DCL-11-124, Standard Review Plan Comparison Tables for License Amendment Request 11-05, Evaluation Process for New Seismic Information and Clarifying the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Safe Shutdown Earthquake.

Standard Review Plan Comparison Tables for License Amendment Request 11-05, Evaluation Process for New Seismic Information and Clarifying the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Safe Shutdown Earthquake.

ML11342A238
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	12/06/2011
From:	Becker J Pacific Gas & Electric Co
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Document Control Desk
References
DCL-11-124
Download: ML11342A238 (331)

Text

Pacific ElectricGas and Company James R. Becker Diablo Canyon Power Plant Site Vice President Mail Code 104/6 P.0. Box 56 Avila Beach, CA 93424 December 6, 2011 805.545.3462 Internal: 691.3462 Fax: 805.545.6445 PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 CFR 50.90 ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 Docket No. 50-275, OL-DPR-80 Docket No. 50-323, OL-DPR-82 Standard Review Plan Comparison Tables for License Amendment Request 11-05, "Evaluation Process for New Seismic Information and Clarifyinq the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Safe Shutdown Earthquake"

References:

1) PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-097, "License Amendment Request 11-05, 'Evaluation Process for New Seismic Information and Clarifying the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Safe Shutdown Earthquake,"' dated October 20, 2011

2) NRC letter, "Summary of June 20, 2011, Pre-licensing Meeting with Pacific Gas and Electric Company on Proposed License Amendment for a New Seismic and Design Evaluation Process (TAC Nos. ME5033 and ME 5034),"

dated July 29, 2011 In Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Letter DCL-1 1-097 (Reference 1),

PG&E submitted a license amendment request (LAR) to: (1) clearly define an evaluation process for newly identified seismic information and incorporate ongoing commitments associated with the Long Term Seismic Program (LTSP) into the. Final Safety Analysis Report Update; and (2) clarify, consistent with the NRC Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report 7, that the 1977 Hosgri earthquake is the equivalent of Diablo Canon Power Plant's safe shutdown earthquake, as defined in 10 CFR 100, Appendix A.

Prior to submitting DCL-1 1-097, the NRC Staff conducted the last of four pre-licensing public meetings (Reference 2) with PG&E on June 20, 2011. The Staff requested that:

... the amendment needed to describe where the methodologies and acceptance limits used in the evaluation of structures and components for the HE are deviating from the applicable provisionsin the StandardReview Plan (SRP).

A member of the STARS (Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing) Alliance Callaway

• Comanche Peak

• Diablo Canyon - Palo Verdle

• San Onofre

• South Texas Project

• Wolf Creek

Document Control Desk PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 December 6, 2011

.1a" Page 2

... a table providing the deviations from the SRP for the HE should be provided with this LAR.

PG&E had a follow-up call with the Staff on June 29, 2011, to discuss inclusion of SRP comparison tables. Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) was not licensed pursuant to 10 CFR 100 and is not by this submission committing to any part of 10 CFR 100. PG&E prepared the comparison tables provided as Enclosure 1 to this letter only to respond to the NRC Staff request. The information included in the comparison tables is not a part of DCL-1 1-097, nor is it meant to or is necessary to, support the LAR.

PG&E makes no regulatory commitments (as defined by NEI 99-04) in this letter.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mr. Tom Baldwin at (805) 545-4720.

Sincerely, JamesVi Becker Site Vice President mjrm/4557 Enclosure cc: Diablo Distribution cc/enc: Elmo E. Collins, Regional Administrator, NRC Region IV Michael S. Peck, NRC Senior Resident Inspector Alan B. Wang, NRR Project Manager, A member of the STARS (Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing) Alliance Caltaway - Comanche Peak - Diablo Canyon

• Palo Verde . San Onofre # South Texas Project

• Wolf Creek

Enclosure PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Standard Review Plan Comparison Tables for License Amendment Request 11-05, "Evaluation Process for New Seismic Information and Clarifying the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Safe Shutdown Earthquake" In support of the NRC review of License Amendment Request 11-05 (Reference 1),

the NRC Staff requested (Reference 2) that PG&E provide a comparison with the latest version of applicable sections of NUREG-0800, "Standard Review Plan (SRP) for Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, LWR Edition."

The information provided in the attachments identifies key areas where the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) Hosgri design and licensing information appears to differ from the current SRP criteria applicable to a safe shutdown earthquake based on comparisons made by knowledgeable PG&E personnel and contractors. The attachments are based on review of the current licensing and design bases documents, including but not limited to the Final Safety Analysis Report, Design Criteria Memoranda (DCM 1), and other proprietary documents controlled by Westinghouse 2 . The information provided is not a comprehensive design and licensing basis verification, as the SRP criteria are not the DCPP design and licensing basis, nor are they proposed to be established as the DCPP design and licensing basis.

Please note that DCPP is not a SRP committed plant and the information provided does not denote compliance with SRP requirements, nor does it represent a commitment to any specific requirements. The purpose for this information is to assist the NRC Staff with their review of the proposed LAR.

Below is a table of the attachments for this letter, "Table of Attachments," which shows the Enclosure Attachment number, the SRP Section number, and the Section/Subsection Description. In many cases, either the first paragraph of the 1 A DCM is a document which is designed to contain a summary of the major design bases of selected plant systems, structures, components and topics. It summarizes the various required functions and regulatory issues that affect the design bases and how DCPP has designed its systems, structures, components and topics to meet those requirements. The DCM document is designed to provide a single starting point for identifying and understanding the major design bases of selected

?lant systems, structures, components and topics.

Information provided by Westinghouse was not independently reviewed or audited by PG&E.

1

Enclosure PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 SRP acceptance criteria is quoted or the section is summarized due to the amount of information in the SRP sections.

2

Enclosure PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Table of Attachments Attachment SRP Section Rev. Section / Subsection Description 1 2.5.1 4 Basic Geology & Seismic Information 2 2.5.2 4 Vibratory Ground Motion 3 2.5.3 4 Surface Faulting 4 3.2.1 2 Seismic Classification 5 3.7.1 3 Seismic Design Parameters 6 3.7.2 3 Seismic System Analysis - Containment Exterior and Interior Structure 7 3.7.2 3 Seismic System Analysis - Auxiliary Building 8 3.7.2 3 Seismic System Analysis - Turbine Building 9 3.7.2 3 Seismic System Analysis - Intake Structure 10 3.7.3 3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Annulus Structure 11 3.7.3 3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Polar Crane 12 3.7.3 3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Pipeway Structure 13 3.7.3 3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Fuel Handling Building Steel Superstructure 14 3.7.3 3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Outdoor Water Storage Tanks (OWST's) 15 3.7.3 3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Architectural Platforms 16 3.7.3 3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Plant Vent 17 3.7.3 3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Buried Auxiliary Saltwater (ASW) Piping 18 3.7.3 3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Buried Vital Electrical Conduits 19 3.7.3 3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Fuel Handling Building (FHB) Crane 20 3.8.1 3 Concrete Containment Concrete and Steel Internal Structures for Concrete Containment - Interior Concrete 21 3.8.3 3 Structure 22 3.8.3 3 Concrete and Steel Internal Structures for Concrete Containment - Annulus Structure 23 3.8.4 3 Other Seismic Category 1 Structures - Outdoor Water Storage Tanks (OWST's) 24 3.8.4 3 Other Seismic Category 1 Structures - Auxiliary Building 25 3.8.4 3 Other Seismic Category 1 Structures - Containment Plant Vent 26 3.8.4 3 Other Seismic Category 1 Structures - Fuel Handling Building Steel Superstructure (FHBSS) 27 3.8.4 3 Other Seismic Category 1 Structures - Turbine Building 3

Enclosure PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 28 3.8.4 3 Other Seismic Category 1 Structures - Intake Structure 29 3.8.4 3 Other Seismic Category 1 Structures - Masonry Walls 30 3.8.4 3 Other Seismic Category 1 Structures - Spent Fuel Racks 31 3.8.4 3 Other Seismic Category 1 Structures - Pipeway Structure 32 3.8.4 3 Other Seismic Category 1 Structures - Containment Polar Crane 33 3.8.4 3 Other Seismic Category 1 Structures - Fuel Handling Building (FHB) Crane 34 3.8.5 3 Foundations - Containment Exterior Structure 35 3.8.5 3 - Foundations - Auxiliary Building 36 3.8.5 3 Foundations - Turbine Building 37 3.8.5 3 Foundations - Intake Structure 38 3.8.5 3 Foundations - Outdoor Water Storage Tank (OWST)

Special Topics for Mechanical Components - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Fuel 39 3.9.1 3 Assembly Special Topics for Mechanical Components - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) -

40 3.9.1 3 Pressurizer Special Topics for Mechanical Components - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) -

41 3.9.1 3 Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) 42 3.9.2 3 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs. - Piping, Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL) 43 3.9.2 3 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs. - Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Pipe Supports, non-Reactor Coolant Loop 44 3.9.2 3 (non-RCL)

Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Fuel 45 3.9.2 3 Assembly Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) -

46 3.9.2 3 Pressurizer Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Reactor 47 3.9.2 3 Coolant Pump (RCP)

Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Reactor 48 3.9.2 3 Internals and Reactor Vessel Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Steam 49 3.9.2 3 Generator 50 3.9.2 3 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (non-RCS) 4

Enclosure PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Components and Component Supports and Core Support 51 3.9.3 3 Structures - Piping Supports, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Components and Component Supports and Core Support 52 3.9.3 3 Structures - Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Components and Component Supports and Core Support 53 3.9.3 3 Structures. - Piping, Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL)

ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Components and Component Supports and Core Support 54 3.9.3 3 Structures - Mechanical Equipment (Non-RCS)

ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Components and Component Supports and Core Support 55 3.9.3 3 Structures - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Fuel Assembly ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Components and Component Supports, and Core Support Structures - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - NSSS Primary Equipment Supports 56 3.9.3 3 (PES)

ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Components and Component Supports, and Core Support 57 3.9.3 3 Structures - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Pressurizer ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Components and Component Supports, and Core Support 58 3.9.3 3 Structures - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP)

ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Components and Component Supports, and Core Support 59 3.9.3 3 Structures - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Reactor Vessel ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Components and Component Supports, and Core Support 60 3.9.3 3 Structures - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Steam Generator 61 3.10 3 Seismic and Dynamic Qualification of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Piping Systems, Piping Components, and Supports - Pipe 62 3.12 3 Supports, non- Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL).

ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Piping Systems, Piping Components, and Supports - Piping, 63 3.12 3 non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Piping Systems, Piping Components, and Supports - Piping, 64 3.12 3 Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL)

-Reactor Coolant System Component & Subcomponent Design - Piping, 65 5.4 2 non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

Reactor Coolant System Component & Subcomponent Design - Piping, 66 5.4 2 Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL) 5

Enclosure PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 References within the attachments include the following:

1. DCM T-1A, Containment Structure Exterior

2. DCM T-1 B, Containment Structure Interior

3. DCM T-1 D, Containment Structure - Liner

4. DCM T-1 E, Pipeway Structure

5. DCM T-1 F, Containment Plant Vent

6. DCM T-2, Auxiliary Building

7. DCM T-3, Structural Design of the Fuel Handling Building Steel Superstructure

8. DCM T-4, Structural Design of the Turbine Building

9. DCM T-5, Structural Design of the Intake Structure

10. DCM T-6, Seismic Analysis of Structures

11. DCM T-6, Seismic Analysis of Structures, Appendix A: Containment Structure

12. DCM T-6, Seismic Analysis of Structures, Appendix D: Intake Structure

13. DCM T-6, Seismic Analysis of Structures, Appendix E: Outdoor Water Storage Tanks

14. DCM T-8, Structural Design of Electrical Raceways and Class 1E Supports

15. DCM T-10. "Seismic Qualification of Equipment" 6

Enclosure PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124

16. DCM T-14, Seismically Induced Systems Interactions

17. DCM T-24, Design Criteria for DCPP Instrumentation and Control

18. DCM T-28, Design Class I Outdoor Water Storage Tanks and Class 'S' Piping Vaults

19. DCM T-31, Safety-Related Masonry Walls

20. DCM S-42B, APPENDIX A -Containment Polar Crane

21. DCM S-42B, Fuel Handling Cranes & Storage Racks

22. DCM S-42B, APPENDIX C - Fuel Handling Building Crane

23. DCM S-42B, APPENDIX E -Fuel Storage Racks

24. DCM S-9A, Appendix A - Containment Recirculation Sump & Strainer Function - RG 1.82 Evaluation

25. DCM S-17B, Auxiliary Saltwater System

26. DCM C-17, Hosgri Earthquake Response Spectra

27. DCM C-49, Class I and Class IIA Architectural Platforms

28. DCM C-63, Diablo Canyon Units 1 & 2 - Concrete Embedded Plates

29. Q-List, Classification of Structures, Systems, and Components for Diablo Canyon Power Plant Units 1 and 2 Other

References:

1. PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-097, "License Amendment Request 11-05, 'Evaluation Process for New Seismic Information and Clarifying the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Safe Shutdown Earthquake,"' dated October 20, 2011 7

Enclosure PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124

2. NRC letter, "Summary of June 20, 2011, Pre-licensing Meeting with Pacific Gas and Electric Company on Proposed License Amendment for a New Seismic and Design Evaluation Process (TAC Nos. ME5033 and ME 5034)," dated July 29, 2011 8

DCL-11-124 Acronym Glossary ASIC - American Institute of Steel Construction AOR - Analysis of Record ASW - auxiliary saltwater CAP - Corrective Action Program CFR - Code of Federal Regulations CFD - computational flow dynamics CRDM - control rod drive mechanism CST - condensate storage tank DCM - Design Criteria Memoranda DCPP - Diablo Canyon Power Plant DE - design earthquake DDE - double design earthquake FHB - fuel handling building FHBSS - fuel handling building steel superstructure FSAR - Final Safety Analysis Report FSARU - Final Safety Analysis Report Update FWTT - fire water and transfer tank GDC - general design criteria GMRS - Ground Motion Response Spectra HE - Hosgri Earthquake HELB - high-energy line break IE - Information and Enforcement IEEE - Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IHA - integrated head assembly ksf - kips per square foot LOCA - loss-of-coolant accident NSSS - Nuclear Steam Supply System OBE - Operating Basis Earthquake OL - Operating License OLA - Operating License Application OWST - outdoor water storage tank PES - primary equipment supports PSD - Power Spectral Density QA - Quality Assurance RCL - reactor coolant loop RCP - reactor coolant pump RCS - reactor coolant system RESM - Reactor Equipment System Model RG - Regulatory Guide RVHVS - reactor vessel head vent system RVLIS - reactor vessel level instrumentation system RWST - refueling water storagetank SFP - spent fuel pool SRP - Standard Review Plan SRSS - square root of the sum of the squares SSC - structures, systems, and components SSE - Safe Shutdown Earthquake SSI - soil-structure interaction USAS - USA Standard

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 1 SRP 2.5.1 Basic Geologic & Seismic Information SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.1. Regional Geology FSAR Section 2.5.1.1 (Basic Geologic and Seismic Information - Regional Geology) provides a general overview of the regional geology. Details of the comparison with In meeting requirements of GDC 2 in Appendix A of the SRP Acceptance Criteria are provided below, based on the RG's and CFR 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR 52.17, and 10 CFR 100.23, Acceptance Criteria listed in the SRP.

SAR Section 2.5.1.1 will be considered acceptable if a complete and documented discussion....

11.2. Site Geology FSAR Section 2.5.1.2 (Basic Geologic and Seismic Information - Site Geology) provides a general overview of the regional geology. Details of the comparison with In meeting requirements of GDC 2 in Appendix A of the SRP acceptance criteria are provided below, based on the RG's and CFR 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR 52.17, 10 CFR 100.23, and acceptance criteria listed in the SRP.

regulatory positions presented in Regulatory Guides 1.165, 1.132, 1.138, 1.198, 1.208 and 4.7, SAR Section 2.5.1.2 will be considered acceptable if it contains ......

11.1. and 11.2. (continued) The FSAR Section 2.5.1.2.6.1 states that the borings were conducted at or near the intersection of the Unit 1 exploratory trenches. FSAR Figure 2.5-11 shows the

- Reg. Guide 1.132, "Site Investigation for boring locations, but does not provide a high level of detail.

Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants" RG 1.132 (Appendix C) sets the boring spacing under large structures every This RG provides general guidance and 30 meters. The DCPP design/licensing basis does not require that borings meet this recommendations for conducting subsurface spacing.

investigations.

The shear wave velocity (Vs) profile is the key parameter for the site amplification for computing the ground motions. The velocity profile has been characterized by downhole measurements at DCPP.

11.1. and 11.2. (continued) This RG applies to liquefaction at soil sites. DCPP is a rock site.

- Reg. Guide 1.198, "Procedures and Criteria for Assessing Seismic Soil Liquefaction at Nuclear Power Plant Sites" Page 1 of 2

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 1 SRP 2.5.1 Basic Geologic & Seismic Information SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.1. and 11.2. (continued) This RG applies to site selection. The location of DCPP has already been established and DCPP is an operating plant.

CPianortngpn.

-Reg. Guide 4.7, "General Site Suitability Criteria esalhdan for Nuclear Power Stations" 11.1. and 11.2. (continued) This RG applies to Combined License Applications. DCPP has already been licensed.

- Reg. Guide 1.206, "Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants - LWR Edition" 11.1. and 11.2. (continued) This regulation applies to construction permit or OLA's for nuclear power plants submitted on or after January 10, 1997. The construction permit applications for

- IOCFR100.23, "Geologic and Seismic Siting DCPP were submitted in 1967 (Unit 1) and 1968 (Unit 2), and the OLA's were Criteria" submitted in 1973 for both units.

Page 2 of 2

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 2 SRP 2.5.2 Vibratory Ground Motion SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.1. 2.5.2.1 Seismicity This regulation applies to construction permit or OLA's for nuclear power plants submitted on or after January 10, 1997. The construction permit applications for To meet the requirements of 10 CFR 100.23, this DCPP were submitted in 1967 (Unit 1) and 1968 (Unit 2), and the OLA's were subsection is accepted when the complete historical submitted in 1973 for both units.

record of earthquakes in the region is listed...

11.2. 2.5.2.2 Geologic and Tectonic Characteristics of This regulation applies to construction permit or OLA's for nuclear power plants Site and Region submitted on or after January 10, 1997. The construction permit applications for DCPP were submitted in 1967 (Unit 1) and 1968 (Unit 2), and the OLA's were Seismic sources identified and characterized by submitted in 1973 for both units.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) were used for studies...

11.3.2.5.2.3 Correlation of Earthquake Activity with This regulation applies to construction permit or OLA's for nuclear power plants Seismic Sources submitted on or after January 10, 1997. The construction permit applications for DCPP were submitted in 1967 (Unit 1) and 1968 (Unit 2), and the OLA's were To meet the requirements in 10 CFR 100.23, submitted in 1973 for both units.

acceptance of this subsection is based on the...

11.4.2.5.2.4 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and This SRP acceptance criteria applies to seismic designs based on probabilistic Controlling Earthquakes seismic hazards analysis. DCPP's seismic design is based on the deterministic method.

For CEUS sites relying on LLNL or EPRI methods and databases, the staff... This regulation applies to construction permit or OLA's for nuclear power plants submitted on or after January 10, 1997. The construction permit applications for DCPP were submitted in 1967 (Unit 1) and 1968 (Unit 2), and the OLA's were submitted in 1973 for both units.

1 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 2 SRP 2.5.2 Vibratory Ground Motion SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.5.2.5.2.5 Seismic Wave Transmission Characteristics This SRP acceptance criteria applies to seismic designs based on probabilistic of the Site seismic hazards analysis. DCPP's seismic design is based on the deterministic method.

In the PSHA procedure described in Regulatory Guide 1.165... This regulation applies to construction permit or OLA's for nuclear power plants submitted on or after January 10, 1997. The construction permit applications for DCPP were submitted in 1967 (Unit 1) and 1968 (Unit 2), and the OLA's were submitted in 1973 for both units.

11.6.2.5.2.6 Ground Motion Response Spectra DCPP's seismic design is based on the deterministic method, not a probabilistic seismic hazards analysis.

the applicant's In this subsection, the staff reviews procedure to determine GMRS. If the applicant uses Details of the comparison with the SRP acceptance criteria is provided below, based the reference probability approach, the GMRS is on the RG's and CFR acceptance criteria listed in the SRP.

considered acceptable if they meet Regulatory Position 4 of and Appendix F of Regulatory Guide 1.165. If the applicant uses the performance-based approach, the GMRS are considered acceptable if they meet Regulatory Position 5 of Regulatory Guide 1.208.

11.6. (continued) This RG applies to site selection. The location of DCPP has already been established and DCPP is an operating plant.

- Reg. Guide 4.7, "General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations" 11.6. (continued) This RG applies to seismic designs based on a standard spectral shape. DCPP uses a site-specific spectrum for the 1977 HE.

for

- Reg. Guide 1.60, "Design Response Spectra Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants" This RG provides a standard deterministic spectral shape, which is to be scaled for the peak ground acceleration at the site.

2 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 2 SRP 2.5.2 Vibratory Ground Motion SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.6. (continued) This SRP acceptance criteria applies to seismic designs based on probabilistic seismic hazards analysis. DCPP's seismic design is based on the deterministic Reg. Guide 1.165, "Identification and method.

Characterization of Seismic Sources and Determination of Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion" This RG describes the methodology for conducting a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and selecting a hazard level for a design spectrum 11.6. (continued) This SRP acceptance criteria applies to seismic designs based on probabilistic seismic hazards analysis. DCPP's seismic design is based on the deterministic

- Reg. Guide 1.208, "A Performance Based method.

Approach to Define Site-Specific Earthquake Ground Motion"

- Horizontal: This RG describes an updated methodology for developing a horizontal design spectrum based on a probabilistic methods and risk methods for the horizontal component.

11.6. (continued) The vertical design spectrum for the 1977 HE is 2/3 of the horizontal design spectrum.

Based

- Reg. Guide 1.208, "A Performance Approach to Define Site-Specific Earthquake Ground Motion"

- Vertical: Section 5.2 of this RG requires that the vertical design spectrum be computed using the most up to date V/H ratio model that is appropriate for the site.

3 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 2 SRP 2.5.2 Vibratory Ground Motion SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.6. (continued) This RG applies to Combined License Applications. DCPP has already been licensed.

- Reg. Guide 1.206, "Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants - LWR Edition" 11.6. (continued) If the 1977 HE (peak ground acceleration of 0.75 g) is equated to the SSE, the Design Earthquake (peak ground acceleration of 0.20 g), which is equated to the In addition,Section V.(a).2 requires that the OBE, is less than one-half of the SSE.

