NUREG-0825, Forwards Requests for Addl Info on NUREG-0825,Sections 4.5, Wind & Tornado Loadings, 4.8, Tornado Missiles & 4.11, Seismic Design Considerations, Per 860520-22 Meetings: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
#REDIRECT [[NUREG-0825, Safety Evaluation Supporting Util 840709,1231 & 851024 Repts Re Evaluation of Plant for Wind & Tornado Events as Requested in Integrated Plant Safety Assessment Rept, Sections 4.5 & 4.8.Risk from Wind/Tornado Events Assessed]]
| number = ML20211D432
| issue date = 06/06/1986
| title = Forwards Requests for Addl Info on NUREG-0825,Sections 4.5, Wind & Tornado Loadings, 4.8, Tornado Missiles & 4.11, Seismic Design Considerations, Per 860520-22 Meetings
| author name = Mckenna E
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR)
| addressee name = Papanic G
| addressee affiliation = YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO.
| docket = 05000029
| license number =
| contact person =
| case reference number = RTR-NUREG-0825, RTR-NUREG-825
| document report number = NUDOCS 8606120940
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, NRC TO UTILITY, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
| page count = 20
}}
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:,
JUN 0 0 W pd Mr. George Papanic, Jr.
Senior Project Engineer - Licensing Yankee Atomic Electric Company 1671 Worcester Road Framingham, Massachusetts 01701
 
==Dear Mr. Papanic:==
 
==SUBJECT:==
YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION - NUREG-0825 SECTIONS 4.5 WIND AND TORNAD0 LOADINGS, 4.8 TORNADO MISSILES AND 4.11 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS By letters dated March 14, 1986 and April 17, 1986, the staff sent requests for additional information relating to the above issues. to this letter provides further questions relating to the seismic reevaluation criteria and to the block wall seismic evaluation. The numbering system for these questions corresponds to the summary reports generated as part of the review meetings of February 24-26, 1986 (April 28, 1986 Meeting Summary)
April 8-11, 1986 and May 20-22, 1986. provides questions on soil bearing capacity based on our review of your May 5, 1986 submittal. Enclosure 3 lists questions on wind and tornado analysis of block walls. Enclosure 4 provides staff questions concerning the tornado missile evaluation using the NBS report NBSIR 76-1050. Staff review of your assessment based on the EPRI approach is continuing; any questions resulting from this review will be transmitted separately.
The above issues were discussed during meetings at your offices on May 20-22, 1986. At that meeting, you agreed to respond in writing to these questions.
It is also our understanding that responses to most of the questions in  will be provided in Volume 3 of the Summary Report, which will be attached to the meeting summary for the May 20-22, 1986 meeting. The remaining responses will be transmitted to the staff separately.
This information request affects fewer than ten respondents and, therefore, an OMB clearance is not required in accordance with P. L. 96-511.
Sincerely, 6120940 860606                          /s/
p      ADOCK 05000029                      Eileen McKenna PDN                    PWR Project Directorate #1 Division of PWR Licensing - A
 
==Enclosures:==
 
As Stated cc w/ encl:
See Next Page
*SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE PD#1:DPL-A            PD#1:DPL-A      PD#1:DPL-PShuttlewor h: t      *EMcKenna        Glear
%///86                05/30/86        $/h/86
 
Mr. George Papanic, Jr.
Yankee Atomic Electric Company              Yankee Nuclear Power Station cc:
Mr. James E. Tribble, President Yankee Atomic Electric Company 1671 Worcester Road Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 Thomas Dignan, Esquire                      .
Ropes and Gray                                                        ,
225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Mr. N. N. St. L&urent Plant Superintendent Yankee Atomic Electric Company Star Route Rowe, Massachusetts 01367
- .        Chairman Board of Selectmen Town of Rowe Rowe, Massachusetts 01367 Resident Inspector Yankee Nuclear Power Station c/o U.S. NRC Post Office Box 28 Monroe Bridge, Massachusetts 01350 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania    19406                                    i Robert M. Hallisey, Director Radiation Control Program Massachusetts Department of Public Health 150 Tremont Street, 7th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02111
 
l M 08 $86          ' '
i DISTRIBUTION-
        'q6* c                                                i Local PDR NRC PDR                                            l P. Shuttleworth                                    '
.          E. McKenna i          E. Jordan B. Grimes J. Partlow ACRS (10)                                          l TNovak OELD NSIC PAD #1 r/f PAD #1 s/f l
4 1
J e
l
 
