER/SSER Impact: No i
-Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569 CPSES/FSAR iugust 16, 1989 Page 83 TI N.28 In your answers to 0130.15 El 16, 18. and 25. you stated how you considered the design and acceptance criteria identified in ACI-359 and SRP 3.8.1. 3.8.3. and 3.8.4.
to validate the actual structural design of the Category I structures of the Comanche Peak NPP. In your conclusions, you stated that the actual design meets the !
requirements of ACI-359 and SRP 3.8.1., 3.8.3.. and i 3.8.4. Provide a detailed description of the specific controlling sections and components investigated in your reevaluation. including pertinent sketches and results.
R130.28 In response te question AEC 3.6 of the PSAR (which was originally based on the AS E -ACI-359) and guestions 130.15, 130.16, and 136.18 of the FSAR, same design requirements were changed to agree with the addittenal g requirements in the SRP (NORES-75-087). The above question requested the identification of how these additional requirements affected the final design of f
Containment and other structures. Changes that may have resulted from this change in criteria would have been j implemented prier to the Corrective Action Program (CAP). Therefore, the identification of asty changes that may have resalted prior to the <AP are not pertinent at this time.
The Corrective Action Program for the civil / structural area was implemented te validate the structural design
,I i
of the Category 1 structures at CPSES. The design of 68
'g Seismic Category I structures conformed to the loading combinations which are specified by U.S. NRC Standard Review Plans 3.8.1. 3.8.3 and 3.8.4 (NOREG-75-087).
b Q(E * ~{'HI6 r The methodology and results of this validation effort s PA/M MAPM are describen in the Civil / Structural Project Status I
$4)ptD EE Report (PSR). Supplement 17 to the Safety Evaluation g gjg Report (NUREG-0797) contains the NRC's evaluation of the q CAP related to the civil / structural discipline. l
. i 130-J1
Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569 August 16, 1989 Tag 2 84 of 96 3.8 Desion of Seismic Catecory I Structures 3.8.2 Concrete and Structural Steel Internal Structures
- 9. Corrects response (Questions 130.25 and 130.28)-to address design changes prior to the Corrective Action Program.
O&R 130-25, 26 2 Corrects response (Question 130,25) to. address the issue of physical changes which may have resulted from the change in design criteria.
Correction:
In response to previous questions, some design require-ments were changed to agree with the additional requirements in the SRP (NUREG-75-087). Changes that may have resulted from this change in criteria would have been implemented prior to the Corrective Action Program (CAP). Therefore the identification of any changes that may have resulted prior to the CAP are not pertinent at this time. The CAP was implemented to validate the design and hardware at CPSES. Modifica-tions to the design and hardware were implemented as required. The methodology and results of this valida-tion effort are described in the Civil Structural Project Status Report (PSR).
Supplement 17 to the Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0797) contains the NRC's evaluation of the CAP related to the civil / structural discipline.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-570.3 Related SER Section: 3.8.2 SER/SSER Impact: No O&R 130-30 2 Corrects response (Duestion 130.28) to address how the design at CPSES was validated.
Correction:
In response to previous questions, some design require-ments were changed to agree with the additional re-quirements in the SRP (NUREG-75-087). Changes that may have resulted from this c.hange in criteria would have been implemented prior to the Corrective Action Program (CAP). Therefore the identification of any changes a
that may have resulted prior to the CAP are not pertin-ent at this time.
The Corrective Action Program for the civil / structural area was implemented to validate the structural design of the Category I structures at CPSES. The methodology and results of this validation effort are described in the Civil Structural Project Status Report (PSR).