Operating Basis Earthquake OBE) be at least one-half of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE).

11.6. (continued) This regulation applies to construction permit or OLA's for nuclear power plants submitted on or after January 10, 1997. The construction permit applications for

- 10CFR100.23, "Geologic and Seismic Siting DCPP were submitted in 1967 (Unit 1) and 1968 (Unit 2), and the OLA's were Criteria" submitted in 1973 for both units.

4 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 3 SRP 2.5.3 Surface Faulting SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis ll.1.Geolo-qic, Seismic, and Geophysical Investigations FSAR Section 2.5.3 (Surface Faulting) provides a general overview of the geologic studies performed at DCCP for the identification of potential surface faulting. Details Requirements of GDC 2 in Appendix A of 10 CFR of the comparison with the SRP acceptance criteria are provided below, based on Part 50, 10 CFR 52.17, and 10 CFR 100.23... the RG's and CFR acceptance criteria listed in the SRP.

through 11.8. Potential for Surface Tectonic Deformation at the Site Location To meet the requirements of GDC2 in Appendix Aof 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR 52.17, and 10 CFR 100.23...

11.1. through 11.8. (continued) This RG is not applicable to surface faulting.

- Reg. Guide 1.132, "Site Investigation for Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants" This RG does not provide any guidance for the identification of surface faulting.

11.1. through 11.8. (continued) This RG is not applicable to surface faulting.

- Reg. Guide 1.198, "Procedures and Criteria for Assessing Seismic Soil Liquefaction at Nuclear Power Plant Sites" This RG does not provide any guidance for the identification of surface faulting.

1 of 2

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 3 SRP 2.5.3 Surface Faulting SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.1. through 11.8. (continued) This RG applies to Combined License Applications. DCPP has already been licensed.

- Reg. Guide 1.206, "Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants - LWR Edition" 11.1. through 11.8. (continued) The FSAR is generally consistent with the requirements of this RG, but the recently-discovered Shoreline Fault is not included.

- 10 CFR1 00, Appendix A, "Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants" This appendix provides general requirements for the development of the deterministic earthquakes for a nuclear power plant and requires the identification of surface faulting.

11.1. through 11.8.: (continued) This regulation applies to construction permit or OLA's for nuclear power plants submitted on or after January 10, 1997. The construction permits for DCPP were

- 10 CFR 100.23, "Geologic and Seismic Siting submitted in 1967 (Unit 1) and 1968 (Unit 2), and the full power OL's for DCPP were Criteria" issued in 1984 (Unit 2) and 1985 (Unit 2).

2 of 2

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 4 3.2.1 Seismic Classification SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis I1.1 .To meet the requirements of GDC 2, 10 CFR Part FSARU Section 3.2.1 describes the seismic classification of SSC'c. DCPP meets 100, Appendix A, and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix S the requirements of 1967 GDC 2, 10 CFR 100, Appendix A, and Safety Guide 29.

regarding seismic design classification are met by The classification of specific SSC's are provided in the DCPP Q-List1 .

using guidance provided in RG 1.29 "Seismic Design Classification." This guide describes an acceptable method of identifying and classifying those plant features that should be designed to withstand the effects of the SSE.

11.1. (continued) The DCPP Q-List, Section 2.2.3.3, indicates that the technical and quality assurance requirements for each instrument class are provided in DCM T-24.

RG 1.151, "Instrument Sensing Lines," provides guidance with regard to seismic design requirements Instrumentation serving post-accident monitoring functions are further classified in and classification of safety-related instrumentation accordance with RG 1.97.

sensing lines.

11.1. (continued) Per the DCPP Q-List, QA Classification "G" is applied to portions of the fire protection system, which require application of a quality program as described in RG 1.189, "Fire Protection for Nuclear Power Appendix A to NRC Branch Technical Position APCSB 9.5-1.

Plants" provides guidance used to establish the design requirements of fire protection to meet the requirements of GDC 2 as it relates to designing these SSCs to withstand earthquakes. This guide identifies portions of fire protection SSCs requiring some level of seismic design consideration.

PG&E Q-list, "Classification of Structures, Systems, and Components for Diablo Canyon Power Plant Units 1 and 2" 1 of 1

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 5 SRP 3.7.1 Seismic Design Parameters SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.1. Desigqn Ground Motion See discussion below 11.1.A. Desigqn Response Spectra The 1977 HE evaluation of DCPP is based on deterministic spectra. The site specific GMRS described in the SRP is based on a probabilistic approach for a The site-specific GMRS reviewed under SRP hazard level of 1 E-4 for the hazard at DCPP.

Section 2.5.2 are determined in the free-field on the ground surface. For sites with soil layers near the surface...

11.1.B. Design Time Histories Hosgri Report, Section 4.1.1 states that the design ground motion time histories were developed by an iterative procedure to match the smooth spectra', which The SSE and OBE design ground motion time corresponds to an artificial time history. This is consistent with Section 4.3.1.5.2 of histories can be either real time histories or artificial DCM T-6, which states that the 1977 HE time histories are artificial.

time histories.

11.1..B. (continued) A set of individual horizontal time histories is provided for each major structure (the same time history to be applied in each horizontal direction) and a single To be acceptable, the time histories should consist Of vertical time history is provided to be used for all major structures 2 (see FSARU three mutually orthogonal directions which are Figures 3.7-4G through 3.7-4M). Since the same horizontal time history is statistically independent, applicable for both horizontal directions, they are not statistically independent.

11.1..B. (continued) The Hosgri Report, Section 4.1.1 states that the time histories were developed by an iterative procedure to match the smooth spectra (a method of generating artificial Artificial time histories which are not based on seed time histories), but does not indicate if a seed recorded time history was used.

recorded time histories should not be used.

Separate horizontal time histories are provided for (a) free-field, (b) containment, (c) auxiliary building, (d) intake structure, and (e) turbine building due to impact of Tau-filtering on the ground motion spectral shape (different for the Blume and Newmark Hosgri response spectra). A single vertical time history is provided for all buildings, since Tau-filtering is not applicable to vertical ground motion.

2 Same as previous footnote 1 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 5 SRP 3.7.1 Seismic Design Parameters SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.B. (continued A total time duration of 24 seconds was used for the Hosgri ground motion time histories with approximately 10 seconds of strong motion (FSARU Figures 3.7-4G For linear structural analyses, the total duration of through 3.7-4M). The Fourier components at low frequencies are not addressed.

the artificial ground motion time histories should be long enough such that adequate representation of the Fourier components at low frequency is included in the time history.

11.1.B. (continued) The dynamic analyses of all structures with foundations subjected to ground motion (i.e., containment, auxiliary building, intake structure, turbine building, and outdoor For nonlinear structural analysis problems, multiple water storage tanks) are based on linear structural analysis methods.

sets of ground motion time histories should be used to represent the design ground motion.

II.1.B. (continued) Per FSARU Section 3.7.1.2, only a single set of time histories is used for the evaluation of each plant structure (separate set for. Blume and Newmark Response Option 1: Sin-gle Set of Time Histories - to be Spectra). The time histories are shown in FSAR Figures 3.7-4G through 3.7-4M considered acceptable, the response spectra and their fit to the 7% damped target response spectra is shown in FSARU generated from the artificial time history to be used Figures 3.7-4N through 3.7-4T).

as input on the free-field should satisfy the enveloping requirements for either Approach 1 or FSARU Section 3.7.1.2 does not indicate the criteria used for the generation of the Approach 2. time histories or their fitting to the target response spectra. DCM T-6, Section 4.3.1.5.2 indicates that the time histories were generated to fit the 7% damped target

- Approach 1 - must envelop for all damping spectra.

valued used in seismic analysis; frequency interval must be sufficiently small; no more than The adequacy of the frequency interval is not addressed in the DCPP five points may fall more than 10% below target; design/licensing basis, and the plots of the fit of the time histories to the target must meet certain Power Spectral Density (PSD) spectra (FSARU Figures 3.7-4N through 3.7-4T) indicate that more than five points requirements (see Appendix A to SRP 3.7.1) fall below the target spectra.

- Approach 2 - achieve a mean-based fit to the The development of a PSD for the time histories is not addressed in the DCPP target response spectra at 5% damping and design/licensing basis.

additional requirements.

2 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 5 SRP 3.7.1 Seismic Design Parameters SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.1.1. (continued) Multiple sets of ground motion time histories are not employed in the seismic analysis of DCPP structures.

Option 2: Multiple Sets of Time Histories 11.2. Percentage of Critical Damping Damping values The damping for applicable to the HE evaluation of Design Class I SSCs (and the used for the analysis of Seismic Category I SSCs are Design Class II turbine building and intake structure) are defined in FSARU considered acceptable if they are in accordance with Section 3.7.1.3. All values are in accordance with RG 1.61, Revision 0 (October Reg. Guide 1.61 1973) except as follows:

• Mechanical Components (PG&E Purchased): 4% instead of 3%

• Vital Piping (except RCL): ASME Code Case N-411 instead of 2% for small bore - 3% for large bore

• Reactor Coolant Loop: 4% instead of 3% (higher value based on WCAP-7921-AR, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, "Damping Values for Nuclear Power Plant Components," May 1974) 0 Replacement Steam Generators: 4% instead of 3% (higher value based on WCAP-7921-AR, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, "Damping Values for Nuclear Power.Plant Components," May 1974)

• Integrated Head Assembly: 6.85% instead of 4% (per DCPP License Amendments 208/210)

• Control Rod Drive Mechanisms: 5% instead of 3% (per DCPP License Amendments 207/209) 3 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 5 SRP 3.7.1 Seismic Design Parameters SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2. (continued) The DCPP design/licensing basis does not include a requirement to check the stress levels in SSC's to validate the damping values.

In addition, a demonstration of the correlation between stress levels and damping values will be required and reviewed for compliance with Reg.

Guide 1.61.

11.2. (continued) DCPP is a rock site, so the Hosgri seismic analyses of the major structures (containments, auxiliary building, turbine building, intake structure, refueling water The material soil damping for foundation soils must storage tanks, condensate storage tanks, and firewater and transfer tank) are based be based on validated values.., on fixed-base models.

11.3. Supporting Media for Seismic Categqory I DCPP is a rock site and all safety-related structures are founded on rock, without Structures intervening soil layers.

To be acceptable, the description of supporting media for each Category I structure must include foundation embedment depth, depth of soil over bedrock...

4 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 6 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Containment Exterior and Interior Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis II1.1 .Seismic Analysis Methods FSARU Section 3.7.2.1 (Seismic Analysis Methods), provides a general description The seismic analyses of all seismic category I SSCs of the four primary seismic analysis methods used for Design Class I SSC's:

should use either suitable dynamic analysis method or an equivalent static analysis method, if justified. - 3.7.2.1.2 Time-History Modal Superposition

- 3.7.2.1.3 Response Spectrum Modal Superposition

- 3.7.2.1.4 Response Spectrum, Single Degree of Freedom

- 3.7.2.1.5 Static Equivalent Method Details of the application of these methods to specific SSC's are provided separately in SSC-specific sections of the FSARU. The SRP comparison review documented herein is limited to the containment exterior and Interior Structure.

I1.1 .Aiv. Use of adequate number of discrete mass FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates the number of mass points (nodes) used in the degrees of freedom in dynamic modeling axisymmetric models and FSARU Figure 3.7-5D shows the number of mass points used for the vertical model of the containment interior structure. The DCPP design/licensing basis does not include specific requirements for this subject.

I1.1.Av. When using either the response spectrum The HE analysis uses a cut-off frequency of 33 Hz. The DCPP design/licensing method or the modal superposition time history basis does not include a specific requirement to account for the responses method, responses associated with high frequency associated with high frequency modes.

modes should be included in the total dynamic solution using the guidance and methods described in RG 1.92, Revision 2, Regulatory Positions C.1.4 and C.1.5.

1I.1 .Avi. Consideration of maximum relative Relative displacements between adjacent supports are not applicable because the displacements between adjacent supports of containment exterior and Interior concrete structures are supported on a continuous seismic Category I SSCs basemat foundation, which is founded on the bedrock.

I1.1 .Avii. Inclusion of significant effects such as piping The DCPP design/licensing basis does not address the evaluation of the interactions, externally applied structural restraints, containment structure for hydrodynamic loads associated with sloshing of water hydrodynamic (both mass and stiffness effects) inside the containment.

loads, and nonlinear responses.

Page 1 of 9

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 6 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Containment Exterior and Interior Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis I1.1.B. Equivalent Static Load Method Per FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1, the containment structure is evaluated using a An equivalent static load method is acceptable if: dynamic analysis.

11.21. Natural Frequencies and Responses - To be See below acceptable, the following information should be provided:

11.2.A. A summary of the modal masses, effective - The FSARU provides the following modal information associated with the Hosgri masses, natural frequencies, mode shapes, modal analysis of the containment exterior structure:

and total responses for the Category I structures, including the containment structure, or a summary - Table 3.7-8A: Periods of vibration & participation factors of the total responses if the method of direct - Table 3.7-8B: Maximum absolute accelerations integration is used. - Table 3.7-8C: Maximum displacements The FSARU provides the following modal information associated with the Hosgri analysis of the containment interior structure:

- Table 3.7-8G: Maximum absolute accelerations and displacements 11.2.C. For the multiple time history analysis option, DCPP does not use the multiple time history option of the Hosgri seismic analyses of procedures used to account for uncertainties, etc. the containment exterior or interior structures.

11.3. Procedures Used for Analytical Modeling See discussion below To be acceptable, the stiffness, mass, and damping characteristics of the structural systems should be adequately incorporated into the analytical models.

Specifically, the following items should be considered in analytical modeling:

11.3.B. Decoupling Criteria for Subsystems - SRP The containment structure is a "seismic system."

Section 3.7.2 provides guidance for the decoupling of systems and subsystems.

Page 2 of 9

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 6 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Containment Exterior and Interior Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3.C. Modelinq of Structures - Two types of structural The Hosgri seismic analyses of the containment structure are based on both models are widely used by the nuclear industry: lumped-mass stick models (to account for accidental torsion and vertical response of lumped-mass stick models and finite element the interior concrete) and an axisymmetric finite element model (to account for global models. Either of these two types of modeling behavior).

techniques is acceptable if the following guidelines are met:

11.3.C.i.Lumped-Mass Stick Models See discussion below.

11.3.C.i (continued) FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates the number of mass points (nodes) used in the

- For selecting an adequate number of discrete lumped-mass stick models. FSARU Section 3.7.2.3.1 indicates that "accurately mass degrees of freedom in the dynamic defining the natural frequencies and mode shapes" is a criterion in the selection of modeling, the acceptance criteria given in the mass points.

Subsection 11.1.a.iv of this SRP section is acceptable.

11.3.C.ii. Finite Element Models -The type of finite FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates that the finite element model of the exterior element used for modeling a structural system shell and interior concrete uses four degree-of-freedom axisymmetric shell elements, should depend on the structural details, the purpose which are appropriate for this type of structure (FSARU Figures 3.7-5a and 3.7-7).

of the analysis, and the theoretical formulation upon Details of the theoretical formulation of the element are not provided.

which the element is based.

11.3.C.ii (continued) The DCPP design/licensing basis does not address the effects of element size,

- The mathematical discretization of the structure shape, or aspect ratio on the solution accuracy. FSARU Section 3.7.2.3.1 indicates should consider the effect of the element size, that "accurately defining the natural frequencies and mode shapes" is a criterion in shape, and aspect ratio on the solution accuracy. the selection of the. mass points.

11.3.C.ii (continued) The DCPP design/licensing basis does not address the effects of mesh refinement

- The element mesh size should be selected on on the solution results. FSARU Section 3.7.2.3.1 indicates that "accurately defining the basis that further refinement has only a the natural frequencies and mode shapes" is a criterion in the selection of the mass negligible effect on the solution results points.

Page 3 of 9

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 6 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Containment Exterior and Interior Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3.C.iii. In developing either a lumped-mass stick model The DCPP design/licensing basis does not address the method of consideration of or a finite element model for dynamic response, it is local regions of the containment structure.

necessary to consider local regions of the structure...

11.3.D. Representation of Floor Loads, Live Loads, and See discussions below.

Maior Equipment in Dynamic Models - In addition to the structural mass, the following masses should be included:

11.3.D (continued) The DCPP design/licensing basis does not address the inclusion of miscellaneous

- Mass equivalent to 50 psf to represent misc. dead loads in the dynamic analyses of the containment structure.

dead loads (e.g., minor equipment, piping, and raceways) 11.3.D (continued) FSARU Section 3.8.1.3.1.2 indicates that "Live loads consist of temporary

- Mass equivalent to 25% of design live load equipment loads and a uniform load to account for the miscellaneous temporary loadings that may be placed on the structure." FSARU Section 3.8.1.3.2.2 indicates that live loads are not included in the load combinations which include the HE.

11.3.D (continued) Due to its location, snow loading is not considered in DCPP's design/licensing basis.

- Mass equivalent to 75% of design snow load, as applicable Page 4 of 9

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 6 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Containment Exterior and Interior Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3.E. Special Consideration for Dynamic Modeling of The DCPP design/licensing basis does not describe the usage of separate structural Structures - It has been common practice that the models used for the detailed design analysis of the containment structure.

dynamic models used to predict the seismic response of a structure is not as detailed as the structural model used for the detailed design analysis of all applicable load combinations.

Therefore, a methodology is needed to transfer the seismic response loads determined from the dynamic model to the structural model used for the detailed design analysis of all applicable load combinations. This is reviewed for technical adequacy on a case-by-case basis.

11.4.Soil Structure Interaction - A complete SSI analysis Soil-structure interaction is not included in the Hosgri evaluation of DCPP. Per should account for all effects due to kinematic and FSARU Section 3.7.1.5, all Design Class I plant structures (including the inertial interaction for surface or embedded containment structures) are founded on rock or concrete fill over rock. An average structures.... (See SRP for specific requirements.) shear wave velocity of 3600 feet per second (fps) is reported in DCM T-6, Section 4.3.3.2.4.

Per FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1, the model used for the Hosgri evaluation of the containment structure is fixed-base (soil is not modeled).

Per FSARU Section 3.7.1.2, the horizontal free-field input ground motion for the Hosgri evaluation has been reduced to account for the presence of the containment's large foundation. This reduction is derived by spatial averaging of the accelerations across the foundation by the Tau-filtering procedure.

11.5. Development of In-Structure Response Spectra - The following provides a comparison of the DCPP design/licensing basis and the RG 1.122 describes methods generally acceptable acceptance criteria provided in RG 1.122.

by the staff for the development of in-structure response spectra. The topics addressed are:

Page 5 of 9

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 6 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Containment Exterior and Interior Structure

. SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.5.A. SRSS combination of the three in-structure The combination method for the directions of input motion in the generation of response spectra in a given direction developed from in-structure response spectra is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

separate analyses of the three directions of input motion. SRSS is not applicable if the three directions of input motion are applied simultaneously in a single analysis.

11.5.B. Frequency increments for calculation of spectral The set of frequencies used for the generation of in-structure response spectra is not accelerations addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

11.5.C. Spectrum smoothing and broadening to account FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates that the Hosgri in-structure response spectra for uncertainty. are widened (broadened) by 5% on the low period side and 15% on the high period side.

11.5. (continued) See discussion below.

The guidance of RG 1.122 is augmented as follows:

11.5. The guidance of RG 1.122 is augmented as follows: The combination method for the directions of input motion in the generation of in-structure response spectra is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

(1) SRSS combination applies to all cases where the three directions of input motion are analyzed separately. There is no longer a distinction between symmetric and unsymmetrical structures 11.5. The guidance of RG 1.122 is augmented as follows The set of frequencies used for the generation of in-structure response spectra is not (continued): addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

(2) The 3 Hz freq. incr. in the last row of RG 1.122, Table 1 applies to the highest frequency of interest; Page 6 of 9

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 6 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Containment Exterior and Interior Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.5. The guidance of RG 1.122 is augmented as follows FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates that the Hosgri in-structure response spectra (continued): are widened (broadened) by 5% on the low period side and 15% on the high period side.

(3a) When a single set of three artificial time histories is used as input, the in-structure response spectra are smoothed and broadened in accordance RG 1.122

5. The guidance of RG 1.122 is augmented as follows DCPP uses a single set of input time histories.

(continued):

(3b) When multiple sets of three time histories, derived from actual earthquake records, are used.

11.7. Combination of Modal Responses - See discussion below.

11.7.A Response Spectrum Analysis The following provides a comparison of the DCPP design/licensing basis and the acceptance criteria provided in RG 1.92.

RG 1.92 describes the acceptable methods for combination of modal responses, including consideration of closely-spaced modes and high frequency modes, when response spectrum method of analysis is used to determine the dynamic response of damped linear systems. Use of alternative methods are evaluated on a case-by-case basis for acceptability.

11.7.A (continued) FSARU, Section 3.7.2.1.3 indicates that "the maximum response in each mode is calculated, and modal responses (displacements, accelerations, shears, moments, RG 1.92, Section 1.1, rev. 2 describes the etc.) are combined by the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method."

acceptable modal combination methods The DCPP design/licensing basis does not address the criteria applied to closely spaced modes in the analysis of the containment exterior or interior structures.

Page 7 of 9

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 6 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Containment Exterior and Interior Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.7.A (continued) The method for the consideration of high frequency modes (missing mass) is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

RG 1.92, Section 1.4, rev. 2 describes the acceptable missing mass combination methods 11.7.B Modal Superposition Time History Analysis The method for the consideration of high frequency modes (missing mass) is not Method (continued) addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

In accordance with RG 1.92, only modes with natural frequencies less than or equal to the ZPA frequency of the input spectrum are included in the modal superposition time history analysis. The contribution of the higher frequency modes to the total response is calculated by the missing mass approach.

11.8. Interaction of Non-Category I and Category I FSARU Section 3.7.3.13 (System Interaction Program) describes DCPP's program SSCs - All non-Category I structures should be of the evaluation of the impact of the postulated seismically induced failure of assessed to determine whether their failure under nonsafety-related (similar to non-Seismic Category I) SSC's (defined as "sources")

SSE conditions could impair the integrity of seismic on a set of Design Class I (similar to Seismic Category I) SSC's (defined as Category I SSCs, or result in incapacitating injury to "targets"). The details of this program are described in the PG&E report, control room occupants. Each non-Category I "Description of the Systems Interaction Program for Seismically Induced Events,"

structure should meet at least one of the following dated August 1980 and the ongoing implementation is governed by DCM T-14.

criteria:

- The set of interaction "targets" are limited to "SSC's required to safely shutdown A. The collapse of the non-Cat I SSC will not cause the plant and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, and certain accident it to strike a Cat I SSC. mitigating systems,", which is a subset of Design Class I SSC's.

