ML20080J589
| ML20080J589 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1983 |
| From: | Knight J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20079F427 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-35 NUDOCS 8309260421 | |
| Download: ML20080J589 (16) | |
Text
.-
h h
UNITED STATES o
'g g
N'UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
_j 3 E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 h.....}
SEP 151993 Docket Nos. 50-400/401 MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas M. Novak, Assistaat Director for Licensing Division of Licensing FROM:
James P. Knight, Assistant Director
. for Comronents & Structuras Engineering Division of Ergineering
SUBJECT:
SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT (STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING) honHa)/401 s Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Plant Name:
o0-*0u
, Docket Numbers:
Licensing Stage: OL Review Responsible Branch and Project Manager: LB-3, B. Buckley The FSAR submitted by the applicant has been reviewed and evaluated by the Section B of the Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch. There are thite open and one confirmatory items. Resolution of open items will be addressed in a subsequent supplement to the SER. One of the open itec:s concerns structural effect of cancelling Units 3 and.4 on Units 1 and 2.
~
Infomation submitted by the applicant is under review. The other two open items concern design methods and they are discussed in Section 3.8.6.
We are currently discussing these two items with the applicant toward a f
resolution. Under the confimatory item, the staff is requiring the applicant to submit a calculation of ultimate strength capacity of the containment building under unifam internal pressure. Our sections of the safety evaluation report are provided in the: enclosure. This evaluation is based on infomation provided by the applicant through Amandment No. 9.
The enclosure was prepared by S. B. Kim and N. Romney.
m o
i James P. Knig'ht, As'sistant Director for Components and Structures Engineering Division of Engineering
Enclosure:
As stated cc: w/ enclosure R. Vollmer N. Romney
.D. Eisenhut
'SCXim:
G. Lear
'B. Buckley P. Kuo J. Philip P. Sobel g
'O: Senf fa pDR.
0$& g
1
+,
ENCLOSURE SHEARON HARRIS SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT BY STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH (STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING) 3.3 Wind and Tornado criteria 3.3.1 Wind Design Criteria All seismic Category I structures exposed to wind forces are d' signed to e
withstand the effect of the design basis wind. The design wind specified has
-a velocity of 179 miles per nour at 30 feet above plant grade with a recurrence interval of 1000 years.
The procedures that are us2d to transform the wind velocity into pressure loadings on structures and to establish the associated s.-tical profile of wind pressures and the gust factors are in accordance with American Society of Civil Engineers Paper No. 3269, " Wind Forces on Structures" and ANSI A58.1, " Building Code Requirement for Minimum Design Loads in Buildings and Other Structures."
The procedures described in these codes are consistent with the staff's position.
The staff concludes that the plant design is acceptable and meets the require-ments of General Design Criterion 2.
This conclusion is based on the following:
The applicant has met the requirements of GDC and the recommendations of SRP Section 3.3.1 with respect to the capability of the structures to withstand design wind loading so that their design reflects (1). appropriate consideratio'n for the most severe wind recorded for the site
- with an appropriate margin; (2) appropriate combinations of the effects of normal and accident conditions with the effects of the natural phenomena; and (3) the importance of the safety function to be performed.
The applicant has met these requirements by using ANSI A58.1 and ASCE paper No. 3269, which the, staff has reviewed and found acceptable, to transform the t
wind velocity into an effective pressure on structures and for selecting pressure coefficients corresponding to the structure's geometry and physical configuration.
The applicant has designed the plant structures with sufficient margin to prevent structural damage during the most severe wind loadings that have been l
determined appropriate for the site so that the requirements of Item 1 listed
.above are met.
In addition, the design of seismic Category I structures, as required by item 2 listed above, has included in an acceptable manner load m
b I
e
. '3-1
_,.--,,,-,_,-__,_n.w,,,,--.,w-----,,
,_,,,--_,,,am,,,
combinations which occur as a result of the most severe wind load and the loads resulting from normal and accident conditions.
The procedures used to determine the loadings on structures induced by the design wind specified for the plant are acceptable since these procedures have been used in the design of conventional structures and proven to provide a conservative basis which together with other engineering design considerations assures that the structures will withstand such environmental forces. The use of these procedures provides reasonable assurance that in the event of design basis wind, the structural integrity of the plant structures that have to be designed for the design wind will not be impaired and, in consequence, safety-related systems and components located within these structures are adequately protected and will perform their intended safety functions if needed, thus satisfying the requirement of Item 3 listed above.