Supplement 17 tc the Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0797) contains the NRC's evaluation of the CAP related to the civil / structural discipline.
l FSAR Change Request Number: 89-570.5 Related SER Section: 3.8.1 SER/SSER Impact: No
CPSES/FSAR -
~-
- Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569 August IGJ3Dass In your answers to 0130.15 5. 0130.16 and 0130.18. you Page 85 of 96 changed the load combinations for the Containment Building to agree with the requiren,ents of ACI 359 Code (1973) with certain exceptions as identified in the applicable sections of SRP 3.8.1. For the internal structures and for other Category I structures, you stated compliance with the respective requirements identified in SRP 3.8.3. and 3.8.4. In view of these changes, identify in detail how these changes in the design criteria have affected the final design of the Containment and other structures. if any. Specifically, state if they have resulted in any changes in the physical sizes of the structural components, rebar placessent, properties, design stress levels, etc...
R130.25 In response ts gestion AEC 3.5 of the PSAR (which was originally based on the ASIE-ACI-359) and gu*astions 130.15. 130.15. and 130.14 of the FSAR. same design requirements were changed to agree with the additional requirements in the SRP (NORES-75-087). The above question requested the identification of how these additional requirements affected the final design of Containment and othere structures. Changes that may have resulted from this change in criteria umuld have been implemented prior to the Corrective Action Program (CAP). Traerefore, the identification of any changes that may beve resulted prior to the CAP are not pertinent at this time.
The Corrective Action Program for the civil / structural
, ar?e was implemented te validate the design and hardware at CPSES. The various Seismic Category I structures 68 were designed to conform to the loading combinations and their related acceptance criteria which are specified by U.S. NRC Standard Review Plans 3.8.3 and 3.8.4 (NUREG-75-087). 68
. 130- g 25 L_--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - -
Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569 CPSES/FSAR August 16, 1989
. . Page 86 of 96 Nedifications to the design and hardmore have been taplemented as required. The Civil / Structural Prsject Status Report (PSR) describes the methods used te validate the safety-related hardware. Supplement 17 to the Safety Evaluation Report (NOREG-0797) contains the NRC's evaluation of the CAP related to the civil / structural discipline.
l l
i 130[g6
' ~
Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569
' August 16. 1989 CPSES/FSAR
. Page 87 of 96 0130.28 In your answers to 0130.15 El 16, 18 and 25, you stated how you considered the design and acceptance criteria identified in ACI-359 and SRP 3.8.1., 3.8.3. and 3.8.4. ,
to validate the actual structural design of the Category I structures of the Comanche Peak NPP. In your conclusions, you stated that the actual design meets the requirements of ACI-359 and SRP 3.8.1., 3.8.3., and 3.8.4. Provide a detailed description of the specific controlling sections and components investigated in your reevaluation, including pertinent sketches and results.
R130.28 In response to geestion AEC 3.6 ef the PSAR (which was originally based on the ASIE-ACI-35g) and guestions ;
130.15, 130.16..and 130.18 ef the FSAR. same design )
requirements were changed to agree with the additional I l
requirements in the SRP (NWRES-75-087). The above question requested the identification of how these additional requirements affected the final design of Containment and other structures. Changes that may have resulted from this change in criteria would have been implemented prior to the Corrective Action Program (CAP). Therefore, the identification of any changes ]
that may have resulted prior to the CAP are not pertinent at this time.
The Corrective Action Program for the civil / structural l area was taplemented te validate the structural design of the Category I structures at CPSES. The design of 68 Scismic Category I structures conformed to the loading combinations which are specified by U.S. NRC Standard Review Plans 3.8.1. , 3.8.3 and 3.8.4 (IMHtEE-75-087).
kOf& TNd r i The methodology and results of this validation effort i PARn&tAPN ",
are described in the Civil / Structural Project Status
$4004.D EE Report (PSR). Supplement 17 to the Safety Evaluation g gj?g Report (NUREG-0797) contains the NRC's evaluation of the y CAP related to the civil / structural discipline.
l 130-J13D
'l
i .Enclosuro 1 to TXX-89569 August 16, 1989
.. Page 88 of 96 1 3.8 Desian of Seismic Catecory I Structures 1 3.8.3 Other Seismic Cateoory I Structures
'7. Clarifies the discussion on the seismic. analysis of the Category I tanks.
l l
i l \
l' l 3.8-111, 112 2 Clarifies the discussion on the seismic analysis of the l Category I tanks.