Enclosure I QUESTIONS ON SEISMIC REEVALUATION CRITERIA OUESTIONS FROM THE REVIEW 0F YANKEE CRITERIA DOCUMEfF DC-1, REVISION 3 Bla. Section 5.1.4 Soil - For what kind of soil foundation is the soil bearing capacity limited to 10.6 KSF?                  ,
B2a. Section 5.3.3 Generation of ARS - It is not clear how the ARS will be gtderated for the case of structures behaving nonlinearly under the site specific spectrum load, e.g. RSS.
: 86. Section 3.2.4 Fluid Loads - Provide information to clarify: (i) How is the Housner method related to the ANSYS element, and (ii) which method will be used, the NUREG/CR-1161 or Housner method.
                          ~
B7. Section 5.3.1 Analysis Procedure - (1) It is not clear whether the virtual soil mass was actually used for the translation and rocking SSI analysis of RSS and other structures or not, and (ii) on p. 16, 1st paragraph, should R.G. 1.61 be R.G. 1.92?
: 88. Section 5.4.2.1 Allowable Stresses for Structures - (A) for reinforced concrete for YCS loads, you propose to use ACI-318 code together with 1.0 lead factors. This combination appears to be not strictly code allowable anymore. Clarification of code requirements should be provided. (B) It is stated that existing brace connections will be evaluated against AISC Part 2, Section 2.8, for YCS loads. A basis should be provided for justifyino the adequacy using this criteria.
: 89. Section 5.4.2.1 Allowable Stresses for Structures - The buckling criteria should follow the SEP guidelines issued in 1982. The use of any criteria which deviates from this guideline, e.g. 0.95 timesthe calculated buckling load as proposed in DC-1, Rev. 3, should be supported by justification.
BIO. Sectiot 5.4.4 Dampir:g - (a) Provide justification to show the adequacy of using 77, soil material damping for the dense glacial till under YCS and SSS loading, and (b) Justify the use of high damping ratios as recomended in NUREG/CR-0098 for YCS lo.id.
Bil. (i) Sectfun 6.1.1 Lumped Plasticity - Since the failure modes of a steel structural member and a structural connection are quite different, it is the SEP staff's position that all structural connections (clip angles, bolts, ends,...etc.) should remain elastic under the postulated earthquake loac' and no inelastic behavior is allowed.            ,-
 
B1t. t il Section 6.1 Material Behavior - (a) No acceptance criteria for the piastic deformation was discussed, (b) All the-state-of-the-art type of theory and research results used as licensing basis should be independently
              .c..; sed by either accepted theoretical results or test results, and (c) 0"''    isolated beams (or members) are allowed to go beyond elastic
              ..s.... If adjacent beams (or members) will behave ir.alastically at the same time, the function of the overall structure should be demonstrated."
B13. 6.2.4 in Rev. 3 states that Appendix K summarizes the computer programs which have been reviewed in Ref. 4(x). However, Ref. 4(x) appears to dcci with only nonlinear analysis and Appendix K appears to include aisc the linear analysis programs. Need clarification.
B14. In Appendix E, Rev. 3, (A) on page E-2, K=0.8 is different from the K=0.7 previously specified in Rev. 2, (b) N is defined differently from that in Rev. 2. Clarificationisreq[ red.
Clh. Section 5.4.2.2 Allowable stresses for equipment and VC shell penetrations (1) clarify which criteria will be used for VC shell and/or VC shell penetrations under YCS load, and (ii) It is not clear whether the same criteria will be used for both YCS and SSS loading.
l
 
to.cIs          ea:        --
    ".        z? 66    15:24          Ec:01 :I Ir B EVALUATION CRITERIA BIS Use of Non-linear performance Criteria frem Section 6.0 in Section 5.4.5 of DC-1, the nor.-linear performance criteria of Section 6.0 are proposed for limited (case-by case) application to equipment. If these are to be applied in more than one or two cases, a detailed                  ,
description of them and justification for their use should be provided now to avoid adversely impacting the schedule.
B16 Buildino-founded Tank Criteria Building-founded tanks which are in the category of "other mechanical equipment" are evaluated with a different area of the SEp criteria than ground-founded tanks, which are in the structural scope. If the AISC and ACI criteria proposed in Section No. 5.4.2.2 of 00-1 are applicabTe to building-founded tanks, justification for the use of these criteria is required. Such justification should include a comparison with the SEP guidelines.
O PIPING SYSTEMS 022 pioino problem Bracketing In Section 8.2.1(d) of DC-1, a proposal is made to subdivide piping problems, too large for analysis anchor to anchor, by bracketing. The means to assure an adequate overlap area must be provided for review if this method is to be used.                                              ,
023 Decouplina criteria In Section 8.2.1(d) of DC-1, decoupling with an inertia ratio of 10:1 is proposed for branch piping 2" nominal diameter and smaller. No check is proposed for other branches in near proximity to the branch point on the run piping, nor for the presence of a restraint in near proximity of the branch point on the branch piping. In addition, no consideration of run piping inertial effects on the branch piping analysis is proposed.
Justifications for these variations from normal SEp practice are required.
024 Use of Nozzle Flexibility in Di:ine Analvsis In Sections S.2.1(e) of CC-1, consideration of no:zle flexibility per WRC Bulletin 297 is proposed for piping analysis. This is beyond norn,a1 SEp practice and requires justification.
 