B. The collapse of the non-Cat I SSC will not impair the integrity of a Cat I SSC, nor result in incapacitating injury to control room occupants.

C. The non-Cat I SSC will be analyzed and designed to prevent its failure under SSE conditions, such that the margin of safety is Page 8 of 9

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 6 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Containment Exterior and Interior Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis equivalent to that for a Cat I SSC.

11.9. Effects of Parameter Variation of Floor Response FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates that the Hosgri in-structure response spectra Spectra - consideration should be given in the are widened (broadened) by 5% on the low period side and 15% on the high period analysis to the effects of floor response spectra (e.g., side to account for "variations in the parameters used in the dynamic analyses, such peak width) of expected variations of structural as mass values, material properties, and material sections."

properties, damping values, soil properties, and SSI.

FSARU Section 3.7.1.5 indicates that all Design Class I structures are founded on rock or concrete fill. FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates that the Hosgri seismic analyses of the Design Class I structures are based on fixed-base models (i.e., the consideration of soil properties and SSI is not required). Variations in damping values are not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

11.9. (continued) The FSARU does not discuss the method for the determination of the section In addition, for concrete structures, the effect of properties used for the determination of the stiffness of concrete structures.

potential concrete cracking on the structural stiffness FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates that variations in "material sections" were should be specifically addressed. considered in the widening of the response spectra. The consideration of the effect of potential concrete cracking is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

11.12. Comparison of Responses - If both the time FSARU Section 3.7.2.11 states "time-history analyses only are performed for Design history analysis method and the response spectrum Class I structures. Response spectrum analyses are not performed because time-analysis method are used to analyze an SSC, the history produces spectra that represent reasonably the criteria response spectra."

peak responses obtained from these two methods The comparison of responses calculated by the two different methods is not should be compared, to demonstrate approximate addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

equivalency between the two methods.

Page 9 of 9

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 7 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Auxiliary Building 1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis II.1.Seismic Analysis Methods FSARU Section 3.7.2.1 (Seismic Analysis Methods), provides a general description of the four The seismic analyses of all seismic primary seismic analysis methods used for Design Class I SSC's:

category I SSCs should use either suitable dynamic analysis method or an - 3.7.2.1.2 Time-History Modal Superposition equivalent static analysis method, if - 3.7.2.1.3 Response Spectrum Modal Superposition justified. - 3.7.2.1.4 Response Spectrum, Single Degree of Freedom

- 3.7.2.1.5 Static Equivalent Method Details of the application of these methods to specific SSC's are provided separately, in SSC-specific sections of the FSARU. Therefore, the consistency review for SRP Section 3.7.2 will be performed individually, for the major SSC's addressed in FSARU Section 3.7.2.

I1.1.A. Dynamic Analysis Methods (cont'd) FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates the number of mass points (nodes) used in the stick models ll.1.A.iv. Use of adequate number of discrete are illustrated in FSARU Figure 3.7-13. One lumped mass is located at each floor level, with is mass degrees of freedom in dynamic generally adequate for the modeling of multi-story buildings. The DCPP design/licensing basis modeling does not include specific requirements for this subject.

11.1 .A.v. When using either the response The HE analysis uses a cut-off frequency of 33 Hz. The DCPP design/licensing basis does not spectrum method or the modal include a specific requirement to account for the responses associated with high frequency superposition time history method, modes.

responses associated with high frequency modes should be included in the total dynamic solution using the guidance and methods described in RG 1.92, Revision 2, Regulatory Positions C.1.4 and C.1.5.

11.1 .A.vi. Consideration of maximum relative Relative displacements between adjacent supports are not applicable because the auxiliary displacements between adjacent building is supported on a continuous basemat foundation, which is founded on the bedrock.

supports of seismic Category I SSCs The auxiliary building includes the control room, the fan rooms, and the SFP's (fuel handling area of the auxiliary building). The area above the SFP's is enclosed by the FHBSS, which is supported on the reinforced concrete auxiliary building. The scope of this SRP review is limited to the auxiliary building; the seismic analyses of the FHBSS are addressed separately.

Page 1 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 7 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Auxiliary Building 1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis I1.1 .A.vii. Inclusion of significant effects such The DCPP design/licensing basis does not address the evaluation of the auxiliary building for as piping interactions, externally applied hydrodynamic loads. Loading due to the sloshing of the water in the SFP's was.not considered.

structural restraints, hydrodynamic (both mass and stiffness effects) loads, and nonlinear responses.

I1.1..B. Equivalent Static Load Method Per FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1, the global seismic loading for the auxiliary building is determined An equivalent static load method is through the use of dynamic analyses; however, as indicated in DCM T-6, Appendix B, the forces acceptable if: in the individual structural elements (e.g., walls and slabs) are determined by the application of the global dynamic loads to a detailed three-dimension finite element model of the building, using the Equivalent Static Load Method.

11.1 .B.i. Justification is provided that the The equivalent static accelerations applied to the static model are based on the results of the system can be realistically represented by simplified dynamic analyses of the building. Justification for this approach is not provided.

a simple model and the method produces conservative results in terms of responses.

I.1.B.ii. The simplified static analysis method The auxiliary building is supported on a continuous basemat foundation, which is supported on accounts for the relative motion between the bedrock.

all points of support.

11.2.Natural Frequencies and Responses - To See below.

be acceptable, the following information should be provided:

11.2.A. A summary of the modal masses, The FSARU provides the following modal information associated with the Hosgri analysis of the effective masses, natural frequencies, auxiliary building:

mode shapes, modal and total responses for the Category I structures, including the - Table 3.7-10: Horizontal periods & participation factors containment structure, or a summary of - Table 3.7-11: Vertical periods & participation factors the total responses if the method of direct - Table 3.7-17 & -18: Maximum accelerations integration is used. - Table 3.7-19 & -20: Maximum displacements Page 2 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 7 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Auxiliary Building' SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.C. For the multiple time history analysis DCPP does not use the multiple time-history option of the Hosgri seismic analyses of the auxiliary option, procedures used to account for building.

uncertainties, etc.

11.3. Procedures Used for Analytical Modeling See discussion below.

To be acceptable, the stiffness, mass, and damping characteristics of the structural systems should be adequately incorporated into the analytical models.

Specifically, the following items should be considered in analytical modeling:

11.3.B. Decoupling Criteria for Subsystems - The auxiliary structure is a "seismic system."

SRP Section 3.7.2 provides guidance for the decoupling of systems and subsystems.

11.3.C. Modeling of Structures - Two types of The Hosgri seismic analyses of the auxiliary building are based on lumped-mass stick models structural models are widely used by the (two horizontal and one vertical). See FSARU Figure 3.7-13.

nuclear industry: lumped-mass stick models and finite element models. In addition, finite element models are used to capture the vertical response of flexible floor slabs.

Either of these two types of modeling See FSARU Figure 3.7-13A.

techniques is acceptable if the following guidelines are met:

11.3.C.i.Lumped-Mass Stick Models See discussion below.

11.3.C.i (continued) FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 describes the number of mass points used in the stick models, which

- For selecting an adequate number of are shown in Figure 3.7-13. Each mass point corresponds to a floor of the building. FSARU discrete mass degrees of freedom in Section 3.7.2.3.1 indicates that "accurately defining the natural frequencies and mode shapes" is the dynamic modeling, the a criterion in the selection of the mass points.

acceptance criteria given in Subsection I1.1.a.iv of this SRP section is acceptable.

Page 3 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 7 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Auxiliary Building1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 1l..3.C.ii. Finite Element Models - The type of As indicated in FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1, finite element models are used to capture the vertical finite element used for modeling a response of flexible floor slabs, based on plate elements. See FSARU Figure 3.7-13A. Details structural system should depend on the of the theoretical formulation of the element are not provided.

structural details, the purpose of the analysis, and the theoretical formulation upon which the element is based.

11.3.C.ii (continued) The FSARU does not address the effects of element size, shape, or aspect ratio on the solution

- The mathematical discretization of the accuracy. FSARU Section 3.7.2.3.1 indicates that "accurately defining the natural frequencies structure should consider the effect of and mode shapes" is a criterion in the selection of the mass points.

the element size, shape, and aspect ratio on the solution accuracy.

11.3.C.ii (continued) The DCPP design/licensing basis does not address the effects of mesh refinement on the solution

- The element mesh size should be results. FSARU Section 3.7.2.3.1 indicates that "accurately defining the natural frequencies and selected on the basis that further mode shapes" is a criterion in the selection of the mass points.

refinement has only a negligible effect on the solution results 11.3.C.iii, In developing either a lumped-mass The DCPP design/licensing basis does not address the method of consideration of local regions stick model or a finite element model for of the auxiliary building.

dynamic response, it is necessary to consider local regions of the structure...

11.3.D. Representation of Floor Loads, Live See discussions below.

Loads, and Maior Equipment in Dynamic Models - In addition to the structural mass, the following masses should be included:

Page 4 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 7 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Auxiliary Building 1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3.D (continued) The DCPP design/licensing basis does not address the inclusion of miscellaneous dead loads in

- Mass equivalent to 50 psf to represent the dynamic analyses of the auxiliary building. The dead load, as defined in FSARU Section misc. dead loads (e.g., minor 3.8.2.3.1.1, includes the weight of permanent equipment.

equipment, piping, and raceways) 11.3.D (continued) Due to its location, snow loading is not considered in DCPP's design/licensing basis.

- Mass equivalent to 75% of design snow load, as applicable 11.4.Soil Structure Interaction - A complete Per FSARU Section 3.7.1.5, all Design Class I plant structures (including the auxiliary building)

SSI analysis should account for all effects are founded on rock or concrete fill. An average shear wave velocity of 3600 feet per second is due to kinematic and inertial interaction reported in DCM T-6, Section 4.3.3.2.4.

for surface or embedded structures.

See SRP for specific requirements. Per FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1, the model used for the Hosgri evaluation of the auxiliary building is fixed-base (soil is not modeled).

Per FSARU Section 3.7.1.2, the horizontal free-field input ground motion for the Hosgri evaluation has been reduced to account for the presence of the auxiliary building's large foundation.

This reduction is derived by spatial averaging of the accelerations across the foundation by the Tau-filtering procedure.

11.5. Development of In-Structure Response The following provides a comparison of the DCPP design/licensing basis and the acceptance Spectra - RG 1.122 describes methods criteria provided in RG 1.122.

generally acceptable by the staff for the development of in-structure response spectra. The topics addressed are:

Page 5 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 7 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Auxiliary Building 1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.5.A. SRSS combination of the three in- The combination method for the directions of input motion in the generation of in-structure structure response spectra in a given response spectra is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

direction developed from separate analyses of the three directions of input motion. SRSS is not applicable if the three directions of input motion are applied simultaneously in a single analysis.

11.5.B. Frequency increments for calculation The set of frequencies used for the generation of in-structure response spectra is not addressed of spectral accelerations in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

11.5.C. Spectrum smoothing and broadening FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates that the Hosgri in-structure response spectra are widened to account for uncertainty. (broadened) by 5% on the low period side and 15% on the high period side.

11.5. (continued) See discussion below.

The guidance of RG 1.122 is augmented as follows:

11.5. The guidance of RG 1.122 is augmented The combination method for the directions of input motion in the generation of in-structure as follows: response spectra is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

(1) SRSS combination applies to all cases where the three directions of input motion are analyzed separately. There is no longer a distinction between symmetric and unsymmetrical structures Page 6 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 7 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Auxiliary Building1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.5. The guidance of RG 1.122 is augmented The set of frequencies used for the generation of in-structure response spectra is not addressed as follows (continued): in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

(2) The 3 Hz freq. incr. in the last row of RG 1.122, Table 1 applies to the highest frequency of interest.

11.5. The guidance of RG 1.122 is augmented FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates that the Hosgri in-structure response spectra are widened as follows (continued): (broadened) by 5% on the low period side and 15% on the high period side.

(3a) When a single set of three artificial time histories is used as input, the in-structure response spectra are smoothed and broadened in accordance RG 1.122

5. The guidance of RG 1.122 is augmented DCPP uses a single set of input time histories.

as follows (continued): *

(3b) When multiple sets of three time histories, derived from actual earthquake records, are used.

11.7. Combination of Modal Responses - See discussion below.

Page 7 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 7 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Auxiliary Building 1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.7.A Response Spectrum Analysis The following provides a comparison of the DCPP design/licensing basis and the acceptance criteria provided in RG 1.92.

RG 1.92 describes the acceptable methods for combination of modal responses, including consideration of closely-spaced modes and high frequency modes, when response spectrum method of analysis is used to determine the dynamic response of damped linear systems. Use of alternative methods are evaluated on a case-by-case basis for acceptability.

11.7.A (continued) FSARU, Section 3.7.2.1.3 indicates that "the maximum response in each mode is calculated, and modal responses (displacements, accelerations, shears, moments, etc.) are combined by the RG 1.92, Section 1.1, rev. 2 describes the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method." The DCPP design/licensing basis does acceptable modal combination methods not address the criteria applied to closely spaced modes in the analysis of the auxiliary building.

11.7.A (continued) The method for the consideration of high frequency modes (missing mass) is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

RG 1.92, Section 1.4, rev. 2 describes the acceptable missing mass combination methods Page 8 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 7 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Auxiliary Building 1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.7.B Modal Superposition Time History The method for the consideration of high frequency modes (missing mass) is not addressed in the Analysis Method (continued) DCPP design/licensing basis.

In accordance with RG 1.92, only modes with natural frequencies less than or equal to the ZPA frequency of the input spectrum are included in the modal superposition time history analysis. The contribution of the higher frequency modes to the total response is calculated by the missing mass approach.

11.8. Interaction of Non-Category I and FSARU Section 3.7.3.13 (System Interaction Program) describes DCPP's program of the Cate-gory I SSCs - All non-Category I evaluation of the impact of the postulated seismically induced failure of nonsafety-related (similar structures should be assessed to to non-Seismic Category I) SSC's (defined to as "sources") on a set of Design Class I (similar to determine whether their failure under Seismic Category I) SSC's (defined as "targets"). The details of this program are described in SSE conditions could impair the integrity the PG&E report, "Description of the Systems Interaction Program for Seismically Induced of seismic Category I SSCs, or result in Events," dated August 1980, and the ongoing implementation is governed by DCM T-14.

incapacitating injury to control room occupants. Each non-Category I - The set of interaction "targets" are limited to "SSC's required to safely shutdown the plant and structure should meet at least one of the maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, and certain accident mitigating systems," which is a following criteria: subset of Design Class I SSC's.

A. The collapse of the non-Cat I SSC will not cause it to strike a Cat I SSC.

B. The collapse of the non-Cat I SSC will not impair the integrity of a Cat I SSC, nor result in incapacitating injury to control room occupants.

C. The non-Cat I SSC will be analyzed and designed to prevent its failure under SSE conditions, such that the margin of safety is equivalent to that Page 9 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 7 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Auxiliary Building 1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis for a Cat I SSC.

11.9. Effects of Parameter Variation of FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates that the Hosgri in-structure response spectra are widened Floor Response Spectra - consideration (broadened) by 5% on the low period side and 15% on the high period side to account for should be given in the analysis to the "variations in the parameters used in the dynamic analyses, such as mass values, material effects of floor response spectra (e.g., properties, and material sections."

peak width) of expected variations of structural properties, damping values, soil FSARU Section 3.7.1.5 indicates that all Design Class I structures are founded on rock or properties, and SSI. concrete fill. FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates that the Hosgri seismic analyses of the Design Class I structures are based on fixed-base models (i.e., the consideration of soil properties and SSI is not required). Variations in damping values are not addressed.

11.9. (continued) The FSARU does not discuss the method for the determination of the section properties used for In addition, for concrete structures, the the determination of the stiffness of concrete structures. FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates effect of potential concrete cracking on that variations in "material sections" were considered in the widening of the response spectra.

the structural stiffness should be The consideration of the effect of potential concrete cracking is not addressed in the DCPP specifically addressed. design/licensing basis.

11.12. Comparison of Responses - If both FSARU Section 3.7.2.11 states "time-history analyses only are performed for Design Class I the time history analysis method and the structures. Response spectrum analyses are not performed because time-history produces response spectrum analysis method are spectra that represent reasonably the criteria response spectra." The comparison of responses used to analyze an SSC, the peak calculated by the two different methods is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

responses obtained from these two methods should be compared, to demonstrate approximate equivalency between the two methods.

Page 10 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 8 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Turbine Building1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.1 .Seismic Analysis Methods FSARU Section 3.7.2.1 (Seismic Analysis Methods), provides a general description of the four The seismic analyses of all seismic primary seismic analysis methods used for Design Class I SSC's 2:

category I SSCs should use either suitable dynamic analysis method or an - 3.7.2.1.2 Time-History Modal Superposition equivalent static analysis method, if - 3.7.2.1.3 Response Spectrum Modal Superposition justified. - 3.7.2.1.4 Response Spectrum, Single Degree of Freedom

- 3.7.2.1.5 Static Equivalent Method Details of the application of these methods to specific SSC's are provided separately, in SSC-specific sections of the FSARU. Therefore, the consistency review for SRP Section 3.7.2 will be performed individually, for the major SSC's addressed in FSARU Section 3.7.2.

I1.1.A. Dynamic Analysis Methods (cont'd) The HE analysis uses a cut-off frequency of 33 Hz. The DCPP design/licensing basis does not 11.1 .A.v. When using either the response include a specific requirement to account for the responses associated with high frequency spectrum method or the modal modes.

superposition time history method, responses associated with high frequency modes should be included in the total dynamic solution using the guidance and methods described in RG 1.92, Revision 2, Regulatory Positions C.1.4 and C.1.5.

11.1.A.vi. Consideration of maximum relative Relative displacements between adjacent supports is not applicable because the turbine building displacements between adjacent is supported on a continuous basemat foundation, which is supported on the bedrock.

supports of seismic Category I SSCs The turbine building is a Design Class II structure except for areas containing or supporting safety-related equipment (e.g., emergency diesel generators, vital 4.16 kV switchgear, and vital component cooling water heat exchangers), which are Design Class I (Reference Q-List,Section I.C.1.1 and Note S-66). As a result, this building is required to be seismically qualified for the loading associated with the HE. Therefore, the turbine building is effectively a Seismic Category I Structure and SRP Section 3.7.2 is applicable for this comparison.

The turbine building is assumed to be equivalent to a Seismic Category I structure in this SRP review.

Page 1 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 8 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Turbine Building1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.1.B. Equivalent Static Load Method Per FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.2, the turbine building is evaluated using a dynamic analysis.

An equivalent static load method is acceptable if:

11.2. Natural Frequencies and Responses - See below.

To be acceptable, the following information should be provided:

11.2.A. A summary of the modal masses, The FSARU provides the following modal information associated with the Hosgri analyses of the effective masses, natural frequencies, turbine building:

mode shapes, modal and total responses for the Category I structures, including - Table 3.7-23A: Horizontal frequencies & participation factors

- the containment structure, or a summary - Table 3.7-23B: Vertical frequencies & participation factors of the total responses if the method of - Table 3.7-23C: Maximum accelerations direct integration is used. - Table 3.7-23D: Maximum displacements 11.2.C. For the multiple time history analysis DCPP does not use the multiple time history option of the Hosgri seismic analyses of the turbine option, procedures used to account for building.

uncertainties, etc.

11.3. Procedures Used for Analytical Modeling See discussion below.

To be acceptable, the stiffness, mass, and damping characteristics of the structural systems should be adequately incorporated into the analytical models.

Specifically, the following items should be considered in analytical modeling:

11.3.B. Decouplinq Criteria for Subsystems - Since the turbine structure is a "seismic system."

SRP Section 3.7.2 provides guidance for the decoupling of systems and subsystems.

Page 2 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 8 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Turbine Building1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3.C. Modeling of Structures - Two types of The Hosgri seismic analyses of the turbine building are based on several finite element models structural models are widely used by the (two horizontal and four vertical). See FSARU Figures 3.7-15C through 3.7-15F.

nuclear industry: lumped-mass stick models and finite element models.

Either of these two types of modeling techniques is acceptable if the following guidelines are met:

11.3.C.i.Lumped-Mass Stick Models Lumped-mass stick models not used for turbine building.

11.3.C.ii. Finite Element Models - The type of As indicated in FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.2, various finite element models are used to capture the finite element used for modeling a response of the turbine building, based on beam, truss, plane-stress, and plate elements. See structural system should depend on the FSARU Figures 3.7-15C through 3.7-15F. The theoretical formulation of the elements is not structural details, the purpose of the provided.

analysis, and the theoretical formulation upon which the element is based.

11.3.C.ii (continued) The FSARU does not address the effects of element size, shape, or aspect ratio on the solution

- The mathematical discretization of accuracy. FSARU Section 3.7.2.3.1 indicates that "accurately defining the natural frequencies the structure should consider the and mode shapes" is a criterion in the selection of the mass points.

effect of the element size, shape, and aspect ratio on the solution accuracy.

11.3.C.ii (continued) The FSARU does not address the effects of mesh refinement on the solution results. FSARU

- The element mesh size should be Section 3.7.2.3.1 indicates that "accurately defining the natural frequencies and mode shapes" is a selected on the basis that further criterion in the selection of the mass points.

refinement has only a negligible effect on the solution results Page 3 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 8 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Turbine Building1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3.C.iii. In developing either a lumped- There are no "local regions" of the turbine building that require special consideration.

mass stick model or a finite element model for dynamic response, it is necessary to consider local regions of the structure...

11.3.D. Representation of Floor Loads, Live See discussions below.

Loads, and Maior Equipment in Dynamic Models - In addition to the structural mass, the following masses should be included:

11.3.D (continued) The FSARU does not address the inclusion of miscellaneous dead loads in the dynamic analyses

- Mass equivalent to 50 psf to of the turbine building. The dead load, as defined in FSARU Section 3.8.5.1.3.1.1, includes the represent misc. dead loads (e.g., weight of permanent attachments and permanent equipment.

minor equipment, piping, and raceways) 11.3.D (continued) FSARU Section 3.8.5.1.3.1.2 indicates that "Live loads consist of any actual live loads acting on

- Mass equivalent to 25% of design live the element considered." FSARU Section 3.8.5.1.3.2.2 indicates that live loads are included in load the load combinations, which include the HE. However, DCM T-4, Section 4.3.4.2 indicates that the live load combined with Hosgri seismic loads is limited to that present during "abnormal conditions." A review of supporting analyses indicates that zero live load is considered in combination with the Hosgri seismic loads.

11.3.D (continued) Due to its location, snow loading is not considered in DCPP's design/licensing basis.