3.3.2 Tornado Design Criteria All seismic Category I structures exposed to tornados and needed for the safe shutdown of the plant in the event of a tornado are designed to resist a tornado of a 290 miles per hour tangential wind velocity and a 70 miles per hour trans-lational wind velocity with a simultaneous atmospheric pressure drop of 3 psi in 2 seconds. The acceptability of these parameters is discussed in Section 2.3 of this report. The procedures which consist of transforming the tornado wind velocity into pressure loadings are similar to those used for the. design basis wind as discussed in Section 3.3.1 with no variation on pressure in the vertical profile and no consideration of the gust effect. The tornado missile effects are considered by using the procedures as presented in Section 3.5 of this report. '
Structures which are not designed for the tornado were investigated by the appli-cant for potential missile generation and for possible collapse to ensure that the integrity of seismic Category I structures,would not be ' jeopardized.
(
The procedures utilized to determine the loadings on structures induced by the design basis tornado specified for the plant are acceptable since these proce-dures provide a conservative basis for engineering-design to' assure that the structures will withstand such environmental forces.
The' staff concludes that the plant design is acceptable and meets the require-ments of General Design Criterion 2.
This conclusion is based on the following:
The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 2 and the recommendations of SRP l
Section 3.3.2 with; respect to the structure capability'to withstand design l
tornado wind loading and tornado missiles so that their design reflects (1) appropriate consideration for the most severe tornado recorded for the site with an appropriate margin; (2) appropriate combinations of the effects of normal and accident conditions
.with the effects of the natural phenomena; and.
(3) the importance of the safety function to be performed.
The applicant has met these requirements by using ANSI A58.1 and ASCE paper No. 3269, which the staff has reviewed and found acceptable, to transfonn the
\\
t 3 -
wind velocity generated by the tornado into an effective pressure on struc-tures and for selecting pressure coefficients corresponding to structures geometry and physical configuration.
The applicant has designed the plant structures with sufficient margin to prevent structural damage during the most severe tornado loadings that have been detennined appropriate for the site so that the requirements of Item 1 listed above are met.
In addition, the design of seismic Category I struc-tures, as required by Item 2 listed above, has included in an acceptable manner, load ~ combinations which occur'as a' result of the most severe tornado wind load and the loads resulting from normal and accident conditions.
The procedures utilized to determine the-loadings on structures induced by'the design basis tornado specified for the plant are acceptable since these proce-dures have been used in the design of conventional structures and proven to provide a conservative basis which together with other engineering design considerations assures that the structures withstand such environmental forces.
t The use of these procedures provides reasonable assurance that in the event of
- a. design basis tornado, the structural integrity of the plant structures that have to be designed for tornadoes will not be impaired and, in consequence, safety-related systems and components located within these structures will be adequately protected and may be expected to perform necessary safety functions as required, thus satisfying the requirement of Item 3 listed above.
3.4.2 Water Level (Flood) Design The plant finished grade elevation is at 260 ft which is 20.0 ft above the maximum wave runup snd wind setup water level of 240.0 ft in the Main Reser-voir and 2.2 ft above the maximum wave run-up and wind setup water level of 258.8 ft in the Auxiliary Reservoir.
Therefore, all structures on the plant site are protected against floods occurring in the Main or Auxiliary Reservoirs.
This method of. flood protection is acceptable to the staff.
The groundwater table in the plant area is at 251 ft. All seismic Category I l-structures and non-seismic Category I structures located a'djacent to seismic j
Category I structures are designed against full hydrostatic loads and buoyancy due to design basis groundwati.e. The lateral hydrostatic loads and the buoyant forces are included as part of the dead load in all of the load combinations l
~ specified. for seismic Category I structures 'and is therefore acceptable to the l
staff.
The staff concludes that the plant design is acceptable and meets the requirements of General Design Criterion 2.
This conclusion is based on the following:
i The applicant has met the requirements of.GDC 2 and the recommendations of SRP Section 3.4.2 with respect to the structure's capability to withstand the effects of the flood or highest groundwater level so that their design reflects (1) appropriate consideration for the most severe flood recorded for the site with an appropriate margin.
g
.~3-3
=
I (2) appropriate combination of the effects of normal and accident conditions with the effect of the natural phenocena, and (3) the importance of the safety functions to be performed.
The applicant has met these requirements by use of U.S. Army Coastal Engineering i
Research Center, " Shore Protection Manual" which provides guidance and techniques used in design for hydraulic and hydrodynamic loads.