Correction:
l Provides additional description of the Category I tanks' geometry and the method used to address hydrody-namic loads due to seismic excitations.
I FSAR Change Request Number: 89-569.3 l Related SER Section: 3.8.3 l SER/SSER Impact: No l
l l
\
l l
l l
4 I
i
'
- i Enclosure I to TXX-89569 CPSES/FSAR August 16, 1989 Page 89 g,f8 9f.1.5 Drawings For various details of other seismic Category I strh:tures, see i Figures 3.8-1 through 3.8-4 and Figure 3.8-16.
3.8.4.1.6 Outdoor Seismic Category I Tanks (Refueling Water Storage. Condensate Storage, and Reactor Makeup Water Storage) k 68 The outdoor seismic Category I tanks are reinforced concrete structures, cylindrical in shape, with stainless steel liners to provide leaktightness and prevent absorption of radioactive material by the concrete (Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) only). The RWST is provided with a concrete trough external to the tank to collect incidental leakage.
REFUELING MATER STORAGE AND CONDENSATE STORAGE TANKS:
Outside diameter of wall 50'-0" Outside diameter of mat 53'-0" Concrete wall thickness Z'-6" Concreta met thickness 5'-0" Concrete roof thickness l'-9" Total height 54'-6" REACTOR MAKE UP MATER STORA&E TANK Outside diameter of wall 30'-0" Outside diameter of met 33'-0*
Concrete well thickness 2'-6" Concrete sat thickness 4*-0" Concrete roof thickness 1*-9" Total hefeht 39'-6" The tanks are designed to withstand all credible loadings and to maintain their integrity during operation. These lo4 dings include both normal operating loads such as structure weight, hydrostatic pressure of the contained fluid, live loads on the roof, thermal loads Bold /0verstrike 3.8-14f Version ///
1 Enclosuro 1 to TXX-89569 CPSES/FSAR i August 16. 1989 i
. Page 90 %T d gqpvironmental loads such as the 1/2 SSE, SSE, normal wind and 68 j tornados (wind, differential pressure and missiles), and hydrodynamic forces caused by seismic effects on the contained fluid in accordance with methods as shown in Reference 21.
1 The load combinations given in Subsection 3.8.4.3 are used for the design of the structures, using design methods and strength requirements in accordance with ACI 318-71. Flexural tensile cracking is permitted but is controlled by reinforcing steel. A minimum of 0.25 percent reinforcing steel is provided in the tank walls in both directions. vertical and hoop.
l l
l l
l l
l l
3.8,LFY Bold /0verstriks
// 2" Version
~
I Enclosurs 1 to TXX-89569 1
' August 16, 1989
- Page 91 of 96-I 3.8 Desion of Seismic Cateoorv I Structures '
.3.8.3 Other seismic Cateoory I Structures
- 8. Clarifies that PCI criteria applies only for the Fuel Building crane corbol supports at elevation 831.
3.8-124 2 Clarifies that PCI criteria applies only for the Fuel Building crane corbel supports at elevation 831.
Correction:
The FSAR was amended to allow the PCI 1978 criteria for the design of corbels, because the ACI 318-71 criteria does not provide specific guidance on choosing a mini-num effective d distance. The ACI only provides the method to determine the maximum d distance. The corbel affected by this change supports the crane rail in the Fuel Building at elevation 831. The corbel also meets the ACI minimum reinforcement requirements when the d distance based on strength requirements is used. Based on strength this corbel design meets both the ACI 318-71 and PCI 1978 criteria. The corbel meets the PCI criteria (but not ACI) for minimum reinforcem6nt based on gross cross-section dimensions.
ACI 318-71 Section 11.14.1 requires that the maximum effective d distance not exceed "twice the depth of the corbel or bracket at the outside edge of the bearing area." However, no limit is specified on the minimum effective d distance.