- Mass equivalent to 75% of design snow load, as applicable Page 4 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 8 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Turbine Building1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.3.E. Special Consideration for Dynamic The turbine building does not utilize separate models for the detailed design analysis of load Modeling of Structures - It has been combinations.

common practice that the dynamic models used to predict the seismic response of a structure is not as detailed as the structural model used for the detailed design analysis of all applicable load combinations. Therefore, a methodology is needed to transfer the seismic response loads determined from the dynamic model to the structural model used for the detailed design analysis of all applicable load combinations. This is reviewed for technical adequacy on a case-by-case basis.

11.4.Soil Structure Interaction -A complete Per FSARU Section 3.7.1.5, all Design Class I plant structures are founded on rock or concrete SSI analysis should account for all fill 3 . An average shear wave velocity of 3600 feet per second is reported in DCM T-6, effects due to kinematic and inertial Section 4.3.3.2.4.

interaction for surface or embedded structures. See SRP for specific Per FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.2, the model used for the Hosgri evaluation of the turbine building is requirements. fixed-base (soil is not modeled).

Per FSARU Section 3.7.1.2, the horizontal free-field input ground motion for the Hosgri evaluation has been reduced to account for the presence of the turbine building's large foundation. This reduction is derived by spatial averaging of the accelerations across the foundation by the Tau-filtering procedure.

3 Even though the turbine building is not a Design Class I structure, the underlying rock is the same.

Page 5 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 8 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Turbine Building1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.5. Development of In-Structure Response The following provides a comparison of the DCPP design/licensing basis and the requirements of Spectra - RG 1.122 describes methods RG 1.122.

generally acceptable by the staff for the development of in-structure response spectra. The topics addressed are:

11.5.A. SRSS combination of the three in- The combination method for the directions of input motion in the generation of in-structure structure response spectra in a given response spectra is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

direction developed from separate analyses of the three directions of input motion. SRSS is not applicable if the three directions of input motion are applied simultaneously in a single analysis.

11.5.B. Frequency increments for calculation The set of frequencies used for the generation of in-structure response spectra is not addressed in of spectral accelerations the DCPP design/licensing basis.

11.5.C. Spectrum smoothing and broadening FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates that the Hosgri in-structure response spectra are widened to account for uncertainty. (broadened) by 5% on the low period side and 15% on the high period side.

11.5. (continued) See discussion below.

The guidance of RG 1.122 is augmented as follows:

Page 6 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 8 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Turbine Building1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.5. The guidance of RG 1.122 is augmented The combination method for the directions of input motion in the generation of in-structure as follows: response spectra is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

(1) SRSS combination applies to all cases where the three directions of input motion are analyzed separately. There is no longer a distinction between symmetric and unsymmetrical structures 11.5. The guidance of RG 1.122 is augmented The set of frequencies used for the generation of in-structure response spectra is not addressed in as follows (continued): the DCPP design/licensing basis.

(2) The 3 Hz freq. incr. in the last row of RG 1.122, Table 1 applies to the highest frequency of interest.

11.5. The guidance of RG 1.122 is augmented FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates that the Hosgri in-structure response spectra are widened as follows (continued): (broadened) by 5% on the low period side and 15% on the high period side.

(3a) When a single set of three artificial time histories is used as input, the in-structure response spectra are smoothed and broadened in accordance RG 1.122

5. The guidance of RG 1.122 is augmented DCPP uses a single set of input time histories.

as follows (continued):

(3b) When multiple sets of three time histories, derived from actual earthquake records, are used.

Page 7 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 8 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Turbine Building' SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.7. Combination of Modal Responses - See discussion below.

11.7.A Response Spectrum Analysis The following provides a comparison of the DCPP design/licensing basis and the acceptance criteria provided in RG 1.92.

RG 1.92 describes the acceptable methods for combination of modal responses, including consideration of closely-spaced modes and high frequency modes, when response spectrum method of analysis is used to determine the dynamic response of damped linear systems. Use of alternative methods are evaluated on a case-by-case basis for acceptability.

11.7.A (continued) FSARU, Section 3.7.2.1.3 indicates that "the maximum response in each mode is calculated, and modal responses (displacements, accelerations, shears, moments, etc.) are combined by the RG 1.92, Section 1.1, rev. 2 describes square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method." The DCPP design/licensing basis does the acceptable modal combination not address the criteria applied to closely spaced modes in the analysis of the turbine building.

methods 11.7.A (continued) The method for the consideration of high frequency modes (missing mass) is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

RG 1.92, Section 1.4, rev. 2 describes the acceptable missing mass combination methods Page 8 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 8 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Turbine Building' SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.7.B Modal Superposition Time History The method for the consideration of high frequency modes (missing mass) is not addressed in the Analysis Method (continued) DCPP design/licensing basis.

In accordance with RG 1.92, only modes with natural frequencies less than or equal to the ZPA frequency of the input spectrum are included in the modal superposition time history analysis. The contribution of the higher frequency modes to the total response is calculated by the missing mass approach.

11.8. Interaction of Non-Category I and FSARU Section 3.7.3.13 (System Interaction Program) describes DCPP's program of the Category I SSCs - All non-Category I evaluation of the impact of the postulated seismically induced failure of nonsafety-related (similar structures should be assessed to to non-Seismic Category I) SSC's (defined to as "sources") on a set of Design Class I (similar to determine whether their failure under Seismic Category I) SSC's (defined as "targets"). The details of this program are described in the SSE conditions could impair the integrity PG&E report "Description of the Systems Interaction Program for Seismically Induced Events,"

of seismic Category I SSCs, or.result in August 1980 and the ongoing implementation is governed by DCM T-14.

incapacitating injury to control room occupants. Each non-Category I The set of interaction "targets" are limited to "SSC's required to safely shutdown the plant and structure should meet at least one of the maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, and certain accident mitigating systems," which is a following criteria: subset of Design Class I SSC's.

A. The collapse of the non-Cat I SSC will not cause it to strike a Cat I SSC.

B. The collapse of the non-Cat I SSC will not impair the integrity of a Cat I SSC, nor result in incapacitating injury to control room occupants.

C. The non-Cat I SSC will be analyzed and designed to prevent its failure under SSE conditions, such that the margin of safety is equivalent to that Page 9 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 8 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Turbine Building1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis for a Cat I SSC.

11.9. Effects of Parameter Variation of FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates that the Hosgri in-structure response spectra are widened Floor Response Spectra - consideration (broadened) by 5% on the low period side and 15% on the high period side to account for should be given in the analysis to the "variations in the parameters used in the dynamic analyses, such as mass values, material effects of floor response spectra (e.g., properties, and material sections."

peak width) of expected variations of structural properties, damping values, FSARU Section 3.7.1.5 indicates that all Design Class I structures are founded on rock or soil properties, and SSI. concrete fill. FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates that the Hosgri seismic analyses of the Design Class I structures are based on fixed-base models (i.e., the consideration of soil properties and SSI is not required). Variations in damping values are not addressed.

11.9. (continued) The FSARU does not discuss the method for the determination of the section properties used for In addition, for concrete structures, the the determination of the stiffness of concrete structures. FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates effect of potential concrete cracking on that variations in "material sections" was considered in the widening of the response spectra.

the structural stiffness should be The consideration of the effect of potential concrete cracking is not addressed.

specifically addressed.

11.12. Comparison of Responses - If both FSARU Section 3.7.2.11 states "time-history analyses only are performed for Design Class I the time history analysis method and the structures. Response spectrum analyses are not performed because time-history produces response spectrum analysis method are spectra that represent reasonably the criteria response spectra." The comparison of responses used to analyze an SSC, the peak calculated by the two different methods is not addressed.

responses obtained from these two methods should be compared, to demonstrate approximate equivalency between the two methods.

Page 10 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 9 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Intake Structure' SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis

11. 1.Seismic Analysis Methods FSARU Section 3.7.2.1 (Seismic Analysis Methods), provides a general description of the four The seismic analyses of all seismic primary seismic analysis methods used for Design Class I SSC's 2 :

category I SSCs should use either suitable dynamic analysis method or an - 3.7.2.1.2 Time-History Modal Superposition equivalent static analysis method, if - 3.7.2.1.3 Response Spectrum Modal Superposition justified. - 3.7.2.1.4 Response Spectrum, Single Degree of Freedom

- 3.7.2.1.5 Static Equivalent Method Details of the application of these methods to specific SSC's are provided separately, in SSC-specific sections of the FSARU. Therefore, the consistency review for SRP Section 3.7.2 will be performed individually, for the major SSC's addressed in FSARU Section 3.7.2.

11.1.A. Dynamic Analysis Methods (cont'd) The HE analysis uses a cut-off frequency of 33 Hz. The DCPP design/licensing basis does not 11.1 .A.v. When using either the response include a specific requirement to account for the responses associated with high frequency spectrum method or the modal modes.

superposition time history method, responses associated with high frequency modes should be included in the total dynamic solution using the guidance and methods described in RG 1.92, Revision 2, Regulatory Positions C.1.4 and C.1.5.

11.1 .A.vi. Consideration of maximum relative Relative displacements between adjacent supports is not applicable because the intake structure displacements between adjacent is supported on a continuous basemat foundation, which is supported on the bedrock.

supports of seismic Category I SSCs The intake structure is a Design Class II structure, which contains or supports safety-related equipment (i.e., vital auxiliary saltwater pumps and piping)

(Referance Q-List,Section I.D.1.1 and Note S-70). As a result, this building is required to be seismically qualified for the loading associated with the HE.

Therefore, the intake structure is effectively a Seismic Category I structure and SRP Section 3.7.2 is applicable for this comparison.

The intake structure is assumed to be equivalent to a Seismic Category I structure in this SRP review.

Page 1 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 9 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Intake Structure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.1.A.vii. Inclusion of significant effects such See discussion below as:

ll.1.A.vii. (continued) The intake structure is completely embedded in the ground and is not restrained by other

- externally applied structural restraints structures.

11.1 .A.vii. (continued) The intake structure contains a large volume of water, and is subjected to hydrodynamic loads.

- hydrodynamic (both mass and stiffness FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.2 indicates that the mass of the water is included, but does not address effects) loads the impact of the stiffness of the water.

1I.1.B. Equivalent Static Load Method Per FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.2, the intake structure is evaluated using a dynamic analysis.

An equivalent static load method is acceptable if:

11.2. Natural Frequencies and Responses - See below To be acceptable, the following information should be provided:

11.2.A. A summary of the modal masses, The FSARU provides the following modal information associated with the Hosgri analyses of the effective masses, natural frequencies, intake structure:

mode shapes, modal and total responses for the Category I structures, including - Table 3.7-23G: Horizontal and vertical frequencies & participation factors the containment structure, or a summary - Table 3.7-23H: Maximum displacements & accelerations of the total responses ifthe method of direct integration is used.

11.2.C. For the multiple time history analysis DCPP does not use the multiple time history option of the Hosgri seismic analyses of the intake option, procedures used to account for structure.

uncertainties, etc.

Page 2 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 9 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Intake Structure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3.Procedures Used for Analytical Modeling See discussion below.

To be acceptable, the stiffness, mass, and damping characteristics of the structural systems should be adequately incorporated into the analytical models.

Specifically, the following items should be considered in analytical modeling:

11.3.C. Modeling of Structures - Two types of The Hosgri seismic analyses of the intake structure are based on two finite element models. See structural models are widely used by the FSARU Figures 3.7-15H and 3.7-151.

nuclear industry: lumped-mass stick models and finite element models.

Either of these two. types of modeling techniques is acceptable ifthe following guidelines are met:

11.3.C.i.Lumped-Mass Stick Models Lumped-mass stick models not used for Intake Structure.

11.3.C.ii. Finite Element Models - The type of As indicated in FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.2, two finite element models are used to capture the finite element used for modeling a response of the Intake Structure, based on flat-plate and three-dimensional solid elements. See structural system should depend on the FSARU Figure Nos. 3.7-15H and 3.7-151. The theoretical formulation of the plane-stress and structural details, the purpose of the shell elements is not provided.

analysis, and the theoretical formulation upon which the element is based.

11.3.C.ii (continued) The FSARU does not address the effects of element size, shape, or aspect ratio on the solution

- The mathematical discretization of accuracy. FSARU Section 3.7.2.3.1 indicates that "accurately defining the natural frequencies the structure should consider the and mode shapes" is a criteria in the selection of the mass points.

effect of the element size, shape, and aspect ratio on the solution accuracy.

Page 3 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 9 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Intake Structure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3.C.ii (continued) The FSARU does not address the effects of mesh refinement on the solution results. FSARU

- The element mesh size should be Section 3.7.2.3.1 indicates that "accurately defining the natural frequencies and mode shapes" is a selected on the basis that further criteria in the selection of the mass points.

refinement has only a negligible effect on the solution results 11.3.C.iii. In developing either a lumped- There are no "local regions" of the intake structure that require special consideration.

mass stick model or a finite element model for dynamic response, it is necessary to consider local regions of the structure...

11.3.D. Representation of Floor Loads, Live See discussions below.

Loads, and Maior Equipment in Dynamic Models - In addition to the structural mass, the following masses should be included:

11.3.D (continued) The FSARU does not address the inclusion of miscellaneous dead loads in the dynamic analyses

- Mass equivalent to 50 psf to of the intake structure. The dead load, as defined in FSARU Section 3.8.5.2.3, includes the represent misc. dead loads (e.g., weight of equipment.

minor equipment, piping, and raceways) 11.3.D (continued) FSARU Section 3.8.5.2.3 indicates that live loads are included with the HE loads, but does not

- Mass equivalent to 25% of design live indicate if these loads are included in the dynamic analysis.

load 11.3.D (continued) Due to its location, snow loading is not considered in DCPP's design/licensing basis.

Mass equivalent to 75% of design snow load, as applicable Page 4 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 9 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Intake Structure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3.E. Special Consideration for Dynamic The intake structure does not utilize separate models for the detailed design analysis of load Modeling of Structures - It has been combinations.

common practice that the dynamic models used to predict the seismic response of a structure is not as detailed as the structural model used for the detailed design analysis of all applicable load combinations. Therefore, a methodology is needed to transfer the seismic response loads determined from the dynamic model to the structural model used for the detailed design analysis of all applicable load combinations. This is reviewed for technical adequacy on a case-by-case basis.

11.4.Soil Structure Interaction - A complete Per FSARU Section 3.7.1.5, all Design Class I plant structures are founded on rock or concrete SSI analysis should account for all fill 3. An average shear wave velocity of 3600 feet per second is reported in DCM T-6, Section effects due to kinematic and inertial 4.3.3.2.4.

interaction for surface or embedded structures. See SRP for specific Per FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.2, the model used for the Hosgri evaluation of the intake structure is requirements. fixed-base (soil is not modeled).

Per FSARU Section 3.7.1.2, the horizontal free-field input ground motion for the Hosgri evaluation has been reduced to account for the presence of the intake structure's large foundation. This reduction is derived by spatial averaging of the accelerations across the foundation by the Tau-filtering procedure.

3 Even though the intake structure is not a Design Class I structure, the underlying rock is the same as that for Design Class I structures.

Page 5 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 9 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Intake Structure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.5. Development of In-Structure Response The following provides a comparison of the DCPP design/licensing basis and the requirements of Spectra - RG 1.122 describes methods RG 1.122.

generally acceptable by the staff for the development of in-structure response spectra. The topics addressed are:

11.5.A. SRSS combination of the three in- The combination method for the directions of input motion in the generation of in-structure structure response spectra in a given response spectra is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

direction developed from separate analyses of the three directions of input motion. SRSS is not applicable if the three directions of input motion are applied simultaneously in a single analysis.

11.5.B. Frequency increments for calculation The set of frequencies used for the generation of in-structure response spectra is not addressed in of spectral accelerations the DCPP design/licensing basis.

11.5.C. Spectrum smoothing and broadening FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates that the Hosgri in-structure response spectra are widened to account for uncertainty. (broadened) by 5% on the low period side and 15% on the high period side.

11.5. (continued) See discussion below.

The guidance of RG 1.122 is augmented as follows:

Page 6 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 9 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Intake Structure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.5. The guidance of RG 1.122 is augmented The combination method for thedirections of input motion in the generation of in-structure as follows: response spectra is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

(1) SRSS combination applies to all cases where the three directions of input motion are analyzed separately. There is no longer a distinction between symmetric and unsymmetrical structures 11.5. The guidance of RG 1.122 is augmented The set of frequencies used for the generation of in-structure response spectra is not addressed in as follows (continued): the DCPP design/licensing basis.

(2) The 3 Hz freq. incr. in the last row of RG 1.122, Table 1 applies to the highest frequency of interest.

11.5. The guidance of RG 1.122 is augmented FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates that the Hosgri in-structure response spectra are widened as follows (continued): (broadened) by 5% on the low period side and 15% on the high period side.

(3a) When a single set of three artificial time histories is used as input, the in-structure response spectra are smoothed and broadened in accordance RG 1.122

5. The guidance of RG 1.122 is augmented DCPP uses a single set of input time histories.

as follows (continued):

(3b) When multiple sets of three time histories, derived from actual earthquake records, are used.

Page 7 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 9 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Intake Structure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.7. Combination of Modal Responses - See discussion below.

11.7.A Response Spectrum Analysis The following provides a comparison of the DCPP design/licensing basis and the acceptance criteria provided in RG 1.92.

RG 1.92 describes the acceptable methods for combination of modal responses, including consideration of closely-spaced modes and high frequency modes, when response spectrum method of analysis is used to determine the dynamic response of damped linear systems. Use of alternative methods are evaluated on a case-by-case basis for acceptability.

11.7.A (continued) FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.3 indicates that "the maximum response in each mode is calculated, and modal responses (displacements, accelerations, shears, moments, etc.) are combined by the RG 1.92, Section 1.1, rev. 2 describes square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method." The DCPP design/licensing basis does the acceptable modal combination not address the criteria applied to closely spaced modes in the analysis of the intake structure.

methods 11.7.A (continued) The method for the consideration of high frequency modes (missing mass) is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

RG 1.92, Section 1.4, rev. 2 describes the acceptable missingi mass combination methods Page 8 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 9 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Intake Structure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.7.B Modal Superposition Time History The method for the consideration of high frequency modes (missing mass) is not addressed in the Analysis Method (continued) DCPP design/licensing basis.

In accordance with RG 1.92, only modes with natural frequencies less than or equal to the ZPA frequency of the input spectrum are included in the modal superposition time history analysis. The contribution of the higher frequency modes to the total response is calculated by the missing mass approach.

11.8. Interaction of Non-Category I and FSARU Section 3.7.3.13 (System Interaction Program) describes DCPP's program of the Cate-gory I SSCs - All non-Category I evaluation of the impact of the postulated seismically induced failure of nonsafety-related (similar structures should be assessed to to non-Seismic Category I) SSC's (defined as "sources") on a set of Design Class I (similar to determine whether their failure under Seismic Category I) SSC's (defined as "targets"). The details of this program are described in the SSE conditions could impair the integrity PG&E report "Description of the Systems Interaction Program for Seismically Induced Events,"

of seismic Category I SSCs, or result in August 1980 and the ongoing implementation is governed by DCM T-14.

incapacitating injury to control room occupants. Each non-Category I The set of interaction "targets" are limited to "SSC's required to safely shutdown the plant and structure should meet at least one of the maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, and certain accident mitigating systems," which are a following criteria: subset of Design Class I SSC's.

A. The collapse of the non-Cat I SSC will not cause it to strike a Cat I SSC.

B. The collapse of the non-Cat I SSC will not impair the integrity of a Cat I SSC, nor result in incapacitating injury to control room occupants.

C. The non-Cat I SSC will be analyzed and designed to prevent its failure under SSE conditions, such that the Page 9 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 9 SRP 3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis - Intake Structure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis margin of safety is equivalent to that for a Cat I SSC.

11.9. Effects of Parameter Variation of FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates that the Hosgri in-structure response spectra are widened Floor Response Spectra - consideration (broadened) by 5% on the low period side and 15% on the high period side to account for should be given in the analysis to the "variations in the parameters used in the dynamic analyses, such as mass values, material effects of floor response spectra (e.g., properties, and material sections." --

peak width) of expected variations of structural properties, damping values, FSARU Section 3.7.1.5 indicates that all Design Class I structures are founded on rock or soil properties, and SSI. concrete fill. FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates that the Hosgri seismic analyses of the Design Class I structures are based on fixed-base models (i.e., the consideration of soil properties and SSI is not required). Variations in damping values are not addressed.

11.9. (continued) The FSARU does not discuss the method for the determination of the section properties used for In addition, for. concrete structures, the the determination of the stiffness of concrete structures. FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates effect of potential concrete cracking on that variations in "material sections" were considered in the widening of the response spectra.

the structural stiffness should be The consideration of the effect of potential concrete cracking is not addressed.

specifically addressed.

11.12. Comparison of Responses - If both FSARU Section 3.7.2.11 states "time-history analyses only are performed for Design Class I the time history analysis method and the structures. Response spectrum analyses are not performed because time-history produces response spectrum analysis method are spectra that represent reasonably the criteria response spectra." The comparison of responses used to analyze an SSC, the peak calculated by the two different methods is not addressed.

responses obtained from these two methods should be compared, to demonstrate approximate equivalency between the two methods.

Page 10 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 10 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Annulus Structure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.1.Seismic Analysis Methods See discussion below.

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.1, are applicable.

The following SRP requirements are extracted from SRP 3.7.2.

From SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.1: FSARU Section 3.7.2.1 (Seismic Analysis Methods), provides a general description of the four 3.7.2.11.1. Seismic Analysis Methods primary seismic analysis methods used for Design Class I SSC's:

The seismic analyses of all seismic - 3.7.2.1.2 Time-History Modal Superposition category I SSCs should use either - 3.7.2.1.3 Response Spectrum Modal Superposition suitable dynamic analysis method or an - 3.7.2.1.4 Response Spectrum, Single Degree of Freedom equivalent static analysis method, if - 3.7.2.1.5 Static Equivalent Method justified.

Details of the application of these methods to specific SSC's are provided separately, in SSC-specific sections of the FSARU. Therefore, the SRP comparison for SRP Section 3.7.3 is being performed individually, for the major SSC's.

3.7.2.11.1.A. Dynamic Analysis Methods FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates the number of mass points (nodes) used in the axisymmetric (cont'd) model of the containment interior structure, but does not indicate the number of mass points used 3.7.2.11.11.A.iv. Use of adequate number of in the annulus frame models used to determine vertical response. The DCPP design/licensing discrete mass degrees of freedom in basis does not include a specific requirement for the determination of the adequacy of the number dynamic modeling of discrete mass points.