025 Valve Modelina Criteria In Section 8.2.1(f) of DC-1, a proposal is made to define valve models for valves lacking definitive information by concentrating the entire weight of the valve at a point 1/3 of the total stem length off of the pipe centerline. Justification for the 1/3 value is needed.              -
l 026 pioino Allowable Stresses                                                          l W re are several proposals of piping allowable stresses that represent excursions beyond the currently defined issue of composite spectra / code allowables versus NRC spectra /SEp allowables. Acceptable justification for each of these must be provided if they are to be used. These proposals are:
026a In Section 8.3.1 of DC-1, an allowable stress of 2.4Sh is proposed for use with NRC spectra for the analysis of piping for which exception has not been made. SEP guidelines specify an allowable stress of 1.8Sh for the equivalent of Class 1 piping.
D26b In Section 8.3.1 of DC-1, an allowable stress of 2.4Sh with Yankee Composite Spectra is proposed for analysis of main steam and feedwater piping in the VC. This application is beyond the currently defined issue, where code allowable stresses would be used.
D26c In Section 8.3.1 of DC-1, an allowable stress of 2Sy is preposed when other criteria cannot be met.
026d    In Section 8.3.1 of DC-1, an allowable stress based on an equivalent strain of 1% is proposed for piping which cannot meet other critoria.
02Se    In Section 8.3.1 of DC-1, an allowable stress of 1.0Su is proposed for use between The hydraulic and structural boundaries of the large-bore piping. Current practice is to make no distinction between this and the l
rest of the piping. Justification for this usage should address the expected increase of error in a linear elastic solution applied with an increased excursion into the plastic regime.
026f In Section 8.4.2 of DC-1, an allowable stress of 1.0Su is proposed for the small-bore piping past the first restraint after the seismic boundary. Current practice is to make no distinction between this and the rest of the piping. Justification for this usage should address the expected increase of error in a lines.r elastic solution applied with an increased excursion into the plastic regime. In addition to providing justification for this, a clarification of the region to which the 1.0Su is to be applied is needed.
026g    In Section 8.4.2 of DC-1, ASME Section NC-3654 allowable stresses (level C: minimum of 1.8Sy and 2.25$h) are proposed for use with            i pressurizer spray piping problems 2 and 3.                            ,
5
 
027 Reduction of SAM Leads in Thermal Stress Equations In Section 8.3.1 of DC-1, the proposal is made to reduce seismic anchor motion (SAM) stresses by 60% when including them in the thermal equation (equation No. 8.3.1-c). Since the normal SEP practice specifies the full SAM value be used, justification for this proposal is needed.
E MAIN STEAM AND FEE 0 WATER (MS/FW) PIPING AND SUpp0RT STRUCTURE      l E21 Treatment of Thermal Loads in Sup_ port Lead calculation In Section 9.4 of DC-1, the load combination description indicates that thermal loads are invariably included in the calculation of suppcrt leads.
Since the SEP guidelines specify inclusion of such loads in the combination only when they increase the weight plus thermal portion of the combined load, justification for this proposal is needed.
l l
E22 Support Stiffness Criteria In Section 9.5 of DC-1, stiffness and deflection criteria are prcposed for ensuring rigidity of small-bore support stiffness. Justification for these criteria is needed.
E23 Emercency/ Faulted Allowable Load and Stress Derivation In Section 9.6 of DC-1, a proposal is made to derive allowable stresses and loads for emergency / faulted conditions by applying a factor of 1.5 to allowable stresses and load for no.smal conditions. Section 3.8.4 of the Standard Review Plan (SRP; NUREG-0800) is cited in support of this. This section of the SRP is not appropriate for pipe supports because it deals i    with structures, while Section 3.9.3 of the SRP specifically discusses l    ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components and supports. Per the SEP l    guidelines, pipe supports are classified as ASME Code supports, so that Section 3.9.3 is the applicable section. Justify the 1.5 factor en the l    basis of Section 3.9.3 of the SRP, with particular emphasis on the operability topic discussed there.
E24 Additional pioe Succort Criteria Refinements In Section 9.6 of DC-1 fcur additional refinements of criteria are proposed for case-by-case application when the normal criteria cennot :s met. If these are to be applied in more than one or two cases, a detailec description of them and justification for their use should be provided now to avoid adversely impacting the schedule.
 