The applicant' has designed the plant structures with sufficient margin to prevent structural damage during the most severe flood or groundwater and the associated dynamic effects that have been determined appropriate for the site j
so that the requirements of Item 1 listed above are met.
In addition, the l
design of seismic Category I structures, as required by Item 2 listed above, has included in an acceptable manner load combinations which occur as a result of the most severe flood or groundwater-related loads and the loads resulting from nomal and accident conditions.
The procedures utilized to determine the loadings on seismic Category I structures induced by the design flood or highest groundwater level specified for the plant are acceptable since these procedures have been used in the design of conventional structures and proven to provide a conservative basis which tngether with other engineering design considerations assures that the.
structue_:. will withstand such environmental forces.
The use of these procedures provides reasonable. assurance that in the event of floods or high groundwater, the structural integrity of the plant seismic Category I structures will not be impaired and, in consequence, seismic Category I systems and components located within these. structures will be adequately protected and may be expected to perform necessary safety func-tions, as required, thus satisfying requirement of Item 3 listed above.
3.5.3 Barrier Design Procedures The plant Category I structures, systems and components will be shielded from, or designed for, various postulated missiles. Missiles considered in the design
.of structuret include tornado generated missiles and various containment internal missiles, such as those associated with a loss-of-coolant accident.
Infomation has been provided indicating that the procedures that will be used in the design of the structures, shields and barriers to resist the effect of missiles are adequate. The analysis of structures, shields and barriers to j
determine the effects of missile impact will be accomplished in two steps.
In the first step, potential damage that could be done by the missile in the im-mediate vicinity of impact is investigated. This is. accomplished by estimating the depth of penetration of the missile into the impacted structure.
Further-
.more, secondary missiles will be prevented by fixing the target thickness well above that detemined for penetration.. In the second step of the analysis, the overall structural response of the target when impacted by a missile is deter-mined using established methods of impactive analysis. The equivalent loads of missile impact, whether the missile is environmentally generated or accidentally generated within the plant, are combined with other applicable loads as is dis-cussed in Section 3.8 of this report.
\\ 4 -
~
4.
The staff concludes that.th'e barrier design is acceptable ~and meets the recom-mandations of S.R.P. Section 3.5.3 and the requirements of GDC 2 and 4 with respect to the capabilities of the structures, shields, and barriers to provide sufficient protection to. equipment that must withstand the effects of naturai phenomena (tornado missiles) and environmental effects including the effects.
of missiles, pipe whipping, and discharging fluids.
This conclusion is based on the following:
5 The procedures utilized to determine the effects and loadings on seismic Cate-gory I structures and missile shields and. barriers induced by design basis missiles selected for the plant are acceptable since these procedures provide a conservative basis for engineering design to assure that the structures or barriers are adequately resistant to and will withstand the effects of such forces.
The use of these procedures'provides reasonable assurance that in the event of design basis missiles striking seismic Category I structures or other missile shields and barriers, the structural integrity of the structures, shields and barriers will not be impaired or degraded to an extent that will result in a loss of required protection.
Seismic Category I systems and components pro-Sected by these structures are, therefore, adequately protected against the effects of missiles and will perform their intended safety function, if needed.
Conformance with these procedures is an acceptable basis for satisfying in part the requirements of General Design Criteria 2 and 4.
c 3.7 Seismic Design 3.7.1 Seismic Input The input seismic design re.sponse spectra (OBE and SSE) applied in the design of seismic Category I structures, systems, and components comply with the recom-mendations of Regulatory Guide 1.60, " Design Response Spectra for Nuclear Power Plants." The specific percentage of critical damping values used in the seismic analysis of Category I structures, systems and components are in conformance with Regulatory' Guide 1.61, " Damping Values for Seismic Arialysis of Nuclear Power Plants."
The synthetic time history used for seismic design of Category I plant structures, systems and components is adjusted in amplitude and frequency content to obtain response' spectra that envelope the response spectra specified for the site.
1 Conformance with the Regola ary Guides 1.60 and 1.61 requirements provides reasonable assurance that for an earthquake whose intensity is 0.075g for the OBE, and 0.15g for the SSE, the seismic inputs to Category I structures, systems, and components are adequately _ defined to assure a conservative basis for the design of such structures, systems and components to with-stand the consequent seismic loadings.