The containment annulus structure is supported from the outer perimeter of the containment interior structure (on the "Crane Wall") and the top surface of the containment concrete foundation mat. The scope of this SRP review is limited to the containment annulus structure, the seismic analyses of the containment interior and exterior structures are addressed separately. Since the containment annulus structure is completely inside the containment structure, and entirely supported by the containment structure, it is classified as a subsystem for the purposes of this review.

Page 1 of 9

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 10 1

SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Annulus Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.1.A.v. When using either the The HE analysis uses a cut-off frequency of 33 Hz. The DCPP design/licensing basis does not response spectrum method or the modal include a specific requirement to account for the responses associated with high frequency modes.

superposition time history method, responses associated with high frequency modes should be included in the total dynamic solution using the guidance and methods described in RG 1.92, Revision 2, Regulatory Positions C.1.4 and C.1.5.

3.7.2.11.1 .A.vii. Inclusion of significant effects The DCPP design/licensing basis does not address the evaluation of the containment annulus such as piping interactions, externally structure for hydrodynamic loads.

applied structural restraints, hydrodynamic (both mass and stiffness The dynamic analyses of the containment annulus structure are based on linear elastic methods, effects) loads, and nonlinear responses. so nonlinear response is not applicable.

3.7.2.11.1.B. Equivalent Static Load Method Per FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1, the containment annulus structure is evaluated using a dynamic An equivalent static load method is analysis.

acceptable if:

11.3 Procedures Used for Analytical Modeling See discussion below.

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.3 are applicable.

The following SRP requirements are extracted from SRP 3.7.2.

Page 2 of 9

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 10 1

SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Annulus Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis From SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.3 See discussion below.

3.7.2.11.3. Procedures Used for Analytical Modeling To be acceptable, the stiffness, mass, and damping characteristics of the structural systems should be adequately incorporated into the analytical models.

Specifically, the following items should be considered in analytical modeling:

3.7.2.11.3.B. Decoupling Criteria for Coupling between the annulus structure and the containment interior structure is considered in the Subsystems - It can be shown, in general, seismic analysis of the annulus structure.

that frequencies of systems and subsystems have a negligible effect on the error due to decoupling. It can be shown that the mass ratio...

SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.3.B provides guidance for the decoupling of systems and subsystems.

3.7.2.11.3.C. Modeling of structures - Two The Hosgri seismic analyses of the containment annulus structure are based on several models:

types of structural models are widely used by the nuclear industry: lumped- - Horizontal Analyses: Modeled with the containment interior concrete structure. See mass stick models and finite element SRP 3.7.2 review associated with the containment structure for comparison.

models. Either of these two types of modeling techniques is acceptable if the - Vertical Analyses: Lumped mass stick models of individual radial frames (FSARU following guidelines are met: Figure 3.7-5E).

The modeling associated with the horizontal Hosgri analyses of the annulus structure is addressed with that for the containment interior concrete structure. Accordingly, the response in this section addresses only the models used for the vertical analysis of the annulus structure.

Page 3 of 9

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 10 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Annulus Structure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.3.C.i. Lumped-Mass Stick Models This discussion applies to the frame models used for the vertical Hosgri analysis of the annulus structure framing.

3.7.2.11.3.C.i (continued) The lumped mass stick models of individual radial frames are only used for vertical analyses and

- The eccentricities between the do not address eccentricities.

centroid, the center of rigidity, and the center of mass should be included in the seismic model.

3.7.2.11.3.C.i (continued) FSARU Figure 3.7-5E pictorially shows the number of mass points (nodes) used in the frame

- For selecting an adequate number of models. FSARU Section 3.7.2.3.1 indicates that "accurately defining the natural frequencies and discrete mass degrees of freedom in mode shapes" is a criterion in the selection of the mass points.

the dynamic modeling, the acceptance criteria given in Subsection I1.1.a.iv of this SRP section is acceptable.

3.7.2.11.3.C.iii. In developing either a lumped- The DCPP design/licensing basis does not address the method of consideration of local regions of mass stick model or a finite element the containment annulus structure.

model for dynamic response, it is necessary to consider local regions of the structure...

3.7.2.11.3.D. Representation of Floor Loads, See discussions below.

Live Loads, and Maior Equipment in Dynamic Models - In addition to the structural mass, the following masses should be included:

Page 4 of 9

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 10 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Annulus Structure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.3.D (continued) The DCPP design/licensing basis does not discuss the inclusion of miscellaneous dead loads in

- Mass equivalent to 50 psf to represent the dynamic analyses of the containment annulus structure.

misc. dead loads (e.g., minor equipment, piping, and raceways) 3.7.2.11.3.D (continued) FSARU Section 3.8.1.3.1.2 indicates that "Live loads consist of temporary equipment loads and a Mass equivalent to 25% of design live uniform load to account for the miscellaneous temporary loadings that may be placed on the load structure." FSARU Section 3.8.1.3.2.2 indicates that live loads are not included in the load combinations which include the HE.

3.7.2.11.3.D (continued) Due to its location, snow loading is not considered in DCPP's design/licensing basis.

- Mass equivalent to 75% of design snow load, as applicable 3.7.2.11.3.E. Special Consideration for The DCPP design/licensing basis does not describe the usage of separate structural models used Dynamic Modeling of Structures - It has for the detailed design analysis of the containment annulus structure.

been common practice that the dynamic models used to predict the seismic response of a structure is not as detailed as the structural model used for the detailed design analysis of all applicable load combinations. Therefore, a methodology is needed to transfer the seismic response loads determined from the dynamic model to the structural model used for the detailed design analysis of all applicable load combinations. This is reviewed for technical adequacy on a case-by-case basis.

Page 5 of 9

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 10 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Annulus Structure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.7.Combination of Modal Respohses See discussion below.

The acceptancecriteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.7, are applicable.

From SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.1: The following provides a comparison of the DCPP design/licensing basis and the acceptance 3.7.2.11.7. Combination of Modal Responses criteria provided in RG 1.92.

3.7.2.11.7.A Response Spectrum Analysis RG 1.92 describes the acceptable methods for combination of modal responses, including consideration of closely-spaced modes and high frequency modes, when response spectrum method of analysis is used to determine the dynamic response of damped linear systems. Use of alternative methods are evaluated on a case-by-case basis for acceptability.

3.7.2.11.7.A (continued) FSARU, Section 3:7.2.1.3 indicates that "the maximum response in each mode is calculated, and modal responses (displacements, accelerations, shears, moments, etc.) are combined by the RG 1.92, Section 1.1, rev. 2 describes the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method." The DCPP design/licensing basis does acceptable modal combination methods not address the criteria applied to closely spaced modes in the analysis of the annulus structure.

3.7.2.11.7.A (continued) The method for the consideration of high frequency modes (missing mass) is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

RG 1.92, Section 1.4, rev. 2 describes the acceptable missing mass combination methods Page 6 of 9

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 10 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Annulus Structure' SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.7.B Modal Superposition Time The method for the consideration of high frequency modes (missing mass) is not addressed in the History Analysis Method (continued) DCPP design/licensing basis.

In accordance with RG 1.92, only modes with natural frequencies less than or equal to the ZPA frequency of the input spectrum are included in the modal superposition time history analysis. The contribution of the higher frequency modes to the total response is calculated by the missing mass approach.

11.8. Interaction of Other Systems with See discussion below.

Seismic Category I Systems. To be acceptable, each non-seismic Category I system should be designed to be isolated from any seismic Category I system...

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.8, are applicable to all seismic Category I SSCs at the system and subsystem level.

Page 7 of 9

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 10 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Annulus Structure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis From SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.1: FSARU Section 3.7.3.13 (System Interaction Program) describes DCPP's program of the 3.7.2.11.8. Interaction of Non-Categiory I and evaluation of the impact of the postulated seismically induced failure of nonsafety-related (similar Cate-gory I SSCs - All non-Category I to non-Seismic Category I) SSC's (defined as "sources") on a set of Design Class I (similar to structures should be assessed to Seismic Category I) SSC's (defined as "targets")*. The details of this program are described in determine whether their failure under the PG&E report, "Description of the Systems Interaction Program for Seismically Induced Events,"

SSE conditions could impair the integrity dated August 1980 and the ongoing implementation is governed by DCM T-14.

of seismic Category I SSCs, or result in incapacitating injury to control room the set of interaction "targets" are limited to "SSC's required to safely shutdown the plant and occupants. Each non-Category I maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, and certain accident mitigating systems," which is a structure should meet at least one of the subset of Design Class I SSC's.

following criteria:

A. The collapse of the non-Cat I SSC will not cause it to strike a Cat I SSC.

B. The collapse of the non-Cat I SSC will not impair the integrity of a Cat I SSC, nor result in incapacitating injury to control room occupants.

C. The non-Cat I SSC will be analyzed and designed to prevent its failure under SSE conditions, such that the margin of safety is equivalent to that for a Cat I SSC.

Page 8 of 9

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 10 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Annulus Structure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.11. Torsional Effects of Eccentric Masses The annulus structure includes various eccentric masses associated with major equipment (e.g.,

For seismic Category I subsystems, when containment fan coolers). The methods used to consider the effects of eccentric masses on the the torsional effects of an eccentric mass seismic response of this structure are not described in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

is judged to be significant, the eccentric mass and its eccentricity should be included in the mathematical model.

The criteria for judging the significance will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

11.12. Seismic Category I Buried Piping, Not applicable to the containment annulus structure.

Conduits, and Tunnels. For seismic category I buried piping, conduits, and tunnels, and any other subsystems, the following items should be considered in the analysis.

11.13. Methods for Seismic Analysis of Not applicable to the containment annulus structure.

Seismic Category I Concrete Dams. For the seismic analysis of all seismic Category I concrete dams...

11.14. Methods for Seismic Analysis of Not applicable to the containment annulus structure.

Above-Ground Tanks. Most above-ground fluid-containing vertical tanks do not warrant sophisticated...

Page 9 of 9

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 11 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Polar Crane 1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.1.Seismic Analysis Methods See discussion below.

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.1, are applicable.

The following SRP requirements are extracted from SRP 3.7.2.

From SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.1: FSARU Section 3.7.2.1 (Seismic Analysis Methods), provides a general description of the four 3.7.2.11.1. Seismic Analysis Methods primary seismic analysis methods used for Design Class I SSCs:

The seismic analyses of all seismic - 3.7.2.1.2 Time-History Modal Superposition category I SSCs should use either - 3.7.2.1.3 Response Spectrum Modal Superposition suitable dynamic analysis method or an - 3.7.2.1.4 Response Spectrum, Single Degree of Freedom equivalent static analysis method, if - 3.7.2.1.5 Static Equivalent Method justified.

Details of the application of these methods to specific SSC's are provided separately, in SSC-specific sections of the FSARU. Therefore, the SRP comparison review for SRP Section 3.7.3 is being performed individually, for the major SSC's.

3.7.2.1.1.A. Dynamic Analysis Methods FSARU Figure 3.7-7A illustrates the number of mass points (nodes) used in the model of the (cont'd) containment polar crane. The adequacy of the number of points is not addressed in the DCPP 3.7.2.11.1.A.iv. Use of adequate number of design/licensing basis.

discrete mass degrees of freedom in dynamic modeling The containment polar crane is a 200 ton overhead gantry crane, supported from a circular crane rail at 140 foot elevation on the containment interior concrete structure. The crane rail is on the top of the "crane wall", which defines the boundary between the containment interior concrete structure and the containment steel annulus structure.

Page 1 of 8

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 11 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Polar Crane 1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.1l.1.A.v. When using either the The HE analysis uses a cut-off frequency of 33 Hz. The Hosgri evaluation of the polar crane is response spectrum method or the modal based on nonlinear time history analyses.

superposition time history method, responses associated with high frequency modes should be included in the total dynamic solution using the guidance and methods described in RG 1.92, Revision 2, Regulatory Positions C.1.4 and C.1.5.

3.7.2.11.1.A.vi. Consideration of maximum The polar crane is only supported from the crane rail (140 foot elevation on the containment relative displacements between adjacent interior concrete).

supports of seismic Category I SSCs 3.7.2111.1.B. Equivalent Static Load Method Per FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1, the polar crane is evaluated using a dynamic analysis.

An equivalent static load method is acceptable if:

11.3 Procedures Used for Analytical Modeling See discussion below.

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.3 are applicable.

The following SRP requirements are extracted from SRP 3.7.2.

Page 2 of 8

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 11 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Polar Crane1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis From SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.3 See discussion below.

3.7.2.11.3. Procedures Used for Analytical Modeling To be acceptable, the stiffness, mass, and damping characteristics of the structural systems should be adequately incorporated into the analytical models.

Specifically, the following items should be considered in analytical modeling:

3.7.2.11.3.B. Decoupling Criteria for The seismic analysis of the polar crane is decoupled from the containment interior structure. The Subsystems - It can be shown, in DCPP design/licensing basis does not address the decoupling criteria.

general, that frequencies of systems and subsystems have a negligible effect on the error due to decoupling. It can be shown that the mass ratio...

SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.3.B provides guidance for the decoupling of systems and subsystems.

3.7.2.11.3.C. Modeling of Structures - Two The Hosgri seismic analyses of the containment polar crane (FSARU Figure 3.7-7A) are based on types of structural models are widely a finite element model comprised of beam elements, tension-only truss elements (to represent the used by the nuclear industry: lumped- wire rope), compression-only gap elements (to represent the wheels), and lumped masses. This mass stick models and finite element is conceptually similar to a "lumped-mass stick model."

models. Either of these two types of modeling techniques is acceptable if the following guidelines are met:

3.7.2.11.3.C.i. Lumped-Mass Stick Models See discussion below.

Page 3 of 8

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 11 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Polar Crane' SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 3.7.2.11.3.C.i (continued) FSARU Section 3.7.2.3.1 indicates that "accurately defining the natural frequencies and mode

- For selecting an adequate number of shapes" is a criterion in the selection of the mass points.

discrete mass degrees of freedom in the dynamic modeling, the acceptance criteria given in Subsection 11.1.a.iv of this SRP section is acceptable.

3.7.2.11.3.C.ii. Finite Element Models - The Finite element models are not used for the polar crane.

type of finite element used for modeling a structural system should depend on the structural details, the purpose of the analysis, and the theoretical formulation upon which the element is based.

3.7.2.11.3.C.iii. In developing either a lumped- The DCPP design/licensing basis does not address the method of consideration of local regions of mass stick model or a finite element the containment polar crane.

model for dynamic response, it is necessary to consider local regions of the structure...

3.7.2.11.3.D. Representation of Floor Loads, See discussions below.

Live Loads, and Maior Equipment in Dynamic Models - In addition to the structural mass, the following masses should be included:

3.7.2.11.3.D (continued) There is a very limited amount of minor equipment attached to the polar crane.

- Mass equivalent to 50 psf to represent misc. dead loads (e.g.,

minor equipment, piping, and raceways)

Page 4 of 8

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 11 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Polar Crane1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.3.D (continued) Due to its location, snow loading is not considered in DCPP's design/licensing basis.

- Mass equivalent to 75% of design snow load, as applicable 3.7.2.11.3.E. Special Consideration for The DCPP design/licensing basis does not describe the usage of separate structural models used Dynamic Modeling of Structures - It has for the detailed design analysis of the polar crane.

been common practice that the dynamic models used to predict the seismic response of a structure is not as detailed as the structural model used for the detailed design analysis of all applicable load combinations. Therefore, a methodology is needed to transfer the seismic response loads determined from the dynamic model to the structural model used for the detailed design analysis of all applicable load combinations. This is reviewed for technical adequacy on a case-by-case basis.

11.4. Basis for Selection of Frequencies. To The DCPP design/licensing basis does not include requirements for the frequency of subsystems avoid resonance, the fundamental relative to the supporting structure. The polar crane has been designed for the seismic loading frequencies of components and developed from the Hosgri seismic analysis of the containment interior structure, which is the equipment should preferably be selected support for the polar crane.

to be less than 1/2 of more than twice the dominant frequencies of the support structure. Use of equipment frequencies within this range is acceptable if equipment is adequately designed for applicable loads.

Page 5 of 8

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 11 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Polar Crane' SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.7.Combination of Modal Responses The seismic analysis of the polar crane is based on nonlinear time history analyses.

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.7, are applicable.

11.8. Interaction of Other Systems with See discussion below.

Seismic Cate-gory I Systems. To be acceptable, each non-seismic Category I system should be designed to be isolated from any seismic Category I system....

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.8, are applicable to all seismic Category I SSCs at the system and subsystem level.

Page 6 of 8

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 11 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Polar Crane' SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis From SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.1: FSARU Section 3.7.3.13 (System Interaction Program) describes DCPP's program of the 3.7.2.11.8. Interaction of Non-Category I evaluation of the impact of the postulated seismically induced failure of nonsafety-related (similar to and CateEory I SSCs - All non-Category I non-Seismic Category I) SSC's (defined as "sources") on a set of Design Class I (similar to Seismic structures should be assessed to Category I) SSC's (defined as "targets")*. The details of this program are described in the PG&E determine whether their failure under report "Description of the Systems Interaction Program for Seismically Induced Events," August SSE conditions could impair the integrity 1980 and the ongoing implementation is governed by DCM T-14.

of seismic Category I SSCs, or result in incapacitating injury to control room

• The set of interaction "targets" are limited to "SSC's required to safely shutdown the plant and occupants. Each non-Category I maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, and certain accident mitigating systems," which is a structure should meet at least one of the subset of Design Class I SSC's.

following criteria:

A. The collapse of the non-Cat I SSC will not cause it to strike a Cat I SSC.

B. The collapse of the non-Cat I SSC will not impair the integrity of a Cat I SSC, nor result in incapacitating injury to control room occupants.

C. The non-Cat I SSC will be analyzed and designed to prevent its failure under SSE conditions, such that the margin of safety is equivalent to that for a Cat I SSC.

Page 7 of 8

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 11 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Polar Crane 1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.9.Multiply-Supported Equipment and The polar crane is entirely supported from the containment interior structure.

Components with Distinct Inputs.

Equipment and components in some cases are supported at several points by either a single structure or two separate structures. The motion of the primary structure or structures at each of the support points may be quite different.

A conservative and acceptable approach for analyzing...

11.12. Seismic Category I Buried Piping, Not applicable to the polar crane.

Conduits, and Tunnels. For seismic category I buried piping, conduits, and tunnels, and any other subsystems, the following items should be considered in the analysis.

11.13. Methods for Seismic Analysis of Not applicable to the polar crane.

Seismic Category I Concrete Dams. For

-the seismic analysis of all seismic Category I concrete dams...

11.14. Methods for Seismic Analysis of Not applicable to the polar crane.

Above-Ground Tanks. Most above-ground fluid-containing vertical tanks do not warrant sophisticated...

Page 8 of 8

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 12 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Pipeway Structure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.1. Seismic Analysis Methods See discussion below.

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.1, are applicable.

The following SRP requirements are extracted from SRP 3.7.2.

From SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.1: FSARU Section 3.7.2.1 (Seismic Analysis Methods), provides a general description of the four 3.7.2.11.1. Seismic Analysis Methods primary seismic analysis methods used for Design Class I SSC's:

The seismic analyses of all seismic - 3.7.2.1.2 Time-History Modal Superposition category I SSCs should use either - 3.7.2.1.3 Response Spectrum Modal Superposition suitable dynamic analysis method or an - 3.7.2.1.4 Response Spectrum, Single Degree of Freedom equivalent static analysis method, if - 3.7.2.1.5 Static Equivalent Method justified.

Details of the application of these methods to specific SSC's are provided separately, in SSC-specific sections of the FSARU. Therefore, the SRP comparison review for SRP Section 3.7.3 is being performed individually, for the major SSC's.

3.7.2.11.1 .A. Dynamic Analysis Methods FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 does not discuss the number of mass points (nodes) used in the (cont'd) modeling of the pipeway structure, nor their adequacy. The DCPP design/licensing basis does 3.7.2.11.1.A.iv. Use of adequate number of not include a specific requirement to account for the determination of the adequacy of the number discrete mass degrees of freedom in of discrete mass points.

dynamic modeling 1 The containment pipeway structure is supported from the outside of the containment exterior structure, the east wall of the turbine building, and several locations on the auxiliary building. The scope of this SRP comparison review is limited to the containment pipeway structure; the seismic analyses of the containment exterior structure, the turbine building, and the auxiliary building are addressed separately.

Page 1 of 11

PG&E Letter DCL-1.1-124 Enclosure Attachment 12 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Pipeway Structure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.1.A.v. When using either the The HE analysis uses a cut-off frequency of 33 Hz. The DCPP design/licensing basis does not response spectrum method or the modal include a specific requirement to account for the responses associated with high frequency superposition time history method, modes.

responses associated with high frequency modes should be included in the total dynamic solution using the guidance and methods described in RG. 1.92, Revision 2, Regulatory Positions C.1.4 and C.1.5.

3.7.2.11.1.B. Equivalent Static Load Method Per FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1, the Unit 2 Containment Pipeway Structure is evaluated using the An equivalent static load method is Equivalent Static Method for the structural qualification.

acceptable if:

3.7.2.11.1.B.i. Justification is provided that the The DCPP design/licensing basis does not provide specific justification for the use of the system can be realistically represented by equivalent static method for the Unit 2 Pipeway Structure.

a simple model and the method produces conservative results in terms of responses.

3.7.2.11.1 .B.iii. A factor is 1.5 is applied to the The DCPP design/licensing basis does not discuss the use of a spectral acceleration amplification peak spectral acceleration, unless a small factor for the equivalent static analysis of the Unit 2 Pipeway Structure, so the use of a factor of factor is justified. 1.5 is not specified.

11.3 Procedures Used for Analytical Modelinq See discussion below.

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.3 are applicable.

The following SRP requirements are extracted from SRP 3.7.2.

Page 2 of 11

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 12 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Pipeway Structure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis From SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.3 See discussion below.

3.7.2.11.3. Procedures Used for Analytical Modeling To be acceptable, the stiffness, mass, and damping characteristics of the structural systems should be adequately incorporated into the analytical models.

Specifically, the following items should be considered in analytical modeling:

3.7.2.11.3.B. Decouplinq Criteria for The pipeway structure is supported in the horizontal direction from the containment exterior Subsystems - It can be shown, in general, structure and in the vertical direction from the containment exterior structure, the turbine building, that frequencies of systems and and the auxiliary building. Coupling between the pipeway structure and the containment exterior subsystems have a negligible effect on structure is considered in the horizontal and vertical seismic analyses of the pipeway structure.

the error due to decoupling. It can be Coupling between the pipeway structure and the turbine or auxiliary buildings is not considered in shown that the mass ratio... the vertical seismic analysis of the pipeway structure.

SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.3.B provides guidance for the decoupling of systems and subsystems.

3.7.2.11.3.C. Modeling of Structures - Two The Hosgri seismic analyses of the containment pipeway structure are based on a coupled model types of structural models are widely representing the following:

used by the nuclear industry: lumped-mass stick models and finite element - Pipeway Framing: Finite elements (beams and trusses) models. Either of these two types of - Containment Exterior Concrete: Lumped mass stick model modeling techniques is acceptable if the - Main Steam and Feedwater Piping: Finite elements (beams) following guidelines are met:

Note that the pipeway is also supported vertically by the auxiliary building and the-turbine building.

Oversized holes in the connections at these buildings prevent coupling in the horizontal direction.

Page 3 of 11

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 12 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Pipeway Structure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.3.C.i. Lumped-Mass Stick Models This discussion applies to the stick model used to represent the containment exterior concrete as part of the coupled model with the pipeway structure.

3.7.2.11.3.C.i (continued) The containment exterior concrete is an axisymmetric structure.

- The eccentricities between the centroid, the center of rigidity, and the center of mass should be included in the seismic model.

3.7.2.11.3.C.i (continued) The DCPP design/licensing basis does not discuss the number of mass points used in the model.

- For selecting an adequate number of FSARU Section 3.7.2.3.1 indicates that "accurately defining the natural frequencies and mode discrete mass degrees of freedom in shapes" is a criterion in the selection of the mass points.

the dynamic modeling, the acceptance criteria given in Subsection I1.1.a.iv of this SRP section is acceptable.

3.7.2.11.3.C.ii. Finite Element Models - The The discussion below applies to the beam/truss finite element model used to represent the type of finite element used for modeling a pipeway framing and the main steam and feedwater piping.

structural system should depend on the structural details, the purpose of the analysis, and the theoretical formulation upon which the element is based.

3.7.2.11.3.C.ii (continued) Refinement in mesh size is not addressed for the pipeway structure models in the DCPP

- The element mesh size should be design/licensing basis.

selected on the basis that further refinement has only a negligible effect on the solution results Page 4 of 11

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 12 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Pipeway Structure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.3.C.iii. In developing either a lumped- The containment pipeway structure does not have local regions that would affect the results.

mass stick model or a finite element model for dynamic response, it is necessary to consider local regions of the structure...

3.7.2.11.3.D. Representation of Floor See discussions below.

Loads, Live Loads, and Maior Equipment in Dynamic Models - In addition to the structural mass, the following masses should be included:

3.7.2.11.3.D (continued) The DCPP design/licensing basis does not address the inclusion of miscellaneous dead loads in

- Mass equivalent to 50 psf to represent the dynamic analyses of the containment pipeway structure.

misc. dead loads (e.g., minor equipment, piping, and raceways) 3.7.2.11.3.D (continued) FSARU Section 3.8.6.3.1.2 indicates that live loads "are considered small in relative magnitude

- Mass equivalent to 25% of design live and, therefore, are considered negligible." FSARU Section 3.8.6.3.2.2 indicates that live loads load are not included in the load combinations, which include the HE.

3.7.2.11.3.D (continued) Due to its location, snow loading is not considered in DCPP's design/licensing basis.

- Mass equivalent to 75% of design snow load, as applicable.

Page 5 of 11

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 12 1

SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Pipeway Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.3.E. Special Consideration for The DCPP design/licensing basis does not describe the usage of separate structural models used Dynamic Modeling of Structures - It has for the detailed design analysis of the containment pipeway structure.

been common practice that the dynamic models used to predict the seismic response of a structure is not as detailed as the structural model used for the detailed design analysis of all applicable load combinations. Therefore, a methodology is needed to transfer the seismic response loads determined from the dynamic model to the structural model used for the detailed design analysis of all applicable load combinations. This is reviewed for technical adequacy on a case-by-case basis.

11.4. Basis for Selection of Frequencies. To The DCPP design/licensing basis does not include requirements for the selection of frequency of avoid resonance, the fundamental subsystems relative to the supporting structure.

frequencies of components and equipment should preferably be selected to be less than 1/2 of more than twice the dominant frequencies of the support structure. Use of equipment frequencies within this range is acceptable if equipment is adequately designed for applicable loads.

11.7.Combination of Modal Responses See discussion below.

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.7, are applicable.

Page 6 of 11

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 12 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Pipeway Structure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis From SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.1: The following provides a comparison of the DCPP design/licensing basis and the acceptance 3.7.2.11.7. Combination of Modal Responses criteria provided in RG 1.92.

3.7.2.11.7.A Response Spectrum Analysis RG 1.92 describes the acceptable methods for combination of modal responses, including consideration of closely-spaced modes and high frequency modes, when response spectrum method of analysis is used to determine the dynamic response of damped linear systems. Use of alternative methods are evaluated on a case-by-case basis for acceptability.

3.7.2.11.7.A (continued) FSARU, Section 3.7.2.1.3 indicates that "the maximum response in each mode is calculated, and modal responses (displacements, accelerations, shears, moments, etc.) are combined by the RG 1.92, Section 1.1, rev. 2 describes the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method." The DCPP design/licensing basis does acceptable modal combination methods not address the criteria applied to closely spaced modes in the analysis of the pipeway structure.

3.7.2.11.7.A (continued) The method for the consideration of high frequency modes (missing mass) is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

RG 1.92, Section 1.4, rev: 2 describes the acceptable missing mass combination methods Page 7 of 11

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 12 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Pipeway Structure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.7.B Modal Superposition Time The method for the consideration of high frequency modes (missing mass) is not addressed in the History Analysis Method (continued) DCPP design/licensing basis.

In accordance with RG 1.92, only modes with natural frequencies less than or equal to the ZPA frequency of the input spectrum are included in the modal superposition time history analysis. The contribution of the higher frequency modes to the total response is calculated by the missing mass approach.

3.7.2.11.8. Interaction of Other Systems with See discussion below.

Seismic Category I Systems. To be acceptable, each non-seismic Category I system should be designed to be isolated from any seismic Category I system....

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.8, are applicable to all seismic Category I SSCs at the system and subsystem level.

Page 8 of 11

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 12 1

SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Pipeway Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis From SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.1: FSARU Section 3.7.3.13 (System Interaction Program) describes DCPP's program of the 3.7.2.11.8. Interaction of Non-Cateqory I and evaluation of the impact of the postulated seismically induced failure of nonsafety-related (similar Cate-gory I SSCs - All non-Category I to non-Seismic Category I) SSC's (defined as "sources") on a set of Design Class I (similar to structures should be assessed to Seismic Category I) SSC's (defined as "targets")*. The details of this program are described in determine whether their failure under the PG&E report "Description of the Systems Interaction Program for Seismically Induced SSE conditions could impair the integrity Events," dated August 1980 and the ongoing implementation is governed by DCM T-14.

of seismic Category I SSCs, or result in incapacitating injury to control room . The set of interaction "targets" are limited to "SSC's required to safely shutdown the plant and occupants. Each non-Category I maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, and certain accident mitigating systems," which is a structure should meet at least one of the subset of Design Class I SSC's.

following criteria:

A. The collapse of the non-Cat I SSC will not cause it to strike a Cat I SSC.

B. The collapse of the non-Cat I SSC will not impair the integrity of a Cat I SSC, nor result in incapacitating injury to control room occupants.

C. The non-Cat I SSC will be analyzed and designed to prevent its failure under SSE conditions, such that the margin of safety is equivalent to that for a Cat I SSC.

Page 9 of 11

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 12 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Pipeway Structure' SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.9.Multiply-Supported Equipment and The pipeway structure is supported from the containment exterior structure (vertical and horizontal Components with Distinct Inputs. support), the auxiliary building (vertical support) and the turbine building (vertical support), the Equipment and components in some input motion at these locations is not the same. The differences in input motion are not cases are supported at several points by addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

either a single structure or two separate structures. The motion of the primary structure or structures at each of the support points may be quite different.

A conservative and acceptable approach for analyzing...

11.11. Torsional Effects of Eccentric Masses There are no significant eccentric masses in the pipeway structure itself. The eccentric masses For seismic Category I subsystems, when the associated with valve operators would be captured in the piping reactions that are applied to the torsional effects of an eccentric mass is pipeway structure as a static load case.

judged to be significant, the eccentric mass and its eccentricity should be included in the mathematical model.

The criteria for judging the significance will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

11.12. Seismic Cate-qory I Buried Piping, Not applicable to the containment pipeway structure.

Conduits, and Tunnels. For seismic category I buried piping, conduits, and tunnels, and any other subsystems, the following items should be considered in the analysis.

11.13. Methods for Seismic Analysis of Not applicable to the containment pipeway structure.

Seismic Category I Concrete Dams. For the seismic analysis of all seismic Category I concrete dams...

Page 10 of 11

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 12 SRP 3.7.3 . Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Pipeway Structure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.14. Methods for Seismic Analysis of Not applicable to the containment pipeway structure.

Above-Ground Tanks. Most above-ground fluid-containing vertical tanks do not warrant sophisticated...

Page 11 of 11

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 13 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Fuel Handling Building Steel Superstructure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.1. Seismic Analysis Methods See discussion below.

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.1, are applicable.

The following SRP requirements are extracted from SRP 3.7.2.

From SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.1: FSARU Section 3.7.2.1 (Seismic Analysis Methods), provides a general description of the four 3.7.2.11.1. Seismic Analysis Methods primary seismic analysis methods used for Design Class I SSC's:

The seismic analyses of all seismic - 3.7.2.1.2 Time-History Modal Superposition category I SSCs should use either - 3.7.2.1.3 Response Spectrum Modal Superposition suitable dynamic.analysis method or an - 3.7.2.1.4 Response Spectrum, Single Degree of Freedom equivalent static analysis method, if - 3.7.2.1.5 Static Equivalent Method justified.

Details of the application of these methods to specific SSC's are provided separately, in SSC-specific sections of the FSARU. Therefore, the SRP comparison review for SRP Section 3.7.3 is addressed individually, for the major SSC's.

3.7.2.11.1.A. Dynamic Analysis Methods FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 does not indicate the number of mass points (nodes) used in the (cont'd) models, and this level of detail is not specified in FSARU Figure 3.7-13B. The adequacy of the 3.7.2.11.1.A.iv. Use of adequate number of number of points is not specifically addressed. The DCPP design/licensing basis does not discrete mass degrees of freedom in include a specific requirement for the determination of the adequacy of the number of mass points.

dynamic modeling The area above the SFP's is enclosed by the FHBSS, which is supported on the reinforced concrete auxiliary building. The scope of this SRP review is limited to the FHBSS, the seismic analyses of the auxiliary building are addressed separately.

Page 1 of 8

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 13 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Fuel Handling Building Steel Superstructure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.1.A.v. When using either the The HE analysis uses a cut-off frequency of 33 Hz. The DCPP design/licensing basis does not response spectrum method or the modal include a specific requirement to account for the responses associated with high frequency modes.

superposition time history method, responses associated with high frequency modes should be included in the total dynamic solution using the guidance and methods described in RG 1.92, Revision 2, Regulatory Positions C.1.4 and C.1.5.

3.7.2.1l.1.A.vi. Consideration of maximum The FHBSS is supported by a number of columns which are all attached to the concrete auxiliary relative displacements between adjacent building.

supports of seismic Category I SSCs 3.7.2111.1.B. Equivalent Static Load Method Per FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1, the seismic response of the FHBSS is determined using two An equivalent static load method is "partial" models of the structure. As indicated in DCM T-6, Appendix B, the forces in the acceptable if: individual structural elements (e.g., beams, columns, braces, roof trusses) are determined by the static application of the local accelerations, derived from the dynamic analyses of the partial models, to a three-dimensional finite element model of the entire building. This represents the use of the Equivalent Static Method.

3.7.2.1.1.Bii. The simplified static analysis The entire FHBSS is supported on top of the reinforced concrete auxiliary building.

method accounts for the relative motion between all points of support.

11.3 Procedures Used for Analytical Modeling See discussion below.

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.3 are applicable.

The following SRP requirements are extracted from SRP 3.7.2.

Page 2 of 8

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 13 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Fuel Handling Building Steel Superstructure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis From SRP Section 3.7.2. subsection 11.3 See discussion below.

3.7.2.11.3. Procedures Used for Analytical Modeling To be acceptable, the stiffness, mass, and damping characteristics of the structural systems should be adequately incorporated into the analytical models.

Specifically, the following items should be considered in analytical modeling:

3.7.2.11.3.C. Modeling of Structures - Two The Hosgri seismic analyses of the FHBSS are based on two beam/truss element finite element types of structural models are widely models (two portions of the building are modeled). See FSARU Figure 3.7-13B.

used by the nuclear industry: lumped-mass stick models and finite element models. Either of these two types of modeling techniques is acceptable if the following guidelines are met:

3.7.2.11.3.C.i. Lumped-Mass Stick Models Not applicable to the FHBSS.

3.7.2.11.3.C.ii. Finite Element Models - The As indicated in FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1, finite element models are used to capture the dynamic type of finite element used for modeling a response of the FHBSS, based on beam and truss elements. See FSARU Figure 3.7-13B.

structural system should depend on the Details of the theoretical formulation of the element are not provided in the DCPP design/licensing structural details, the purpose of the basis.

analysis, and the theoretical formulation upon which the element is based.

3.7.2.11.3.C.ii. Finite Element Models The DCPP design/licensing basis does not address the effects of element size, shape, or aspect (continued) ratio on the solution accuracy. FSARU Section 3.7.2.3.1 indicates that "accurately defining the

- The mathematical discretization of the natural frequencies and mode shapes" is a criterion in the selection of the mass points. Beam structure should consider the effect of and truss element are discretized based key points in the structure. The size, shape, and aspect the element size, shape, and aspect ratios are not applicable to beam or truss elements.

ratio on the solution accuracy.

Page 3 of 8

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 13 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Fuel Handling Building Steel Superstructure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.3.C.ii (continued) The DCPP design/licensing basis does not address the effects of mesh refinement on the solution

- The element mesh size should be results. FSARU Section 3.7.2.3.1 indicates that "accurately defining the natural frequencies and selected on the basis that further mode shapes" is a criterion in the selection of the mass points.

refinement has only a negligible effect on the solution results 3.7.2.11.3.C.iii. In developing either a lumped- Consideration of the effects of local regions is not required because the FHBSS does not have any mass stick model or a finite element local regions that would affect the results and the modeling of this steel-framed structure has model for dynamic response, it is adequate details to capture the local response.

necessary to consider local regions of the structure...

3.7.2.11.3.D. Representation of Floor Loads, See discussions below.

Live Loads, and Manor Equipment in Dynamic Models - In addition to the structural mass, the following masses should be included:

3.7.2.11.3.D (continued) The DCPP design/licensing basis does not address the inclusion of miscellaneous dead loads in

- Mass equivalent to 50 psf to represent the dynamic analyses of the FHBSS. The dead load, as defined in FSARU Section 3.8.2.3.1.1, misc. dead loads (e.g., minor includes the weight of permanent equipment.

equipment, piping, and raceways) 3.7.2.11.3.D (continued) FSARU Section 3.8.2.3.1.2 indicates that "Live loads consist of temporary equipment loads and a

- Mass equivalent to 25% of design live uniform load to account for the miscellaneous temporary loadings that may be placed on the load structure." FSARU Section 3.8.2.3.2.2 indicates that live loads are included in the load combinations which include the HE2 .

3.7.2.11.3.D (continued) Due to its location, snow loading is not considered in DCPP's design/licensing basis.-

- Mass equivalent to 75% of design snow load, as applicable 2 The FHBSS has no floor levels, the only horizontal surface on which live loads could be placed is the flat roof.

Page 4 of 8

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 13 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Fuel Handling Building Steel Superstructure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4.Basis for Selection of Frequencies. To The DCPP design/licensing basis does not includes requirements for the frequency of subsystems avoid resonance, the fundamental relative to the supporting structure. The FHBSS has been designed for the seismic loading frequencies of components and developed from the Hosgri seismic analysis of the auxiliary building, which is the support for the equipment should preferably be selected FHBSS.

to be less than 1/2 of more than twice the dominant frequencies of the support structure. Use of equipment frequencies within this range is acceptable if equipment is adequately designed for applicable loads.

11.7.Combination of Modal Responses See discussion below.

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.7, are applicable.

From SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.1: The following provides a comparison of the DCPP design/licensing basis and the acceptance 3.7.2.11.7. Combination of Modal Responses criteria provided in RG 1.92.

3.7.2.11.7.A Response Spectrum Analysis RG 1.92 describes the acceptable methods for combination of modal responses, including consideration of closely-spaced modes and high frequency modes, when response spectrum method of analysis is used to determine the dynamic response of damped linear systems. Use of alternative methods are evaluated on a case-by-case basis for acceptability.

Page 5 of 8

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 13 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Fuel Handling Building Steel Superstructure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.7.A (continued) FSARU, Section 3.7.2.1.3 indicates that "the maximum response in each mode is calculated, and modal responses (displacements, accelerations, shears, moments, etc.) are combined by the RG 1.92, Section 1.1, rev. 2 describes the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method." The DCPP design/licensing basis does acceptable modal combination methods not address the criteria applied to closely spaced modes in the analysis of the FHBSS.

3.7.2.11.7.A (continued) The method for the consideration of high frequency modes (missing mass) is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

RG 1.92, Section 1.4, rev. 2 describes the acceptable missing mass combination methods 3.7.2.11.7.B Modal Superposition Time The method for the consideration of high frequency modes (missing mass) is not addressed in the History Analysis Method (continued) DCPP design/licensing basis.

In accordance with RG 1.92, only modes with natural frequencies less than or equal to the ZPA frequency of the input spectrum are included in the modal superposition time history analysis. The contribution of the higher frequency modes to the total response is calculated by the missing mass approach.

11.8. Interaction of Other Systems with See discussion below.

Seismic Category I Systems. To be acceptable, each non-seismic Category I system should be designed to be isolated from any seismic Category I system....

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.8, are applicable to all seismic Category I SSCs at the system and subsystem level.

Page 6 of 8

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 13 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Fuel Handling Building Steel Superstructure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis From SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.1: FSARU Section 3.7.3.13 (System Interaction Program) describes DCPP's program of the 3,7.2.11.8. Interaction of Non-Category I and evaluation of the impact of the postulated seismically induced failure of nonsafety-related (similar Category I SSCs - All non-Category I to non-Seismic Category I) SSC's (defined as "sources") on a set of Design Class I (similar to structures should be assessed to Seismic Category I) SSC's (defined as "targets")*. The details of this program are described in determine whether their failure under the PG&E report "Description of the Systems Interaction Program for Seismically Induced Events,"

SSE conditions could impair the integrity August 1980 and the ongoing implementation is governed by DCM T-14.

of seismic Category I SSCs, or result in incapacitating injury to control room The set of interaction "targets" are limited to "SSC's required to safely shutdown the plant and occupants. Each non-Category I maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, and certain accident mitigating systems," which is a structure should meet at least one of the subset of Design Class I SSC's.

following criteria:

A. The collapse of the non-Cat I SSC will not cause it to strike a Cat I SSC.

B. The collapse of the non-Cat I SSC will not impair the integrity of a Cat I SSC, nor result in incapacitating injury to control room occupants.

C. The non-Cat I SSC will be analyzed and designed to prevent its failure under SSE conditions, such that the margin of safety is equivalent to that for a Cat I SSC.

Page 7 of 8

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 13 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Fuel Handling Building Steel Superstructure1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.9.Multiply-Supported Equipment and The FHBSS is entirely supported from the auxiliary building.

Components with Distinct Inputs.

Equipment and components in some bcases are supported at several points by either a single structure or two separate structures. The motion of the primary structure or structures at each of the support points may be quite different.

A conservative and acceptable approach for analyzing...

11.12. Seismic Category I Buried Piping, Not applicable to the FHBSS.

Conduits, and Tunnels. For seismic category I buried piping, conduits, and tunnels, and any other subsystems, the following items should be considered in the analysis.

11.13. Methods for Seismic Analysis of Not applicable to the FHBSS.

Seismic Category I Concrete Dams. For the seismic analysis of all seismic Category I concrete dams...

11.14. Methods for Seismic Analysis of Not applicable to the FHBSS.

Above-Ground Tanks. Most above-ground fluid-containing vertical tanks do not warrant sophisticated...

Page 8 of 8

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 14 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Outdoor Water Storage Tanks (OWST's),

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis

11. 14. Methods for Seismic Analysis of Above-Ground Tanks Most above-ground fluid-containing vertical tanks do not warrant sophisticated...

11.14.B. Fundamental Impulsive Mode of The DCPP design/licensing basis does not provide this level of detail concerning the basis of the Vibration fundamental natural horizontal impulsive mode of the fluid-tank system for the seismic The fundamental natural horizontal qualification of the OWST's.

impulsive mode of the fluid-tank system must be estimated giving due DCM T-6, Appendix E, Section 5.1 provides a general discussion of the method for determining consideration to the flexibility of the the fundamental natural horizontal impulsive mode of the fluid-tank system with consideration of supporting medium and to any uplifting flexibility of the supporting medium, based on a Veletsos approach for the HE.

tendencies for the tank. It is unacceptable to assume a rigid tank unless the assumption can be justified.

The horizontal impulsive-mode spectral acceleration, Sal, is then determined using this frequency and the appropriate damping for the fluid-tank system.

Alternatively, the maximum spectral acceleration corresponding to the relevant damping may be used.

The OWST (condensate storage tanks (CSTs), refueling water storage tanks (RWSTs), and fire water and transfer tank (FWTT)) are seismic Category I above-ground atmospheric tanks. These tanks are steel-lined, reinforced concrete tanks, supported on concrete foundations extending to bedrock, which include rock anchors to prevent sliding, overturning, and uplift.

Page 1 of 3

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 14 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Outdoor Water Storage Tanks (OWST's)l SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.14.D. Damping Ratio for Convective Mode DCM T-6, Appendix E, Section 3.2, indicates that a damping value of 1% is used for determining In determining the spectral acceleration in convective (sloshing) spectral acceleration for the HE.

the horizontal convective mode, Sa2, the fluid damping ratio shall be 0.5 percent of critical damping unless a higher value can be substantiated by experimental results 11.14.E. Overturning Moment See discussion below.