FSAR Change Request Number: 89-569.5 Related SER Section: 3.8.3 SER/SSER Impact: Yes The SER makes the statement that ACI 318-71 is the major design code. The PCI could be referenced as the code for the subject case. However, the SER would not be incorrect if left as is, since the word " major" i implies there may be exceptions to the ACI Code.
Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569 CPSES/FSAR l August 16, 1989 l-Page 92 g( fffety is provided by ACI 318-71 in that the calculated ultimate capacity of the member is reduced by a capacity reduction factor, as indicated in Subsection 3.8.3.5.2.
I t.
The magnitude of the load factors applied to each type of load varies, depending on the factors discussed in Subsection 3.8.3.5.2.
3.8.4.5.3 Missile Load and Pipe Break Criteria at Local Areas I
For local areas subjected to loads, such as missiles, and to forces caused by pipe rupture, localized yielding is permitted when the deflections or deformations of the structures and supports are within the (ductility) limits (Section 3.5.3.2) necessary to ensure that functional requirements are not impaired.
3.8.4.5.4 Bracket or Corbel Criteria at Local Areas 68 The fuel building crane corbel supports at elevation 831 are designed in accordance with the PCI Design Handbook Second Edition 1978. Fdt l 68 1did1 itidi idEldttid td 1diddl istK di Etittiti di id/dili ditK iMidt i frittiddt ddiidd df td/Edli Edidd dd Pil Eddidd MdddWddK 3diddd .
Editi6d 1978 it $dtdittid 4 Kid TKd Edddi dd tKd id$$dtti df itfdttitit /
dfd ditnid tNd 11diti dildidiff id ddisti tMit fdditiddd1 tidiffddditt ;
did Adt istittidt 3.8.4.6 Materials. Quality Control. and Soecial Construction Technioues The materials and OC procedures used in the construction of other seismic Category I structures are as discussed in Subsection 3.8.3.6.
No special construction techniques are required for these structures.
3.8.4.7 Testino and Inservice Insoection Requirements With the exception of the stainless steel liners for the spent fuel pool and the outdoor seismic Category I tanks, no special testing of the completed structure or inservice inspection is required for
- 3. 8-J25 Bold /0verstrike
/84 Version
Enclosuro 1 to-TXX-89569-August 16, 1989 Pag 2 93 cf 96 I
3.8 Desien of Seismic Cateaory I Structures 3.8.3 Other Seismic Cateaory I Structures
- 9. Corrects response (Questions 130.25 and 130.28) to address design changes prior to the Corrective Action Program.
O&R 130-25, 26 2 Corrects response (Question 130.25) to address the issue of physical changes which may have resulted from the change in design criteria.
Correction:
In response to previous questions, some. design require-ments were changed to agree with the additional requirements in the SRP (NUREG-75-087). Changes that may have resulted from this change in criteria would have been implemented prior to the Corrective Action Program (CAP). Therefore the identification of any changes that may have resulted prior to the CAP are not pertinent at this time. The CAP was implemented to validate the design and hardware at CPSES. Modifica-tions to the design and hardware were implemented as required. The methodology and results of this valida-tion effort are described in the Civil Structural Project Status Report (PSR).
Supplement 17 to the Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0797) contains the NRC's evaluation of the CAP related to the civil / structural discipline.
FSAR Change Request Number: 99-570.3 Related SER Section: 3.8.1 SER/SSER Impact: he O&R 130-30 2 Corrects response (Question 130.28) to address how the design at CPSES was validated.
Correction:
In response to previous questions, some design require-ments were changed to agree with the additional re-quirements in the SRP (NUREG 75-087). Changes that may have resulted from this change in criteria would have been implemented prior to the Corrective Action Program (CAP). Therefore the identification of any changes that may have resulted prior to the CAP are not pertin-ent at this time.
The Corrective Action Program for the civil / structural area was implemented to validate the structural design of the Category I structures at CPSES. The methodology and results of this validation effort are described in the Civil Structural Project Status Report (PSR).