The staff concludes that the seismic design parameters used in the plant structure design are acceptable and meet the recomendations of Standard' Review Plan 3.7.1 and the requirements of General Design Criterion 2 and Appendix ~ A to 10 CFR Par : 100. This conclusion is based on the following:
\\
3-5
The app 1tcant has met the recommendations of SRP 3.7.1 and the relevant requirements of GDC 2 and Appendix A to 10 CFR 100 by appropriate con-sideration for the most severe earthquake recorded for the site with.
an appropriate margin and considerations for two levels of earthquakes:
the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) and operating basis earthquake (OBE).
The applicant has met these requirements by the use of the methods and procedures indicated below.
The seismic design response, spectra (OBE and SSE) applied in the desigh of seismic Category I structures, systems, and components comply with the recom-mendations of RG 1.60, " Design Response Spectra for Nuclear Power Plants." The specific percentage of critical damping values used in the seismic analysis of Category I structures, systems, and components are in conformance with RG 1.61,
" Damping Values for Seismic Analysis of Nuclear Power Plants." The artificial synthetic time history used for seismic design of Category I plant structures, systems, and components is adjusted in amplitude and frequency content to obtain response spectra that envelop the design response spectra specified for the site. Conformance with the recommendations of RG 1.60 and 1.61 assures-that the seismic inputs to Category I structures, systems, and components are adequately defined so as to form a conservative basis for the design of such structures, systams, and components to withstand seismic loadings.
3.7.2 Seismic System Analyses See Section 3.7.3 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis The scope of review of the Seismic System and Subsystem Analysis for the plant included the seismic analysis methods for all Category I structures, systems and components.
It included review of procedures for modeling, seismic soil-structure interaction, development of floor response spectra, inclusion of L
torsional effects, seismic analysis of Category I dams, evaluation of Category I structure overturning, and determination of composite damping.. The review has included design criteria and procedures for evaluation of interaction.of non-Category I structures and piping with Category I structures and piping and effects of parameter variations on floor response. spectra. The review has also included criteria and seismic analysis procedures for reactor internals and Category I buried piping outside the containment.
All seismic Category I structures, except electrical manholes, are founded on sound rock. The lumped mass-spring approach was used to develop the mathe-matical model for the dynamic analyses of the structures.
The mathematical model assumes a single cantilever or multi-cantilever lumped mass system. The lumped masses are connected by weightless elastic bars which represent.the stiffness of structural walls and/or columns. The interaction effect of the foundation mat with the supporting rock medium is represented by equivalent linear elastic springs. These equivalent springs were derived from the analyti-cal solution for a rigid circular footing acting on the horizontal surface of a half space. The applicant performed a-fixed base analysis to confinn results obtained from the spring supported model. This independent method of confirma-tion is in accordance with the guideline provided in Section 3.7.3 of SRP and g
3-6. -
i f
t z
acceptable to the staff.
Description of the electrical manhole is provided in the applicant's FSAR. Section 3.8.4.1.
The ground acceleration at the level of manholes was determined by an amplification, analysis of ground motion through a vertical soil column between the, bedrock and the manholes by using the computer i
program SHAKE developed by the University of California, Berkeley. The maximum ground accelerations at the level of the manholes, obtained through the above analysis, are further increased by 50 percent for the equivalent static analysis of each structure.
Increase of 50 percent of acceleration to the SHAKE results is conservative and acceptable to the staff.
The system and subsystem analyses were performed by the applicant on an elastic basis. Modal respcnse spectrum multidegree of freedom and time history methods form the bases for the analyses of all major Category I structures, systems and components. When the modal response spectrum method was used, governing response parameters were combined by the square root of the sum of the squares rule. However, the absolute sum of the modal responses 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 t
the earthquake motion for both the time history and response spectrum methods.
Floor spectra inputs used for design and test verifications of structures, systems, and components were generated from the time history method, taking into account variation of parameters by peak widening. A vertical seismic system dynamic analysis was employed for all structures, systems and components where analyses showed significant structural amplification in the vertical direction. Torsional effects and stability against overturning were considered.