The maximum overturning moment, M0 ,

at the base of the tank should be obtained by the modal and spatial combination methods discussed in subsection II of SRP Section 3.7.2:

11.14.E. (continued) FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.3 indicates that "the maximum response in each mode is calculated, and 3.7.2.11.7 Combination of Modal Responses modal responses (displacements, accelerations, shears, moments, etc.) are combined by the RG 1.92 describes the acceptable square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method." The DCPP design/licensing basis does methods for combination of modal not address the criteria applied to closely spaced modes in the analysis of the OWST's.

responses, including consideration of closely-spaced modes and high frequency modes, when response spectrum method of analysis is used to determine the dynamic response of damped linear systems. Use of alternative methods are evaluated on a case-by-case basis for acceptability.

Page 2 of 3

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 14 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Outdoor Water Storage Tanks (OWST's)'

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.14.G. Fluid Sloshing Effects on Head The DCPP design/licensing basis does not address sloshing (i.e., freeboard) heights or the design Either the tank top head must be located of the tank roofs and connections for pressures induced by sloshing.

at elevation higher than the slosh height above the top of the fluid or else must be designed for pressures resulting from fluid sloshing against this head.

11.14.J. Additional Considerations See discussion below.

In addition to the above, a consideration must be given to:

11.14.J. (continued) Buckling of the tank walls and roof is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

- prevent buckling of tank walls and roof Page 3 of 3

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 15 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Architectural Platforms' SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.1.Seismic Analysis Methods The seismic analysis methods for architectural platforms are not described in the FSARU, but a The acceptance criteria provided in SRP limited amount of information is provided in DCM C-49, "Class I and Class IIA Architectural Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.1, are Platforms".

applicable.

The following SRP requirements are extracted from SRP 3.7.2.

From SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.1: FSARU Section 3.7.2.1 (Seismic Analysis Methods), provides a general description of the four 3.7.2.11.1. Seismic Analysis Methods primary seismic analysis methods used for Design Class I SSC's:

The seismic analyses of all seismic - 3.7.2.1.2 Time-History Modal Superposition category I SSCs should use either - 3.7.2.1.3 Response Spectrum Modal Superposition suitable dynamic analysis method or an - 3.7.2.1.4 Response Spectrum, Single Degree of Freedom equivalent static analysis method, if - 3.7.2.1.5 Static Equivalent Method justified.

Details of the application of these methods to specific SSC's are provided separately, in SSC-specific sections of the FSARU. Therefore, the SRP comparison reviews for SRP Section 3.7.3 are addressed individually for the major SSC's.

3.7.2.11.1.A. Dynamic Analysis Methods DCM C-49, Section 5.5 indicates that Hosgri seismic loads are based on the Equivalent Static SRP acceptance based on linear elastic Method.

analyses with allowable stresses near elastic limits. However, for certain special cases (e.g., evaluation of as-built structures), reliance on limited inelastic/nonlinear behavior is acceptable 1 Architectural platforms are structural steel assemblies within containment, auxiliary buildings, and turbine buildings. Design Class I and Design Class IIA (i.e.,

Design Class II platforms that support Class I equipment) correspond to RG 1.29 Seismic Category I structures.

Page 1 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 15 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Architectural Platforms 1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2111.1.B. Equivalent Static Load Method An equivalent static load method is acceptable if:

3.7.2.11.1.B.i. Justification is provided that Justification for the use of the equivalent static method is not provided in the DCPP the system can be realistically design/licensing basis.

represented by a simple model and the method produces conservative results in terms of responses.

3.7.2.11.1.B.ii. The simplified static analysis The consideration of relative support motion is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

method accounts for the relative motion between all points of support.

3.7.2.1l.1.B.iii. A factor is 1.5 is applied to the DCM C-49, Section 5.5.1 indicates that the applied accelerations are based on the applicable peak spectral acceleration, unless a small building response spectra but does not require the use of a factor greater than 1.0.

factor is justified.

DCM C-49, Section 6.2 indicates that peak spectral accelerations are used unless loading is determined by a detailed analysis.

11.3 Procedures Used for Analytical Modeling See discussion below.

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.3 are applicable.

The following SRP requirements are extracted from SRP 3.7.2.

Page 2 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 15 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Architectural Platforms 1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis From SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.3 See discussion below.

3.7.2.11.3. Procedures Used for Analytical Modeling To be acceptable, the stiffness, mass, and damping characteristics of the structural systems should be adequately incorporated into the analytical models.

Specifically, the following items should be considered in analytical modeling:

3.7.2.11.3.B. Decoupling Criteria for The DCPP design/licensing basis does not address the decoupling criteria for the platforms Subsystems - It can be shown, in general, relative to the supporting buildings.

that frequencies of systems and subsystems have a negligible effect on the error due to decoupling. It can be shown that the mass ratio...

SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.3.B provides guidance for the decoupling of systems and subsystems.

3.7.2.11.3.C. Modeling of Structures - Two Based on a review of supporting calculations, the Hosgri seismic analyses of the platforms are types of structural models are widely typically based on beam/truss element finite element models.

used by the nuclear industry:

lumped-mass stick models and finite element models. Either of these two types of modeling techniques is acceptable if the following guidelines are met:

3.7.2.11.3.C.i. Lumped-Mass Stick Models Lumped-mass stick models are not used for the platforms.

Page 3 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 15 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Architectural Platforms 1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.3.C.ii Finite Element Models The mathematical discretization of the models is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing (continued) basis.

- The mathematical discretization of the structure should consider the effect of the element size, shape, and aspect ratio on the solution accuracy.

3.7.2.11.3.C.ii (continued) The element mesh sizes used in the models is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

- The element mesh size should be selected on the basis that further refinement has only a negligible effect on the solution results 3.7.2.11.3.C.iii. In developing either a lumped- The methods for the consideration of local regions are riot addressed in the DCPP mass stick model or a finite element design/licensing basis.

model for dynamic response, it is necessary to consider local regions of the structure...

3.7.2.11.3.D. Representation of Floor Loads, See discussions below.

Live Loads, and Maior Equipment in Dynamic Models - In addition to the structural mass, the following masses should be included:

3.7.2.11.3.D (continued) DCM C-49, Section 5.1 indicates that the dead load used for the evaluation of platforms includes

- Mass equivalent to 50 psf to represent attached equipment, piping, raceways, and ventilation system components.

misc. dead loads (e.g., minor equipment, piping, and raceways)

Page 4 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 15 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Architectural Platforms' SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesigniLicensing Basis 3.7.2.11.3.D (continued) DCM C-49, Section 7 indicates that live load is considered in combination with Hosgri loads as

- Mass equivalent to 25% of design live follows:

load

- Containment: 0% of live load

- Other Buildings: 100% of live load 3.7.2.11.3.D (continued) Due to the location of DCPP, snow loading is not considered.

- Mass equivalent to 75% of design snow load, as applicable 3.7.2.11.3.E. Special Consideration for This subject is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis for the seismic analysis of Dynamic Modeling of Structures - It has platforms.

been common practice that the dynamic models used to predict the seismic response of a structure is not as detailed as the structural model used for the detailed design analysis of all applicable load combinations. Therefore, a methodology is needed to transfer the seismic response loads determined from the dynamic model to the structural model used for the detailed design analysis of all applicable load combinations. This is reviewed for technical adequacy on a case-by-case basis.

Page 5 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 15 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Architectural Platforms 1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4. Basis for Selection of Frequencies. To The DCPP design/licensing basis does not include requirements for the frequency of platforms avoid resonance, the fundamental relative to the supporting structure.

frequencies of components and equipment should preferably be selected to be less than 1/2 of more than twice the dominant frequencies of the support structure. Use of equipment frequencies within this range is acceptable if equipment is adequately designed for applicable loads.

11.7.Combination of Modal Responses See discussion below.

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.7, are applicable.

From SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection I1.1: The following provides a comparison of the DCPP design/licensing basis and the acceptance 3.7.2.11.7. Combination of Modal Responses criteria provided in RG 1.92.

3.7.2.11.7.A Response Spectrum Analysis RG 1.92 describes the acceptable methods for combination of modal responses, including consideration of closely-spaced modes and high frequency modes, when response spectrum method of analysis is used to determine the dynamic response of damped linear systems. Use of alternative methods are evaluated on a case-by-case basis for acceptability.

Page 6 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 15 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Architectural Platforms1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.7.A (continued) FSARU, Section 3.7.2.1.3 indicates that "the maximum response in each mode is calculated, and modal responses (displacements, accelerations, shears, moments, etc.) are combined by the RG 1.92, Section 1.1, rev. 2 describes the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method." The DCPP design/licensing basis does acceptable modal combination methods not address the criteria applied to closely spaced modes in the analysis of platforms.

3.7.2.11.7.A (continued) The method for the consideration of high frequency modes (missing mass) is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

RG 1.92, Section 1.4, rev. 2 describes the acceptable missing mass combination methods 3.7.2.11.7.B Modal Superposition Time The method for the consideration of high frequency modes (missing mass) is not addressed in the History Analysis Method (continued) DCPP design/licensing basis.

In accordance with RG 1.92, only modes with natural frequencies less than or equal to the ZPA frequency of the input spectrum are included in the modal superposition time history analysis. The contribution of the higher frequency modes to the total response is calculated by the missing mass approach.

Page 7 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 15 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Architectural Platforms 1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.8. Interaction of Other Systems with See discussion below.

Seismic Category I Systems. To be acceptable, each non-seismic Category I system should be designed to be isolated from any seismic Category I system....

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.8, are applicable to all seismic Category I SSCs at the system and subsystem level.

From SRP Section 3.7.2. subsection 11.1: FSARU Section 3.7.3.13 (System Interaction Program) describes DCPP's program of the 3.7.2.11.8. Interaction of Non-Category I and evaluation of the impact of the postulated seismically induced failure of nonsafety-related (similar Category I SSCs - All non-Category I to non-Seismic Category I) SSC's (defined as "sources") on a set of Design Class I (similar to structures should be assessed to Seismic Category I) SSC's (defined as "targets")*. The details of this program are described in determine whether their failure under the PG&E report "Description of the Systems Interaction Program for Seismically Induced SSE conditions could impair the integrity Events," August 1980 and the ongoing implementation is governed by DCM T-14.

of seismic Category I SSCs, or result in incapacitating injury to control room The set of interaction "targets" are limited to "SSC's required to safely shutdown the plant and occupants. Each non-Category I maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, and certain accident mitigating systems," which is a structure should meet at least one of the subset of Design Class I SSC's.

following criteria:

A. The collapse of the non-Cat I SSC will not cause it to strike a Cat I SSC.

B. The collapse of the non-Cat I SSC will not impair the integrity of a Cat I SSC, nor result in incapacitating injury to control room occupants.

C. The non-Cat I SSC will be analyzed and designed to prevent its failure under SSE conditions, such that the Page 8 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 15 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Architectural Platforms 1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis margin of safety is equivalent to that for a Cat I SSC.

11.9.Multiply-Supported Equipment and This issue is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis for the seismic analysis of Components with Distinct Inputs. platforms.

Equipment and components in some cases are supported at several points by either a single structure or two separate structures. The motion of the primary structure or structures at each of the support points may be quite different.

A conservative and acceptable approach for analyzing...

11.11. Torsional Effects of Eccentric Masses Certain platforms may include various eccentric masses associated with major equipment. The For seismic Category I subsystems, when methods used to consider the effects of eccentric masses on the seismic response of these the torsional-effects of an eccentric mass structures are not described in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

is judged to be significant, the eccentric mass and its eccentricity should be included in the mathematical model.

The criteria for judging the significance will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

11.12. Seismic Cateaory I Buried Piping, Not applicable to platforms.

Conduits, and Tunnels. For seismic category I buried piping, conduits, and tunnels, and any other subsystems, the following items should be considered in the analysis.

Page 9 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 15 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Architectural Platforms 1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.13. Methods for Seismic Analysis of Not applicable to platforms.

Seismic Category I Concrete Dams. For the seismic analysis of all seismic Category I concrete dams...

11.14. Methods for Seismic Analysis of Not applicable to platforms.

Above-Ground Tanks. Most above-ground fluid-containing vertical tanks do not warrant sophisticated...

Page 10 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 16 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Plant Vent1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis I 1..Seismic Analysis Methods The seismic analysis of the containment plant vent is not described in the FSARU. A detailed The acceptance criteria provided in SRP discussion of the seismic analysis of the plant vent is provided in DCM T-1 F (Containment Plant Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.1, are Vent).

applicable.

The following SRP requirements are extracted from SRP 3.7.2.

From SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11. 1: FSARU Section 3.7.2.1 (Seismic Analysis Methods), provides a general description of the four 3.7.2.11.1. Seismic Analysis Methods primary seismic analysis methods used for Design Class I SSC's:

The seismic analyses of all seismic - 3.7.2.1.2 Time-History Modal Superposition category I SSCs should use either - 3.7.2.1.3 Response Spectrum Modal Superposition suitable dynamic analysis method or an - 3.7.2.1.4 Response Spectrum, Single Degree of Freedom equivalent static analysis method, if - 3.7.2.1.5 Static Equivalent Method justified.

However, details of the application of these methods to specific SSC's are provided separately, in SSC-specific sections of the FSARU and/or DCMs. Therefore, the SRP comparison review for SRP Section 3.7.3 is addressed separately for the plant vent.

3.7.2.11.1.A. Dynamic Analysis Methods The adequacy of the number of mass points is not addressed.

(continued) 3.7.2.11.1.A.iv. Use of adequate number of discrete mass degrees of freedom in dynamic modeling The containment plant vent serves as the elevated atmospheric discharge point for the exhaust from the ventilation systems serving the auxiliary building, the containment penetration area, the fuel handling area, the Gaseous Radwaste System, the Main Condenser Evaluation System, and the Turbine Gland Sealing System. The containment plant vent is a steel box-shaped structure, extending from the roof of the auxiliary building (140 foot elevation) and up the outside of the containment structure, terminating in a truncate cone at the apex of the containment structure cylindrical dome. The containment plant vent is effectively a large heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) duct.

Page 1 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 16 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Plant Vent1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.1.A.v. When using either the The HE linear analysis of the plant vent uses a cut-off frequency of 33 Hz. The DCPP response spectrum method or the modal design/licensing basis does not include a specific requirement to account for the responses superposition time history method, associated with high frequency modes.

responses associated with high frequency modes should be included in the total dynamic solution using the guidance and methods described in RG 1.92, Revision 2, Regulatory Positions C.1.4 and C.1.5.

3.7.2.1l.1.A.vii. Inclusion of significant effects Piping interactions, externally applied structural restraints, and hydrodynamic loading are not such as piping interactions, externally applicable to the plant vent. However, the nonlinear effects associated with local yielding of the applied structural restraints, framing are addressed in the modeling and associated nonlinear time history analysis.

hydrodynamic (both mass and stiffness effects) loads, and nonlinear responses.

3.7.2111.1 .B. Equivalent Static Load Method Per DCM T-1 F, Section 4.3.5.1, the evaluation of the plant vent for seismic loads is performed by An equivalent static load method is the equivalent static method, where the accelerations are obtained from the dynamic analysis.

acceptable if:

3.7.2.11.11.B.i. Justification is provided that the DCM T-1 F does not provide justification for the use of the equivalent static method for the plant system can be realistically represented vent.

by a simple model and the method produces conservative results in terms of responses.

3.7.2.11.1.B.iii. A factor is 1.5 is applied to the DCM T-1 F does not discuss the use of a spectral acceleration amplification factor for the peak spectral acceleration, unless a equivalent static analysis of the plant vent, so the use of a factor of 1.5 is not specified and small factor is justified. justification is not provided for the use of a smaller factor.

Page 2 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 16 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Plant Vent' SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3 Procedures Used for Analytical Modeling The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.3 are applicable.

The following SRP requirements are extracted from SRP 3.7.2.

From SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.3 See discussion below.

3.7.2.11.3. Procedures Used for Analytical Modelinq To be acceptable, the stiffness, mass, and damping characteristics of the structural systems should be adequately incorporated into the analytical models.

Specifically, the following items should be considered in analytical modeling:

3.7.2.11.3.B. Decouplinq Criteria for DCM T-1F does not address the decoupling criteria applied to the plant vent.

Subsystems - It can be shown, in general, that frequencies of systems and subsystems have a negligible effect on the error due to decoupling. It can be shown that the mass ratio...

SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.3.B provides guidance for the decoupling of systems and subsystems.

Page 3 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 16 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Plant Vent1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.3.C. Modeling of Structures - Two The Hosgri seismic analyses of the plant vent (DCM T-1 F, Section 4.3.5) is based on a finite types of structural models are widely element model comprised of beam elements and lumped masses. This is a finite element model.

used by the nuclear industry: lumped-mass stick models and finite element models. Either of these two types of modeling techniques is acceptable if the following guidelines are met:

3.7.2.11.3.C.i. Lumped-Mass Stick Models A finite element model is used.

3.7.2.11.3.C.i (continued) A finite element model is used.

- The eccentricities between the centroid, the center of rigidity, and the center of mass should be included in the seismic model.

3.7.2.11.3.C.i (continued) A finite element model is used.

- For selecting an adequate number of discrete mass degrees of freedom in the dynamic modeling, the acceptance criteria given in Subsection I1.1.a.iv of this SRP section is acceptable.

3.7.2.11.3.C.ii. Finite Element Models - The Finite element models are used for the plant vent.

type of finite element used for modeling a structural system should depend on the structural details, the purpose of the analysis, and the theoretical formulation upon which the element is based.

Page.4 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 16 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Plant Vent1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.3.C.ii (continued) The mathematical discretization of the structure is not addressed.

- The mathematical discretization of the structure should consider the effect of the element size, shape, and aspect ratio on the solution accuracy.

3.7.2.11.3.C.ii (continued) The mesh size used in the finite element model is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing

- The element mesh size should be basis.

selected on the basis that further refinement has only a negligible effect on the solution results 3.7.2.11.3.C.iii. In developing either a lumped- The DCPP design/licensing basis does not address the method of consideration of local regions of mass stick model or a finite element the plant vent.

model for dynamic response, it is necessary to consider local regions of the structure...

3.7.2.11.3.C.iii (continued) DCM T-1 F, Section 4.3.5 indicates that the finite element model used for the dynamic analysis of In general, three-dimensional models the plant vent is two-dimensional. Justification for this simplification is not addressed in the should be used for seismic analyses. DCPP design/licensing basis.

However, simpler models can be used if justification can be provided that the coupling effects of those degrees of freedom that are omitted from the three-dimensional models are not significant.

3.7.2.11.3.D. Representation of Floor Loads, See discussions below.

Live Loads, and Maior Equipment in Dynamic Models - In addition to the structural mass, the following masses should be included:

Page 5 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 16 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Plant Vent' SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.3.D (continued) The DCPP design/licensing basis does not address the inclusion of miscellaneous dead loads in Mass equivalent to 50 psf to the dynamic analyses of the plant vent.

represent misc. dead loads (e.g.,

minor equipment, piping, and raceways) 3.7.2.11.3.D (continued) Snow loading is not applicable to DCPP.

- Mass equivalent to 75% of design snow load, as applicable 3.7.2.11.3.E. Special Consideration for DCM T-1F, Section 4.3.5.1 indicates that accelerations obtained from the dynamic analysis of the Dynamic Modeling of Structures - It has two-dimensional model are applied to another model to obtain member forces. Details of the been common practice that the dynamic methods employed are not provided in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

models used to predict the seismic response of a structure is not as detailed as the structural model used for the detailed design analysis of all applicable load combinations. Therefore, a methodology is needed to transfer the seismic response loads determined from the dynamic model to the structural model used for the detailed design analysis of all applicable load combinations. This is reviewed for technical adequacy on a case-by-case basis.

Page 6 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 16 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Plant Vent1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4.Basis for Selection of Frequencies. To The DCPP design/licensing basis does not include requirements for the selection of frequency of avoid resonance, the fundamental subsystems relative to the supporting structure.

frequencies of components and equipment should preferably be selected to be less than 1/2 of more than twice the dominant frequencies of the support structure. Use of equipment frequencies within this range is acceptable if equipment is adequately designed for applicable loads.

11.7.Combination of Modal Responses See discussion below.

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.7, are applicable.

From SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.1: The following provides a comparison of the DCPP design/licensing basis and the acceptance 3.7.2.11.7. Combination of Modal Responses criteria provided in RG 1.92.

3.7.2.11.7.A Response Spectrum Analysis RG 1.92 describes the acceptable methods for combination of modal responses, including consideration of closely-spaced modes and high frequency modes, when response spectrum method of analysis is used to determine the dynamic response of damped linear systems. Use of alternative methods are evaluated on a case-by-case basis for acceptability.

Page 7 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 16 1

SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Plant Vent SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.7.A (continued) FSARU, Section 3.7.2.1.3 indicates that "the maximum response in each mode is calculated, and modal responses (displacements, accelerations, shears, moments, etc.) are combined by the RG 1.92, Section 1.1, rev. 2 describes square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method." The DCPP design/licensing basis does the acceptable modal combination not address the criteria applied to closely spaced modes in the analysis of the plant vent.

methods 3.7.2.11.7.A (continued) The method for the consideration of high frequency modes (missing mass) is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

RG 1.92, Section 1.4, rev. 2 describes the acceptable missing mass combination methods 3.7.2.11.7.B Modal Superposition Time The method for the consideration of high frequency modes (missing mass) is not addressed in the History Analysis Method (continued) DCPP design/licensing basis.

In accordance with RG 1.92, only modes with natural frequencies less than or equal to the ZPA frequency of the input spectrum are included in the modal superposition time history analysis. The contribution of the higher frequency modes to the total response is calculated by the missing mass approach.

Page 8 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 16 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Plant Vent1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.8. Interaction of Other Systems with See discussion below.

Seismic Cate-gory I Systems. To be acceptable, each non-seismic Category I system should be designed to be isolated from any seismic Category I system...

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.8, are applicable to all seismic Category I SSCs at the system and subsystem level.

From SRP Section 3.7.2. subsection 11.1: FSARU Section 3.7.3.13 (System Interaction Program) describes DCPP's program of the 3.7.2.11.8. Interaction of Non-Category I and evaluation of the impact of the postulated seismically induced failure of nonsafety-related (similar Category I SSCs - All non-Category I to non-Seismic Category I) SSC's (defined as "sources") on a set of Design Class I (similar to structures should be assessed to Seismic Category I) SSC's (defined as "targets")*. The details of this program are described in determine whether their failure under the PG&E report, "Description of the Systems Interaction Program for Seismically Induced SSE conditions could impair the integrity Events," dated August 1980 and the ongoing implementation is governed by DCM T-14.

of seismic Category I SSCs, or result in incapacitating injury to control room

• The set of interaction "targets" are limited to "SSC's required to safely shutdown the plant and occupants. Each non-Category I maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, and certain accident mitigating systems," which is a structure should meet at least one of the subset of Design Class I SSC's.

following criteria:

A. The collapse of the non-Cat I SSC will not cause it to strike a Cat I SSC.

B. The collapse of the non-Cat I SSC will not impair the integrity of a Cat I SSC, nor result in incapacitating injury to control room occupants.