      ~
2'T46    15:26        EGLG tJC5 W            rC.026          C06 ~
l E25 Allowable Loads for Bolts In table 9-1 of OC-1, allowable loads for tension and shear are proposed for bolts. No interaction check is proposed for bolts. This is nor, mal practice in both the AISC Specification and the ASME Code, and not performing the check is unconservative. Justify not performing an interaction check.
E26 Allowable loads for Cataloc Items In table 9-1 of DC-1, a proposal is made to calculate emergency / faulted '
allowable loads for catalog items by applying a factor of 1.5 to the vendor supplied values for normal operating conditions. Justify this proposal for those catalog components for which the vendor has supplied emergency / faulted allowable loads in a.ddition to normal operating loads.
E27 Oynamic Effects The development of the analytical method for accommodating the effect of
  - -        rod hanger uplift on pipe support loads is essentially static in nature.
Justify not considering the effect of uplift on the dynamic response of the piping (including line mounted equipment), and the associated effect on the pipe support loads.
E'28 Maonitude of Impact Effects The proposal to account for impact loads associated with rod hanger uplift is to increase rod hanger loads by a factor of two. This is a minimum value based on zero piping momentum at the instant of impact. Justify the value of two in light of this.
E29 Limitation of Impact Effects
!            The proposal to account for impact loads associated with red hanger uplift is to increase only rod hanger loads by a factor of two. Justify not
;            increasing the loads on adjacent supports which do not happen to be red l            hangers.
F MAJOR MECHAh! CAL COMP 0NENTS Fic WRC Bulletin 297 Usaos In Section 5.3.2 of DC-1, the methods. of WRC Bulletin 297 are proposed for the analysis of vessel nozzles. This Bulletin has not been endorsAd in the l            SEP guidelines, nor is it specifically endorsed in current practice.
Therefore, a justification for its use must be provided for review.
i l
l
 
                                                              . .C. C2c      cc*
F1d Inclusion of Anchor Motion Loads in Ecuipment Analysis The load combinations defined in Section 5.4.1 of DC-1 do not specifically include anchor motion loads. Are seismic and thermal. anchor motien loads, applied to equipment thru piping nozzles, considered? The SEP guidelines specify consideration of such loads, so that justification for not doing so would be required.
F3b.iv Reference to an Aeoarently Undocketed Report In Section 5.4.2.3 (Reactor Internals), the Exxon Nuclear Co. Report, No.
XN-76-28, dated 12/76 is referenced. This report apparently is not docketed. A docket reference to it, or the report itself is needed for review.
F3b.v Reactor Internals Allowable Stresses In Section 5.4.2.3 of DC-1, the reactor internals allowable stresses for seismic stresses are based on the assumption that " normal (operating)
_ .      stresses are at their limit." Have previous analyses been performed which demonstrate this to be conservative?
F7a.iii  Alternate Valve Analysis Criteria In Section 5.4.2.2 of DC-1, the use of ASME Section NC-3 21 is proposed for the analysis of valve bodies when seismic stresses ar) below 20% of allowable stresses. It is not clear how the 20% limit is to be applied with NC-3521. Clarify this.
F7h Bolt criteria for Valves In the criteria for valves in Section 5.4.2.2 of OC-1, no specific criteria for bolts used in valving are provided. Are the criteria to be applied to the valves in general also applicable to valve bolting? If so, justification is needed. If not, the applicable criteria should be defined, and justified if not per SEP guidelines.
G ELECTRICAL AND OTHER MECHANICAL COMP 0MENTS G7 Analysis of Electrical and Other Mechanical Equiement In the 10/4/84 letter, Caruso (NRC) to Kay (YAEC), the licensee was required to perform analyses to comonstrate structural integrity for at least one sample for each categary of electrical and other (not major) mechanical ecuipment. Are the criteria of Section 5.0 of CC-1 to be used in these analyses? If so, does the licensee intend not to use equivalent static and other simplified analytical methods? What criteria are to be used in evaluating raceways, particularly the cold-rolled sections typically used?
 