The staff concludes that the plant design is acceptable and meets the recommenda-tions of Standard Review Plan 3.7.3 and the requirements of General Design 4
Criterion 2 and Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100. This conclusion is based on the following:
the applicant has met the recommendations of Standard Review Plan 3.7.3 and the requirements.of GDC 2 and Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 with respect to the capability of the structures to withstand the effects of the -
earthquakes so that their design reflects:
(1) Appropriate consideration for the most severe earthquake recorded for the site with an appropriate margin (GDC 2). Consideration of two levels of earthquakes (Appendix A, 10 CFR 100),
(2)
Appropriate combination of the effects, of normal and accident cond.itions with the effect of the natural phenomena, and (3) The importance' of the safety functions to be performed (GDC 2). The use of a suitable dynamic analysis or a suitable qualification test to demon-strate that structures, systems, and components can withstand the seismic and other concurrent loads (Appendix A,10 CFR 100).
The applicant has met the requirements of item 1.11sted above by use of the acceptable seismic design parameters as per SRP Section 3.7.1.
The combina-i tion of earthquake resulted loads with those resulting from nonnal and acci-dent conditions in the design of Category I structures as specified in SRP Sections 3.8.1 through 3.8.5 is in confonnance with item 2 listed above.
\\
3 -
e Use.of the seismic analysis procedures and criteria discussed in the applicant's FSAR and sun.arized above provides an acceptable basis for the seismic design and is in conformance with the requirements of item 3 listed above.
3.7.4 Seismic Instrumentation Program The type, number, location, and utilization of strong motion accelerographs to record seismic events and to provide data on the frequency, amplitude, and phase relationship of the seismic response of the containment structure comply with RG 1.12, Revision 1. " Instrumentation for Earthquakes." Supporting instru-mentation is being installed on seismic Category I structures, systems, and components in order to provide data for the verification of the~ seismic re-sponses determined analytically for such seismic Category I items.
.nie conc u e that the se sm c instrumentation system provided for the plant is ld i
i acceptable and meets the recommendations of Standard Review Plan 3.7.4 and the requirements of General Design Criterion 2,10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A and 10 CFR Part 50, 650.55a by providing the inservice inspection program that will verify operability by performing channel checks, calibrations, and functional tests at acceptable intervals.
In addition, the installation of the specific seismic ir.strumentation on the reactor containment structure and at other Category I structures, systems, and components constitutes an acceptable pro-gram to record data on seismic ground motion as well as data on the frequency and amplitude relationship of the seismic response of major structures and systems. A prompt readout of pertinent data at the control. room can be ex-pected to yield sufficient information to guide the op6.ator on a timely basis for the purpose of evaluating the seismic response in the event of an earth-quake.
Data obtained from such installed seismic instrumentation will be suf-ficient to determine that the seismic analysis assumptions and the analytical model used for the design of the plant are adequate and that allowable stresas are not exceeded under conditions where continuity of operation is intended.
Provision of.such seismic instrumentation complies with Regulatory Guide 1.12.
3.8 Design of Category I Structures 3.8.1 Concrete Containment
- The concrete containment structure is a steel lined reinforced concrete struc-ture in the fom of a vertical right cylinder with a hemispherical dome and a flat base with a recess.beneath the reactor vessel. A detailed description of the containment structure is given in the applicant's FSAR.
. The containment structure is designed in accordance with applicable subsections of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section'III, and ACI 318 to resist various combinations of dead loads, live loads, environmental loads including those due to wind, tornadoes OBE, SSE and loads generated by the Design Basis Accident including pressure, temperature and associated pipe rupture effects.
- Mathematically, the dome and cylinder a're considered 'as thin-walled shells in the form of surface of revolution. The classical theory of thin shells is used to detemine botn bending and membrane stress resultants due to each indi-4 3-8,.
vidual load. The liner plate is not used as a strength element.
Interaction of the liner with the containment is considered in determining liner behavior.
The choice of the materials, the arrangement of the anchors, the design crite-ria and design methods are similar to those evaluated for previously licensed i
plants. Materials, construction methods, quality assurance and quality control measures are covered in the SAR and, in general, are similar to those used for previously accepted facilities.
Prior to operation, the con'tainment will be subjected to an accepted test in accordance with the Regulatory Guide 1.18 during which the internal pressure will be 1.15 times the containment design pressure.
The staff concludes that the design of the concrete containment is acceptable and meets the recomendations of SRP 3.8.1 and the relevant requirements of 10 CFR 50,150.55a, and GDC 1, 2, 4,16, and 50. This conclusion is based on the following:
(1) The applicant hr.s met the recommendations of Standard Review Plan 3.8.1 and the requirements of Section 50.55a and GDC 1 with respect to assuring that the containment is designed, fabricated, erected, contracted. tested l
and inspected to qualify standards commensurate with its safety function to be performed by meeting the guidelines of regulatory guides and indus-try standards indicated below.
f-(2) The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 2 by designing the concrete i
containment to withstand the most severe earthquake that has been estab-lished for the site with sufficient margin and the combinations of the effects of normal and accident condition with the effects of environmental loadings such 'as earthquakes and other na.tural phenomena.