Supplement 17 to the Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG- l 0797) contains the NRC's evaluation of the CAP related I to the civil / structural discipline. l FSAR Change Request Number: 89-570.5 Related SER Section: 3.8.1 SER/SSER Impact: No -
l
^
Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569 CPSES/FSAR f
'ugust 16c 1989 A
, Page 94 QM30453 in your ansvers to 0130.15 5. 0130.16 and 0130.18. you i changed the load combinations for the Containment Building to agree with the requirements of ACI 359 Code (1973) with certain exceptions as identified in the applicable sections of SRP 3.8.1. For the internal structures and for other Category I structures, you stated compliance with the respective requirements l identified in SRP 3.8.3. and 3.8.4. In view of these changes, identify in detail how these changes in the design criteria have affected the final design of the Containment and other structures, if any. Specifically, state if they have resulted in any changes in the physical sizes of the structural components, rebar placement, properties, design stress levels, etc...
R130.25 In response to questian AEC 3.6 of the PSAR (which was originally based on the ASNE-ACI-359) and guestions 130.15, 130.16, and 130.18 of the FSAR, same design requirements were changed to agree with the additional requirements in the SRP (IMMtES-75-087). The above question requested the identification of how these additional requirements affected the final design of Containment and other structures. Changes that may have resulted from this change in criteria would have been irdlemented prior to the Corrective Action Program (CAP). Therefore, the identification of any changes that may have resulted prior to the CAP are not pertinent at this time.
The Corrective Action Program for the civil / structural area was implemented te validate the design and hardware I at CPSES. The various Seismic Category I structures 68 were designed to conform to the loading combinations and their related acceptance criteria which are specified by U.S. MRC Standard Review Plans 3.8.3. and 3.8.4 (NUREG-75-087). 68 4 130- # 2 5 1
Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569 CPSES/FSAR
%ugust 16,1989 4
Page 95 of 96 Modifications to the design and hardware have been implemented as required. The Civil / Structural Project Status Report (PSR) describes the methods used to validate the safety-related harduare. Supplement 17 to the Safety Evaluation Report (INNIEG-0797) contains the NRC's evaluation of the CAP related to the civil / structural discipline.
I
\
t 130- # g g j
Enclosure 1 to TXX-89569
?.ugust 16. 1989 CPSES/FSAR o ~Page 96 of 96 0130.28 In your answers to 0130.15 Il 16, 18 and 25, you stated how you considered the design and acceptance criteria identified in ACI 359 and SRP 3.8.1., 3.8.3. and 3.8.4.
to validate the actual structural design of the Category I structures of the Comanche Peak NPP. In your conclusions, you stated shat the actual design meets the requirements of ACI-359 and SRP 3.8.1., 3.8.3., and 3.8.4. Provide a detailed description of the specific controlling sections and components investigated in your reevaluation, including pertinent sketches and results.
R130.28 In response to question AEC 3.6 of the PSAR (which was originally based on the ASNE-ACI-359) and guestions 130.15, 130.16, and 130.18 of the FSAR, some design requirements were changed to agree with the meditional requirements in the SRP (NOREG-75-087). The above question requested the identification of how these additional requirements affected the final design of Centsimment and other structures. Changes that may have resulted from this change in criteria would have been tuplemented prior to the Corrective Action Program (CAP). Therefore, the identificatten of any changes that may have resulted prior to the CAP are not pertinent at this time. ,
The Corrective Action Program for the civil / structural area was implemented te validate the structural design of the Category I structures at CPSES. The design of 68 ,
Setssic Category I structures conformed to the loading combinations which are specified by U.S. NRC Standard Review Plans 3.8.1., 3.8.3 and 3.8.4 (NUREG-75-087).
b OfE' DlI6 r The methodology and results of this validation effort PA/in MAPM are described in the Civil / Structural Pro.iect Status gjoptD EE 4 Report (PSR), Supplement 17 to the Safety Evaluation i D gj75 Report (NUREG-0797) contains the NRC's evaluation of the y CAP related to the civil / structural discipline.
130-J1 30 J