p            H COMMENTS ON THE MASONRY WALL REPORTS, YANKEE ROWE The rc'icwing ccaments are a result of the review of these documentai '(1 )
Seismic reevaluation and retrofit criteria for Yankee Rowe; (2) Structural derds . .'teria for evaluation and modification of existing masonry walls, document DCD-2648-6-1; (3) Summary design report for block wall modifications inside the tu-bine building, report No. ER-2648-10-1, dated May 10,1985; (4)
Summary desi6n report for block wall modifications for primary aux. bldg north wall, upper pipe chase, and cable spaeading room, report EP.-2648-10-2, dated April 3, 1986. The comments are divided into three parts: criter ia, block walls at PAB, and block walls inside turbine building.
[d'        CRITERIA Section 7.0 of the aforementioned document (1) and the document (2) are essentially the same except for few minor differences. Ws. therefore, made comments based on the document (1).
[d                .      Item a of Section 7 3: (il Provide the definition of " diverse wall strengthening materials," (11) provide examples on permitting
:                      eracking of the ' masonry wall vnere the application of diverse wall strengthening materials requires the allowable masonry stresses be exceeded, and (iii) provide analysis methodology to calculate the        !l cracked essonry wall section.                                            1
  }}h                  Item 1 of Section 7.3 : Clarify the " miscellaneous steel shapes required to support the masonry block walls'.                            ,
                                                                                              ,1 1 ! (,                Item b of Section 7.6: Provide the detail information on how the          l effects of heavy equipment and/or attachments will be superimposed on a representative uniformly loaded area of the wall, also define" I                        a representative uniformly loaded area".
k
  $d Item e of SectIon ? 7: Provide justificanon of the alIowabte in-plane accany Y - 0.001, for confined walls. This allowab!e oniy appliestoinplEnestrain,howaboutout-ofplaneanalysisand j,
                                                                                                -l criteria 7
    's 1l d                Item (2) of Section 7.8: Provide the justification not to include other loads such as pipe reaction, jet imoin6ement loads etc. in the  j I
load combination.                                                    y
                                                                                                }
      ,4  Y              Item a of Section 7.9, Tables 7-2 and 7-3 are for exieting masonry walls. What are the allowables for nodifications?; (ii) Tables 7-2      ;
and 7-3 are based on ACI 531-79 allowables for the " inspected masonry" category. Was special inspectton program impleme~nted during the construction of tha existing walli If so, the inspection program needs to be reviewed; l
l l                e m-
 
ll6
        'O Items (d) and (e) of Section 7.12: Define the " equivalent earthquake loadings: "How are they derived from the dynamic analysis results and how are they applied to the static analysis ?
ib      Define I yy in Table 7-1: and provide an explanation why Ixx =
        }{}
          ~
Section 7.12: (i) Provide details of hybrid element of McAUTO STRUDL code;(11) first paragraph states that the initial wall models shall include " preliminary .....", what did the final wall models include?
(iii) provide a description of how horizontal seismic loadings are combined with vertical seismic loading, (iv) how dynamic analysis' was performed for vertical amplified floor response spectra?
        - j@.
J.          Section 7 1: The criteria were specifically spelled out for a seismic event based on the Yankee Composite Spectra (YCS).        Provide justification for not including seissio event based on NRC loading.
h            Provide the basis for esterial properties pai.
j f,'
                                                                          = 600 psi and Mo - 750 BLOCK WALL H00!FICATIONS FOR PRIMARY AUX BLDG, NORTH WALL, UPPER PIPE
{          CHASE, AND CABLE SPREADING ROOM i            Page 3 states that isolated cracking of the existing masonry block walls is anticipated even with the structural modifications installed, for tornado and YCS load conditions. What is the                .;
performance of the existing walls under NRC load conditions?
1 b.'              Figures B-1 and B-3 as attached in the report are not legible. Need details during the 5/20/86 meeting.                                              ,
                                                                                                    'I
,g                    On Page 5 the new 8" perimeter CHU wall constructed orthogonal to the PAB walls PIE 2 and P1F2 will prcvide out-of-plane constraints to j
l                                                                                                [
l                    walls PIE 2 and P1F2. Does it also provide out-of plane constrair.ts      i
!                    to walls P1El and P1F17                                                      i i
Page 5 states that the Upper Pipe Chase (UPC) masonry walla doweled        h Jc,1'"
to the massive supporting concrete except where supported on the PAB steel framing west of Column Line 6.      Is the structural integrity of  ,
the dowels evaluated?                                                      I Section 311.1 of Page 9 states that masonry walls are of 8" CMu.
What abot3 the 12" CMU foa PAB North Walls PIE 1 and P1E2?
Ih
                -    Section 14.2: (1) Provide details of the hybrid elements of McAUTO STRUDL codes (ii) is the same finite elettent model of the masonry I
walls used for both static and dynamic an' lyses? (iii) what is the      [
interface between dynamic and static analysis as far as the seismic 2
S/9 7[-          -
 