(3) The applicant has met'the requirements of GDC 4 by assuring the c the design of the concrete containment is capable of withstanding the dynamic effects associated with missiles, pipe whipping, and discharging fluids.
.(4) The app!icant has met the requirements of GDC 16 by designing the concrete containment so that it is an essentially leaktight barrier to prevent the uncontrolled release of radioactive effluents to the environment.
-(5) The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 50 by designing the concrete containment to accomodate, with sufficient margin, the design leakage rate, calculated pressure and temperature conditions resulting from acci-dent conditions, and by assuring that the design conditions are not exceeded during the full course of the accident condition.
In meeting
.these design requirements, the applicant has used the recommendations of RGs and industry standards indicated below.
The criteria used in the analysis, design, and construction of the concrete containment structure to account for anticipated loadings and postulated condi-tions that may be imposed upon the structure during its service life +,ime are in W
\\
4
' 9,.
conformance with established criteria, and with codes, standards, guides, and specifications acceptable to the Regulatory staff. These include RG 1.10, 1.15, and 1.18, to mention a few, and industry standard ASME Boiler and-Pressure Ves-sel Code,Section III, Division 1 and Division 2 as well as ACI 318-71.
The use of these criteria as defined by applicable codes, standards, guides, and specifications; the loads and loading combinations; the design and analysis procedures; the structural acceptance criteria; the materials, quality control programs, and 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 o: curring within and outside the containment, the structure will withstand the specified design conditions without impairment of structural integrity or safety function of limiting, the release of radioactive material.
3.8.2 Steel Containment Not applicable for this facility.
3.8.3 Concrete and Structural Steel Internal Structures The containment' interior structures consist of walls, compartments, and floors.
The major code used in the design of concrete internal structures is ACI 349.
For steel internal structures the AISC Specification, " Specification for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Building," is used.
(For equipment supper-e Subsection NF of the ASME Code is used.)
The containment coner and steel internal structures were designed to resist various combinations ci cead and live loads, accident indaced loads, including pressure and jet loads, and seismic loads. The load combinations used cover those cases likely to occur and include all loads which may act simultaneously.
The design and analysis procedures that were used for the internal structures are the same as those on previously licensed applications and, in general, are in accordance with procedures delineated in the ACI 349 Code and in the AISC Specification for concrete and steel structures, respectively..
The containment internal structures were designed and proportioned to remain within limits established by the Regulatory staff under the various load com-binations. These limits are, in general. based on the ACI 349 Code and on the AISC Specification for concrete and steel structures, respectively, modified as appropriate for load combinations that are considered extreme.
. The materials of construction, their fabrication, construction.and installa-tion, are in accordance with ACI 349 Code and AISC Specification for concrete and steel structures, respectively.
The staff concludes that the design of the containment internal structures is acceptable and meets the recommendations of Standard Review Plan 3.8.3 and the relevant requirements of 10 CFR 50, ISO'.55a, and GDC 1, 2, 4, ~5, and 50. This conclusion is based on the following:
s
. 3-10
.(1)
The applicant has met the reconnendations of Standard Review Plan 3.8.3 and the requirement,s 'of Section 50.55a and GDC 1 with respect to assuring that the containment internal structures are designed, fabricated, erected, constructed, tested and inspected to quality standards commensurate with its safety-function to be performed by meeting.the guidelines of RGs and industry standards indicated below.
(2) The applicant hss met the requirements of GDC 2 by designing the containment internal structure to, withstand the most severe earthquake that has been established for the site with sufficient margin and the combinations of the effects of normal and accident conditiens with the effects of environ-mental loadings such as earthquakes and other natural phenomena.
(3)
The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 4 by assuring that the design of the internal structures are capable of withstanding the dynamic effects associated with missiles, pipe whipping and discharging fluids.
(4)
The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 5 by demonstrating that shar-ing of structure systems and components between units will not impair their ability to perform their intended safety function.
(5) The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 50 by designing the contain-ment internal structures to accommodate, with sufficient margin, the design leakage rate, calculated pressure and temperature conditions resulting from accident conditions and by assuring that the design conditions are not exceeded during the full course of the accident condition.
In meeting 4
these design requirements, the applicant has used the reconnendations of RGs and industry standards indicated below.
The criteria used in the analysis, design, and construction of the con-tainment internal structures to account for anticipated loadings and postulated conditions' that may be imposed on the structures during their service lifetime are in conformance with established criteria, and with codes, standards, and specifications acceptable to the Regulatory staff.
l~
These include meeting the positions of RGs 1.94 and 1.042 and industry l
standards-ACI-349, ASME, "ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Sec-l tion III, Division 2, Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containments,"
l ASME, " Boiler Pressure Vessel Code Section III, Division 1, Subsections NE and NF," AISC, " Specifications for the Design, Fabrication, and Erec-tion of Structural Steel for Buildings," and ANSI N45.2.5.
The use of these criteria as defined by applicable codes, standards, and specifications, the loads and loading combinations; the design and analy-sis procedures; the structural acceptance criteria; the materials, quality l
control programs, and special construction techniques; and the testing and I
inservice surveille.nce requirements provide reasonable assurance that, in the event of earthquakes and various postulated accidents occurring within the containment, the interior structures will withstand the specified design conditions without impairment of structural integrity or the per-formance of required safety functions.
3.8.4.0ther Seismic Category I Structures x
3-11.
r i'-
..._....__.__.._...._.__.,__f,__.__
A list of the other seismic Category I structures is provided in the applicant's FSAR, Section 3.8.4.
Seismic Category 1 structures other than the containment and its interior structures are of structural steel and concrete.
The structural components of the steel and concrete structures consist of slabs, walls, beams, and columns.
The design method for concrete was in accordance with that specified in the ACI Standard 318. Structural steel compenents were designed in accordance with the AISC specifications. These, documents are acceptable to the staff.
The concrete and steel Category I structures were designed to resist various combinations of dead loads; live loads; environmental loads including winds, tornadoes OBE and SSE; and loads generated by postulated ruptures of high energy pipes such as reaction and jet impingement forces, compartment pressures, and impact effects of whipping pipes.
The design and analysis procedures that were and for these Category I structures are the same as those approved on previously licensed applications and, in general, are in accordance with procedures delineated in the ACI 318 Codes and in thi AISC Specification for concrete and steel structures, r'espectively.
The various Category I structures are designed and proportioned to remain within limits established by the Regulatory staff under the various load combinations.
These limits are, in general, based on the ACI 318 Code and on the AISC Specification for concrete and steel structures, respectively, modified as appropriate for load combinations that are considered extreme.
The materials of construction, their fabrication, construction and installa-tion are in accordance with the ACI 318 Code and the AISC Specification for concrete and steel structures, respectively.
The staff concludes that the design of safety-related structures is acceptable and meets the recommendations of Standard Review Plan 3.8.4 and the relevant requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, 550.55a, and General Design Criteria 1, 2, 4,'
and 5.
This conclusion is based on the following:
(1) The applicant has met the recoinmendations of' Standard Review Plan 3.8.4 and the requirements of 50.55a and GDC 1 with respect to assuring that the safety-related structures other than containment are designed, fabri-cated, erected, contracted, tested and inspected to quality standards comensurate with its safety function to be performed by meeting the guidelines of Regulatory Guides and industry standards indicated below.
(2) The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 2 by designing the safety-related structures other than containment to withstand the most severe earthquake that has been established for the site with sufficient margin and the combination of the effects of normal and accident conditions with the effects of environmental loadings such as earthquakes and other natural phenomena.
\\
l
. 3-12 L
~...
,7 (3) The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 4 by assuring' that the design of the safety-related structures are capable of withstanding the dynamic effects associated with missiles, pipe whipping, and discharging fluids.
(4) The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 5' by demonstrating that.
L
_ structures, systems, and components 'are not shared between units or that if shared they have demonstrated that sharing will not impair their ability to perform their intended safety function.
The criteria used in thehnalysis, design, and construction of the steel and concrete seismic Category I structures to account for anticipatad loadings and postulated conditions that may be imposed upon each structure during its service lifetime are in conformance with established criteria, codes, standards, and specifjcations acceptable to the staff, as now included in SRP Section 3.8.4.
The use of these criteria, the loads and loading combinations, the design and analysis procedures, the structural acceptance criteria, the materials, qual-ity control, and special construction techniques, and the testing and inservice surveillance requirements, provide reasonable assurance that, in the event of winds, tornados, earthquakes and various postulated accidents occurring within the structures, the structures will withstand the specified design conditions without impairnant of structural integrity or the performance of rcquired safety functions.