evaluation is ccncerned? (iv) provide details on modeling of cracked masonry, calculation of the cracked moment inertia, and shear transfer capability of cracked section, and (v) how is dead load factored by the maxista vertical ARS acceleration to account for the vertical seismic effects?
          ') ' .
          ' ' , '            For the PAB North Wall analyses, (1) provide details on how three separate analysis models are interfaced with each other. (ii) provide the basis of the 100 psf used for the computer model shown in Fig. C.1-3. (iii) what is the truss model in Fig. c.1-4 fort (iv) what is the B" thick R.C. wall that could be installed in the future?
        .S. '_lt            Provide details on the proposed structural steel bents and horizontal diagonal strut for the Upper Pipe Chase, during the 5/20/86 meeting, hi For the UPC analysis, (1) what does the vertical sember No.14 represent in the computer model? (11) was vertical seismic analysis performed in addition to the N-S and E-W analyses? (iii) how were the equivalent seismic forces and deflections applied manually to the UPC segments for evaluation?
_i        .. Provide details of the strengthening modifications to the Cable Spreading Room (CSR) masonry walls during the 5/20/86 meeting. In addition, clarify the computer models used for the analysis / evaluation of the CSR and Conduit Support Structure.
g
[_ I.              In Section 5 0, Evaluation Summary, (1) what is the result of in-plane and out-of plane shear stress evaluation? (ii) provide details    ),
on the design modifications for PAB North Wall as the drawings' in      t Appendix D are not legible. (iii) provide clarification on the          [
statements in the second paragraph of Page 20 regarding the UPC.        l
;            pt                                                                                      :
l            .L            How were the #6 bars at 2'-8" o.c. accounted for in the evaluation      i l                            of the PUC masonry walls?
BLOCK WALL PODIFICATIONS INSIDE THE TURBINE BUILDING
,.                                                                                                    [
Design drawings in Appendices are not legible, and more details are T^M, a
3 needed during the 5/20/86 meeting. The same is required of the modifications.                                                        1
: v. a  .                                                                                    'I l .2 S
        ~                    Sectior. 3.4.1 of Page 8 indicates that the masonry walls were        .
evaluated for flexural stresses. Hnw about shear stresses, in-plant    '
and out-of plane?                                                    '  '
S 3
                                        ---        .. - _, -.                        --ABN1
 
          -T'33c      ,
S:cticn 4.2 cf Page 10 4:ee not apptar to indicate that vertical dynamic analysis was done. Justification is needed.                                .
                                                                                                  ~
T [nd
          ~                Section 4 3 of Page 11 shows that the natural frequencies of walls exceed 33 Hz. What la the natural frequency of the roof.
d
          $$31
* Provide the details on the boundary conditions for the analysis models for masonry walls in the Southwest Stairwell, in particular, the boundary conditions between two consecutive levels of the walls,
              -., f 24
                      '. Section 4.5 of Page 12, why is the top of the tiock wall restrained against rotation and not translation in the analysis model for the Control Room walls? In addition, provide more details on the evaluation of the wooden walls at the Technical Support Center.
T
              "[hJ~.'      Section 5.4 of Page 17, the new steel stud / gypsum partition wall was
                  ,9      dealgned for an equivalent meismic lateral load of 25 pat. What is the equivalent acceleration corresponding to this 25 pst?
1
  -  e e
1 1
                                                                                            .                  l a
l 1
l                                                                                                        \
t    .
I    !
l a
g
                                                                                                          )
i Jo ?/-f
 
  .      .                                                                                                          I i
Enclosure 2 REVIEW 0F YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION REACTOR SUPPORT STRUCTURE (RSS) FOUNDATION:    S0IL MECHANICS INVESTIGATION
: 1)  The bearing capacity evaluation is for seismic loading conditions for which momentary eccentric loads will be applied to the RSS foundation.
T..e Reference material is only valid for symmetric foundation loads, resulting in an overestimation of bearing capacity.                        <
: 2)  The material in reference uses 1956 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) data for the foundation soils to estimate bearing capacity. SPT data for soils that contain gravel, cobbles and boulders is generally invalid unless carefully interpreted. Later soil investigation data is available and should be used. Also, the staff's SEP evaluation of Topic II-4.F made in 1982 indicates that an SPT value of 35 is appropriate for the finer grained portion of the lodgement till found at the Yankee plant.
: 3)  The dimensions and depth of the RSS foundation are not given in reference
> -          1. The shape of the foundation is apparently circular, but the bearing capacity evaluation is for a strip (continuous) foundation, resulting in an overestimation of bearing capacity.
: 4)  The Yankee Atomic letter gives the original seismic loading design value as 8 KSF under seismic conditions. If the 8 KSF value is correct, staff believes it is unlikely that the lodgement till will be required to resist a seismic bearing load 20 KSF due to a new analysis. Thus,                                  '
for our edification, the staff requests the computed values of RSS foundation dead loads, peak vertical and horizontal seismic loads, and peak seismic overturning moment. Foundation dimensions would also be helpful in concluding our review.
: 5)  Some consideration of the loose backfill material adjacent to the RSS and vapor containment (VC) foundations may be in order to sufficiently evaluate ultimate bearing capacity.
Reference 1: {{letter dated|date=May 5, 1986|text=May 5, 1986 letter}} with attachments from G. Papanic, Jr. (YAEC) to J. Clifford (NRC),
 
==Subject:==
Ultimate Soil Bearing Capacity at Yankee
 
MAY 14 '56 83:03 FRANXLfN PES. CENTER, PHILA, PA.
      .                                                                                          P.02 Enclosure 3 YANKZE ROWE ELOCK WALL DESIGN Please respond to the following questions:
: 1. For all walls identified in Ref erences 2 and 3 provide the following            ,
informations                          i w
(a)    Humber of reinforced and unreinforced walls.
(b)    For the reinforced walls, indicate type and spacing of vertical and horizontal reinforcement. Verify that the reinforcement amount satisfies the minimum requirements of the ACI 531-79 codes.
          . 't '. Clarify whether any multi-wythe well exists.      If so, provide and justify the allowable stress of the collar joint
: 3. In Section 1.3 of Ref erence 2, elaborate on the statement " Removing deficient construction and replacing with suitably designed materials."
If this is a deficiency in construction, identify the deficiency and justify the use of special inspection category for allowable stresses.
: 4. Provide the technical basis to determine the governing loading case (between seismic and tornado event).
: 5. Indicate whether other modes of f ailure (besides tension) were investigated (i.e., compression, shear, boundary connection).
i
: 6.      In Section 2.4 of Ref erence 3, elaborate on the statament "No evidence of i                    vertical wall reinforcing was observed." Indicate whether vertical reinforcing was specified in the original design.
l            7.      In section 4.3 of Reference 3 the north wall frame reinforcement was analysed using an equivalent load of 100 psf. Indicate how this load was determined. Also, elaborate on the statement "This loading included the ef fects of an 8 inch thick reinforced concrete wall should it be installed at a future date."
l
: 8.      Provide all floor response spectra curves corresponding to walls identified in References 2 and 3.
l
: 9. Please make available all wall calculations for the May 20, 1986 meeting.
1 i
I
 
                  ,,..4,      ::
12:04 FFANKLIN RES. CEICEF FHILA> PA.                              P.23 REFERENCES 1.
su r-etural Masonry        BlockDesign Walls,Criteria for Evaluation and Modification of Existing Yankee Nuclear Power Station, DC-2648-6-1. Feb. 8, 2.
Block wall Modifications Inside The Turbine Building, Yankee Nuclest            Power Station, ER-2648-10-1, May 10, 1985.
: 3.                                                                                              t Block Wall Modifications at Priatry Auxiliary Ru11 ding North Well, Upper Pipe Chase, and Cable Spreading Room, ER-2648-lD-2, April 3,            1986, e
W  $
i l
l l
__y    _
4_ ,
                                                            ,,,            ___u  g _ ___, _
 