3.8.5 Foundations Foundations of Category I structures are described in Section 3.8.5 of the SAR.
Primarily, thase foundations are reinforced concrete of the mat type.
The ma,jor code used in the design of these concrete mat foundations is ACI 318.
These concrete foundations have been designed to resist various combinations of dead loads; live loads; environmental loads including winds, tornadoes, OBE and SSE and loads generated by postulated ruptures of. high energy pipes.
The' design and' analysis procedures that were used for these Category I founda-tions are the-same as those approved on previously licensed applications and,
.in general, are in accordance with procedures delineated in the ACI 318 Code.
The various Category I foundations were designed and proportioned to remain within limits established by the Regulatory staff under the various load com-binations. ' These limits are, in general, based on the ACI 318 Code modified as appropriate for load combinations that are considered extreme.
The mate-rials of' construction, their fabrication, construction and installation, will be in accordance with the ACI 318 Code.
The staff concludes that.the design of the seismic Category I foundations is acceptable and meets reconnendations of SRP 3.8.5 and the relevant require-ments of 10 CFR 50, 550.55a, and GDC 1, 2, 4, and 5.
This conclusion is based on the following:
I
-(1) The applicant has met the requirements of 50.55a and GDC 1 with respect to
. assuring that the seismic Category I foundations are designed, fabricated,
\\
.'3-13.
erected, contracted, tested and inspected to quality standards comensurate with its safety function to be perfcrmed by meeting the guidelines of
.RGs and industry standards indicated below.
(2) The applicant-has met the requirements of GDC 2 by designing the seismic Category I foundation to withstand the most severe earthquake that has been established for the site with sufficient margin and the combination of the effects of normal and accident conditions with the effects of environmental loadings;such as earthquakes and other natural phenomena.
(3) The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 4 by assuring that the design of seismic Category I foundations are capable of withstanding the dynamic effects associated with.nissiles, pipe whipping, and discharging fluids.
(4) The applicant has met the requirements of GDC 5 by demonstrating that structures, systems, and components are not shared between units or that sharing will not impair their ability to perfonn their intended safety function.
The criteria used in the analysis, design, and construction of all the plant s'aismic Category I foundations to account for anticipated loadings and postulated conditions that may be imposed upon each foundation during its service lifetime are in conformance with established criteria, codes, standards, and specifica-tions acceptable to the Regulatory staff. These include meeting the industry standards ACI-318 and AISC, " Specification for Design, Fabrication, and Erec-tion of Structural Steel for Byilding."
The use of these criteria as defined by applicable codes, standards, guides, ana vecifications; the loads and loading combinations; the design and analysis procedures; the structural acceptance criteria.; 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 events, seismic Category I foundations withstand the specified design conditions without. impairment of structural integrity and stability or the performance of required safety functions.
3.8.6. Structural Audit Between March 7 and 11,1983, the staff conducted a structural audit of the Shearon Harris Plant at the New York Office of Ebasco Co., applicant's AE firm.
As a result, ten issues were identified as open' items to be resolved at a later date. They are discussed in the staff trip report, a memorandum from S. Kim to G. Lear of NRC dated May 10, 1983. Subsequently, on July 15, the applicant submitted a letter report on the subject.
Eight issues have been reso1ved in a satisfactory manner.
The following are the two issues still under review that will be addrcssed in a supplement to the SER.
O
'\\
3-14..
.p (1)
No physical anchor exists between the foundation mat and the bed rock.
Therefore, only downward compression load is transmitted to the bed rock. An uplift of the foundation mat is a possibility when the compres-sive load is no longer present as in the case of an earthquake when an excessive horizontal load is developed.
Indeed, it was stated in the TSAR that a partial uplift is expected. This one-way spring is a char-acteristic of a non-linear spring and a careful verification of the code is needed.
It should be noted that the design criteria allows only 10%
margin against the worst case overturning moment.
(2) The major code used for the stress analysis of the containment building and internal structure is the SHELL code. This is an in-house developed axisymmetric code which accounts for concrete cracks in tension. The cracked model may reduce forces and moments as much as 80% from uncracked model. An iteration process was used to obtain a final crack size of the concrete. There were several comparisons of the SHELL code of uncracked cross sections with other available codes and closed form solutions.
How-
- ever, the staff was unable to find any verification results for the cracked model.
S e
e o
'N 3-15.-
_ - -. - -.