s        .
s Enclosure 4 EVALUATION OF YANVEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (YAEC) REPORT (1)
* TOR TORNADO MISSILES TECHNICAL BACKGRGUND:
: 1. The Spectrum II missile characteristics and speeds as identified in S RP 3. 5.1.4, NU REG-0800 (formerly NUREG-75/087) [2], are based on the data presented in Table 8 of the National Bureau of Standards report NBSIR 76-1050 [3). The report clearly emphasized that the missile speeds of Table 8 are based on a set of assumptions, which, while reasonable, might, in certain cases, not correctly reflect the actual physical phenomenon: therefore, the uncertainties of the order of magnitude in the estimates of maximum missiles speeds can be as high as 50% or even more. The speeds of Table 8 (3) may also be exceeded if unfavorable initial conditions of the potential missiles exist.
To study the effect of initial position on maximum horizontal missile speed (V        '  9 #"    "** E    * "" ^9          **      ' "
H Table 2 (2), which correspond to a tornado windspeed of 177 m/s (395 mph) and Cd A/m values of 0.01 and 0.001 m2 /kg. Two additional curves for the utility pole and steel rod missiles were interpolated using the data presented in Table 8 (3), for a comparable Type 1 tornado of 161 m/s (360 mph) wind speed.
: 2. Due to the complexity, nonlinearity and sensitivity of the assumed tornado wind speed model to the changing parameters, it is virtually impossible to predict with an acceptable degree of confidence the behavior of a specific missile outside the studied range of tornado windspeed (240 to 360 mph).      For example, the variation of V    #
g as a function of C DA/m value for a type 3 tornado (240 mph) is quite significant.      A change of 310% of the CgA /m value from 0.005 m/s (typical of a utility pole) results in a corresponding change of V
g    of at least fy0% (see Figure 3 of Reference 3) .
Based on the information presented above, the Licensee is requested to provide responses to the following questions:
: 1. Provice technical basis for extrapolating the missile speed beyond the range of the tornado windspeed between 240 mph and 360 mph.
2.
Indicate whether the effects of the initial conditions were considered in the estimate of the missile speeds.        Provide discussion on this subject.
: 3. Provide discussion regarding the effects of CDA/m on the misdile speed and explain how they were considered in your evaluation.
* Numbers in brackets indicate references, which are listed on page 3.
e      .
* s m; a Vg      , m/s 4
C o A/m    , o,o g        m2 /q 10 0    -                              ---                      0.0052        ( Pole)
                                                                                                ....                  -0.004          (Red)
NO  .- . .                                                = 0.00 l
                                          ..                                ~.
[      -
go    .        ,~ \.
                              / ,,                                                ~.
                                                                                        ~
                          ..                                                        s, '
                  /,,a*".-
                        ,                                  70    .
s N  %
s      .
                                      .                    60    -                                    s s
N, 5o    -
                                                                                                                  '*\,
N    .              .
                                                                                                                          ' , \. . .
4o      .                                                                ~ ,, N so    -
                                  '-                            ,N s
                          /                                                  %
y                                        20    -              %
                                                                                      *x N N
Io    _                                        %
e    '
                                                                                                                                                =
46                                            0                    23                        46                      69 X(o) ,m Rm                                    vor t e x                  o.s R m                        Rm                  i.5 R m (M              . Initia l Po sitio n s                          ; (b)                        (a)                        (C )
Note:      Initial positions are rcasured from the vortex center and are in terns' of the radius ( Pr. ) at which the horizontal vel'oeity in the vor, tex flow i s r .a x inum .
Figu re 1.          Maximum Horizontal Missile Speeds, V H
Corresponding to Various initial Positions O
* EEFETE:CES C
1.
          "'IAEC Tornado Cost /Denefit Ev11uation," Yankee ;uclear Pcwsr Station, Revision 1, December 1984
: 2. US!;EC, Standard Review Plan, Section 3. 5.1. 4, "Miss11os Generated by Natural Phonot.cna," !;UREG-0800 (Fornerly NUTCG-75/087)
: 3. " Tornado-Dorne Missile Speeds," 13DSIR 76-1050, National Bureau of Standards, April 1976 f
O O
4
                                                      /}}

Latest revision as of 17:04, 18 December 2021

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=NUREG-0825,_Forwards_Requests_for_Addl_Info_on_NUREG-0825,Sections_4.5,_Wind_%26_Tornado_Loadings,_4.8,_Tornado_Missiles_%26_4.11,_Seismic_Design_Considerations,_Per_860520-22_Meetings&oldid=3383176"