C. The non-Cat I SSC will be analyzed and designed to prevent its failure under SSE conditions, such that the Page 9 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 16 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Containment Plant Vent1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis margin of safety is equivalent to that for a Cat I SSC.

11.12. Seismic Category I Buried Piping, Not applicable to the plant vent.

Conduits, and Tunnels. For seismic category I buried piping, conduits, and tunnels, and any other subsystems, the following items should be considered in the analysis.

11.13. Methods for Seismic Analysis of Not applicable to the plant vent.

Seismic Category I Concrete Dams. For the seismic analysis of all seismic Category I concrete dams...

11.14. Methods for Seismic Analysis of Not applicable to the plant vent.

Above-Ground Tanks. Most above-ground fluid-containing vertical tanks do not warrant sophisticated...

Page 10 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 17 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Buried Auxiliary Saltwater (ASW) Piping1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.12. Seismic Catecjory I Buried Piping, The configuration of the buried ASW piping is described in FSAR Section 9.2.7.2.4 (Auxiliary Conduits, and Tunnels. For seismic Saltwater System - Piping). The design criteria is described in DCM S-17B (Auxiliary Saltwater Category I buried piping, conduits, and System), Appendix A (Criteria for Buried ASW Piping).

tunnels, and any other subsystems, the following items should be considered in the analysis:

11.12.A. Two types of ground shaking-induced Per DCM S-17B, Section A4.3.1.1.6, the design of the buried ASW piping considers seismic loading must be considered for design. waves effects and SSI effects. Differential deformations between soil and anchor points, ground water effects, and lateral earth pressures are not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

.i. Relative deformations imposed by seismic waves traveling through the surrounding soil or by differential deformations between the soil and anchor points.

ii. Lateral earth pressures and ground-water effects acting on structures I1.12.B. The effects of static resistance of the Per DCM S-17B, Section A4.3.1.1.6, the design of the buried ASW piping considers SSI effects surrounding soil on piping deformations and cites ASCE Report "Seismic Response of Buried Pipes and Structural Components."

or displacements, differential movements of piping anchors, bent geometry and curvature changes, etc., should be adequately considered. Procedures using the principles of the theory of structures on elastic foundations are acceptable.

The portion of the ASW piping between the intake structure (location of the ASW pumps) and the turbine building (location of the component cooling water heat exchangers) is buried in the ground. The remainder of the ASW piping is above-ground, inside the intake structure and turbine building.

Page 1 of 2

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 17 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Buried Auxiliary Saltwater (ASW) Piping 1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.12.C. When applicable, the effects due to Per DCM S-17B, Section A4.3.1.1.5, the design of the buried ASW piping considers soil local soil settlements, soil arching, etc., settlement. Soil arching is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

should also be considered in the analysis.

11.12.D. Actual methods used for determining DCM S-17B cites ASCE Report "Seismic Response of Buried Pipes and Structural Components."

the design parameters associated with The methods used for determining the design parameters associated with seismically induced seismically induced transient relative transient relative deformations are not described in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

deformations are reviewed and accepted on a case-by-case basis. Additional information, for guidance purposes only, can be found in NUREG/CR-1161, page 26, in American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standard 4-98, Section 3.5.2 and in ASCE Report - Seismic Response of Buried Pipes and Structural Components.

Page 2 of 2

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 18 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Buried Vital Electrical Conduits' SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.12. Seismic Category I Buried Piping, FSARU Section 9.2.7.2.2 (Auxiliary Saltwater System - Electrical Conduits) describes the buried Conduits, and Tunnels. For seismic conduits connecting the turbine building and auxiliary building. Other applications of buried Category I buried piping, conduits, and conduits are not described in the FSARU. The FSARU does not provide details of the seismic tunnels, and any other subsystems, the design requirements for buried conduits.

following items should be considered in the analysis: DCM T-8 (Structural Design of Electrical Raceways and Class 1E Supports), Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.5.3 describe the general requirements for the seismic design of buried conduits, which are based on Bechtel Topical Report BC-TOP-4-A, rev. 3, "Seismic Analysis of Structures and Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants."

DCM T-8, Section 4.3.1 indicates that the installation of buried conduits is based on a set of standard cross-sections, which are based on:

- No calculations are necessary, because these cross-sections have been used extensively in power plants throughout the world and no problems have been experienced for normal loading conditions or seismic loads, unless conduits go through a region of soft soil or seismic faulting, which is not the case at DCPP.

- Buried conduits have flexible connections, in order to accommodate differential seismic displacements between structures and/or pull boxes. These connections have been subjected to testing for conservative displacement estimates.

- The cables have been looped in pull boxes to provide sufficient slack.

Portions of vital electrical systems that pass from one building to another are routed through buried (underground) ABS plastic conduits. Key applications of buried conduits are associated with (a) circuits connecting the turbine building and intake structure; and (b) circuits connecting turbine building and auxiliary building.

Page 1 of 3

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 18 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Buried Vital Electrical Conduits1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.12.A. Two types of ground shaking-induced DCM T-8, Section 4.3.5.3 indicates that the buried conduits are assumed to move with the ground loading must be considered for design. under the propagation of seismic compressional (P) and shear (S) waves. Stresses in the buried conduits are computed as the product of the soil strains and the modulus of elasticity of the

.i. Relative deformations imposed by structural material using a simplified analysis procedure per BC-TOP-4-A.

seismic waves traveling through the surrounding soil or by differential deformations between the soil and anchor points.

ii. Lateral earth pressures and ground-water effects acting on structures 11.12.A. (continued) Lateral earth pressure and ground water effects are not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing ii. Lateral earth pressures and ground- basis.

water effects acting on structures 1I. 12.B. The effects of static resistance of the This topic is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

surrounding soil on piping deformations or displacements, differential movements of piping anchors, bent geometry and curvature changes, etc., should be adequately considered. Procedures using the principles of the theory of structures on elastic foundations are acceptable.

11.12.C. When applicable, the effects due to This topic is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

local soil settlements, soil arching, etc.,

should also be considered in the analysis.

Page 2 of 3

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 18 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Buried Vital Electrical Conduits1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.12.D. Actual methods used for determining Details on the determination of the design parameters associated with seismically induced the design parameters associated with transient relative deformations are not provided in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

seismically induced transient relative deformations are reviewed and accepted on a case-by-case basis. Additional information, for guidance purposes only, can be found in NUREG/CR-1161, page 26, in American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standard 4-98, Section 3.5.2 and in ASCE Report - Seismic Response of Buried Pipes and Structural Components.

Page 3 of 3

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 19 1

SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Fuel Handling Building (FHB) Crane SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.1 .Seismic Analysis Methods See discussion below.

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.1, are applicable.

The following SRP requirements are extracted from SRP 3.7.2.

From SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.1: FSARU Section 3.7.2.1 (Seismic Analysis Methods), provides a general description of the four 3.7.2.11.1. Seismic Analysis Methods primary seismic analysis methods used for Design Class I SSC's:

The seismic analyses of all seismic - 3.7.2.1.2 Time-History Modal Superposition category I SSCs should use either - 3.7.2.1.3 Response Spectrum Modal Superposition suitable dynamic analysis method or an - 3.7.2.1.4 Response Spectrum, Single Degree of Freedom equivalent static analysis method, if - 3.7.2.1.5 Static Equivalent Method justified.

DCM T-6, Appendix B, Section 5.2.5.3 indicates that linear response spectrum analyses were used for the seismic analyses of the FHB crane.

The FHB crane is a single-failure-proof 125 ton overhead bridge crane, supported from crane rails at approximate 170 foot elevation in the FHBSS. The primary function of the FHB crane is the handling of the spent fuel transfer cask in the SFP, cask washdown area, and cask shipping and receiving area of the auxiliary building. The FHB crane has no safety-related function [DCM S-42B Appendix C]. The bridge structure and end trucks are classified as Design Class II structures (Q-list Section II.G.6.1). However, in order to satisfy the requirements of ASME NOG-1-2004 (Rules for Construction of Overhead and Gantry Cranes (Top Running Bridge, Multiple Girder) for a single-failure-proof crane, certain critical items in the trolley are classified as Design Class I (Q-list Section I1.G.6.1.1); while the noncritical items are classified as Design Class II [DCM S-42B, Appendix C Section 4.1]. In order to satisfy licensing commitments associated with the HE evaluation of DCPP, the FHB crane is required to be seismically qualified for the loading associated with the HE.

Therefore, the FHB crane is effectively a Seismic Category I structure and SRP Section 3.7.3 will be used for comparison purposes.

Page 1 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 19 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Fuel Handling Building (FHB) Crane1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11. 1.A. Dynamic Analysis Methods The FHB crane is located inside the FHBSS, which is supported on top of the auxiliary building.

(cont'd) The torsional, rocking, and translational responses of these supporting structures, and their 3.7.2.1l.1.A.iii. consideration of torsional, foundations, is addressed in the SRP Section 3.7.2 Comparison Table for the auxiliary building rocking, and translational responses of and SRP Section 3.7.3 Comparison Table for the FHBSS. Per DCM T-6, Appendix B, Section the structures and their foundations 5.2.5.3, the input to the FHB crane analysis is based on the response spectra at the crane rails (including footings, basemats and buried (170 foot elevation) in the FHBSS.

walls) 3.7.2.11.1.A.iv. Use of adequate number of The three-dimensional finite element model of the FHB crane is described in DCM T-6, Appendix discrete mass degrees of freedom in B, Section 4.2.6.3 and illustrated in Figure 4.0-11. The adequacy of the number of mass points is dynamic modeling not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

3.7.2.11.1.A.v. When using either the The HE analysis uses a cut-off frequency of 33 Hz. The DCPP design/licensing basis does not response spectrum method or the modal include a specific requirement to account for the responses associated with high frequency superposition time history method, modes.

responses associated with high frequency modes should be included in the total dynamic solution using the guidance and methods described in RG 1.92, Revision 2, Regulatory Positions C.1.4 and C.1.5.

3.7.2.11.1.A.vi. Consideration of maximum The FHB crane is supported from the crane rails (170 foot elevation), which are both attached to relative displacements between adjacent the FHBSS.

supports of seismic Category I SSCs Page 2 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 19 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Fuel Handling Building (FHB) Crane' SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.1l.1.A.vii. Inclusion of significant effects Piping interactions, externally applied structural restraints, and hydrodynamic loading are not such as piping interactions, externally applicable to the FHB crane.

applied structural restraints, hydrodynamic (both mass and stiffness The seismic analysis is based on a linear elastic analysis, but, as discussed in DCM T-6, effects) loads, and nonlinear responses. Appendix B, Section 5.2.5.3, it has been demonstrated that the nonlinear effects (e.g., slack in the wire rope and uplift of the wheels due to upwards seismic loading) can conservatively be represented by the linear elastic analysis.

3.7.2111.1 .B. equivalent Static Load Method DCM T-6, Appendix B, Section 5.2.5.3 indicates that the response spectrum method was used.

An equivalent static load method is acceptable if:

11.3 Procedures Used for Analytical Modeling See discussion below.

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.3 are applicable.

The following SRP requirements are extracted from SRP 3.7.2.

From SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.3 See discussion below.

3.7.2.11.3. Procedures Used for Analytical Modeling To be acceptable, the stiffness, mass, and damping characteristics of the structural systems should be adequately incorporated into the analytical models.

Specifically, the following items should be considered in analytical modeling:

Page 3 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 19 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Fuel Handling Building (FHB) Crane 1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.3.C. Modeling of Structures - Two Per DCM T-6, Appendix B, Section 4.2.6.3, the Hosgri seismic analyses of the FHB crane is types of structural models are widely based on a finite element model comprised of solid elements.

used by the nuclear industry: lumped-mass stick models and finite element models. Either of these two types of modeling techniques is acceptable if the following guidelines are met:

3.7.2.11.3.C.i. Lumped-Mass Stick Models A finite element model is used for the seismic analysis of the FHB crane.

3.7.2.11.3.C.ii. Finite Element Models - The The finite element model of the FHB crane is described in DCM T-6, Appendix B, Section 4.2.6.3, type of finite element used for modeling a and illustrated in Figure 4.0-11. Details of the analysis nor the theoretical formulation of the solid structural system should depend on the elements used in the model are not described in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

structural details, the purpose of the analysis, and the theoretical formulation upon which the element is based.

3.7.2.11.3.C.ii (continued) The discretization of the model is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

- The mathematical discretization of the structure should consider the effect of the element size, shape, and aspect ratio on the solution accuracy.

3.7.2.11.3.C.ii (continued) The impact of the element mesh size on the solution results is not addressed in the DCPP

- The element mesh size should be design/licensing basis.

selected on the basis that further refinement has only a negligible effect on the solution results Page 4 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 19 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Fuel Handling Building (FHB) Crane 1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.3.D. Representation of Floor Loads, See discussions below.

Live Loads, and Major Equipment in Dynamic Models - In addition to the structural mass, the following masses should be included:

3.7.2.11.3.D (continued) DCM S-42B, Appendix C, Section 4.3.2.1 indicates that miscellaneous dead loads are considered.

- Mass equivalent to 50 psf to represent misc. dead loads (e.g.,

minor equipment, piping, and raceways) 3.7.2.11.3.D (continued) Snow loading is not applicable to DCPP.

- Mass equivalent to 75% of design snow load, as applicable 3.7.2.11.3.D (continued) The FHB crane does not support any other major equipment.

- Mass of major equipment should be distributed over representative floor area or included as concentrated lumped masses at equipment locations.

3.7.2.11.3.E. Special Consideration for A detailed 3-D finite element model is used both for dynamic and structural analyses of the FHB Dynamic Modeling of Structures - It has crane.

been common practice that the dynamic models used to predict the seismic response of a structure is not as detailed as the structural model used for the detailed design analysis of all applicable load combinations. Therefore, a methodology is needed to transfer the seismic response loads determined from Page 5 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 19 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Fuel Handling Building (FHB) Crane' SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis the dynamic model to the structural model used for the detailed design analysis of all applicable load combinations. This is reviewed for technical adequacy on a case-by-case basis.

11.4. Basis for Selection of Frequencies. To The DCPP design/licensing basis does not include requirements for the frequency of subsystems avoid resonance, the fundamental relative to the supporting structure.

frequencies of components and equipment should preferably be selected to be less than 1/2 of more than twice the dominant frequencies of the support structure. Use of equipment frequencies within this range is acceptable if equipment is adequately designed for applicable loads.

11.7.Combination of Modal Responses See discussion below.

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.7, are applicable.

Page 6 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 19 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Fuel Handling Building (FHB) Crane1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis From SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.1: The following provides a comparison of the DCPP design/licensing basis and the acceptance 3.7.2.11.7. Combination of Modal Responses criteria provided in RG 1.92.

3.7.2.11.7.A Response Spectrum Analysis RG 1.92 describes the acceptable methods for combination of modal responses, including consideration of closely-spaced modes and high frequency modes, when response spectrum method of analysis is used to determine the dynamic response of damped linear systems. Use of alternative methods are evaluated on a case-by-case basis for acceptability.

3.7.2.11.7.A (continued) FSARU, Section 3.7.2.1.3 indicates that "the maximum response in each mode is calculated, and modal responses (displacements, accelerations, shears, moments, etc.) are combined by the RG 1.92, Section 1.1, rev. 2 describes square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method." The DCPP design/licensing basis does the acceptable modal combination not address the criteria applied to closely spaced modes in the analysis of the FHB crane.

methods 3.7.2.11.7.A (continued) The method for the consideration of high frequency modes (missing mass) is not addressed in the DCPP design/licensing basis.

RG 1.92, Section 1.4, rev. 2 describes the acceptable missingq mass combination methods Page 7 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 19 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Fuel Handling Building (FHB) Crane 1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 3.7.2.11.7.B Modal Superposition Time The method for the consideration of high frequency modes (missing mass) is not addressed in the History Analysis Method (continued) DCPP design/licensing basis.

In accordance with RG'1.92, only modes with natural frequencies less than or equal to the ZPA frequency of the input spectrum are included in the modal superposition time history analysis. The contribution of the higher frequency modes to the total response is calculated by the missing mass approach.

3.7.2.11.8. Interaction of Other Systems with See discussion below.

Seismic Category I Systems. To be acceptable, each non-seismic Category I system should be designed to be isolated from any seismic Category I system...

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.8, are applicable to all seismic Category I SSCs at the system and subsystem level.

Page 8 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 19 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Fuel Handling Building (FHB) Crane 1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis From SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.1: FSARU Section 3.7.3.13 (System Interaction Program) describes DCPP's program of the 3.7.2.11.8. Interaction of Non-Category I and evaluation of the impact of the postulated seismically induced failure of nonsafety-related (similar Category I SSCs - All non-Category I to non-Seismic Category I) SSC's (defined as "sources") on a set of Design Class I (similar to structures should be assessed to Seismic Category I) SSC's (defined as "targets")*. The details of this program are described in determine whether their failure under the PG&E report, "Description of the Systems Interaction Program for Seismically Induced SSE conditions could impair the integrity Events," dated August 1980 and the ongoing implementation is governed by DCM T-14.

of seismic Category I SSCs, or result in incapacitating injury to control room The set of interaction "targets" are limited to "SSC's required to safely shutdown the plant and occupants. Each non-Category I maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, and certain accident mitigating systems," which is a structure should meet at least one of the subset of Design Class I SSC's.

following criteria:

A. The collapse of the non-Cat I SSC will not cause it to strike a Cat I SSC.

B. The collapse of the non-Cat I SSC will not impair the integrity of a Cat I SSC, nor result in incapacitating injury to control room occupants.

C. The non-Cat I SSC will be analyzed and designed to prevent its failure under SSE conditions, such that the margin of safety is equivalent to that for a Cat I SSC.

11.9.Multiply-Supported Equipment and The FHB crane is entirely supported from the FHBSS.

Components with Distinct Inputs.

Equipment and components in some cases are supported at several points by either a single structure or two separate structures. The motion of the primary structure or structures at each of the support points may be quite different.

Page 9 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 19 SRP 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis - Fuel Handling Building (FHB) Crane1 SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis A conservative and acceptable approach for analyzing...

11.12. Seismic Category I Buried Piping,. Not applicable to the FHB crane.

Conduits, and Tunnels. For seismic category I buried piping, conduits, and tunnels, and any other subsystems, the following items should be considered in the analysis.

11.13. Methods for Seismic Analysis of Not applicable to the FHB crane.

Seismic Category I Concrete Dams. For the seismic analysis of all seismic Category I concrete dams...

11.14. Methods for Seismic Analysis of Not applicable to the FHB crane.

Above-Ground Tanks. Most above-ground fluid-containing vertical tanks do not warrant sophisticated...

Page 10 of 10

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 20 SRP 3.8.1 Concrete Containment SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.2, Applicable Codes, Standards, and Specifications See below.

The design, materials, fabrication, erection, inspection, testing, and inservice surveillance of concrete containments are covered by codes, standards, specifications, and guides that are applicable either in their entirety or in part. The following codes and guides are acceptable:

11.2, ASME Section III, Div 2, Subsection CC Containment Structure Exterior ACI Standard Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-63).

AISC Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, February 12, 1969 (AISC, 7 th edition).

Liner and Penetrations Construction of the liner conforms to the applicable parts of Part UW, "Requirements for Unfired Pressure Vessels Fabricated by Welding",Section VIII, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1968 Edition, including addenda through summer 1968.

Those parts of penetration insert plates, penetration sleeves, air locks and access hatches, which form the pressure boundary, conform to Class B requirements of Section III, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1968 Edition, including addenda through summer 1968.

11.3. Loads and Load Combinations - The specified See below.

loads and load combinations are acceptable if found to be in accordance with Article CC-3000 of the ASME Code with the exceptions listed below applied to the requirements specified in Table CC-3230-1.

RG 1.136, A, "Design Limits, Loading Combinations, Materials, Construction, and Testing of Concrete Containments," provides additional guidance for design requirements, including load and load 1 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 20 SRP 3.8.1 Concrete Containment SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis combinations, which should be considered in the design of concrete containments.

(The exceptions amend the requirements specified in Table CC-3230-1. The Table CC-3230-1 requirements are captured within this review.):

11.3.A. The maximum values of Pa, Ta, Ra, Rrr, Rrj, and The FSARU 3.8.1.3 has the following load combinations:

Rrm should be applied simultaneously, where appropriate, unless a time-history analysis is U = 1.OD +/- 0.05D + 1.OPA + 1.OT + 1.OHE performed to justify doing otherwise.

U = required load capacity of section D = Dead loads PA = load due to accident pressure T = load due to maximum temperature associated with 1 .OPA HE = loads due to Hosgri Earthquake The DCM's T-1A and 1-D have the following additional load combinations:

U=D+0.05D+HE+To+R+J+M To = Thermal operating loads P = Internal Pressure associated with the postulated LOCA R = Pipe Rupture J = Jet Impingement M = Missile Impact 11.3.B. Hydrodynamic loads resulting from LOCA and/or Hydrodynamic loads and fluid structure interaction are not considered for the SRV actuation should be combined as indicated in containment concrete shell and the liner.

the appendix to this SRP section. Fluid structure interaction associated with these hydrodynamic loads and those from earthquakes should be considered.

2 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 20 SRP 3.8.1 Concrete Containment SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4. Design and Analysis Procedures - The See below.

procedures for design and analysis used for the concrete containment, including the steel liner, are acceptable iffound in accordance with those stipulated in Article CC-3300 of the ASME Code, RG 1.136 and this SRP. In particular, for the areas of review outlined in Subsection 1.4 above, the following procedures are, in general, acceptable:

11.4.A. Assumptions on Boundary Conditions. For the Hosgri seismic evaluation, the containment structure was modeled using a fixed base assumption.

11.4.B. Axisymmetric and Nonaxisymmetric Loads. Axisymmetric model is used to represent the containment shell and basemat. This Even with the large penetrations and buttresses that model was utilized for axisymmetric (i.e., pressure) and nonaxisymmetric (i.e.,

may be used in the shell, the overall behavior of the earthquake) loads.

shell has been shown to be axisymmetric under pressure. Therefore, it is acceptable to make such an Torsion effects were considered using a separate model.

assumption with respect to the containment geometry. However, for loads such as those induced by wind, tornadoes, earthquakes, and pipe rupture, the analysis should consider the nonaxisymmetric effect of these loads.

11.4.C. Transient and Localized Loads. Treatment of Treatment of Transient Loads is not addressed in relation to the seismic design for HE.

transient and localized loads. Localized loads are addressed in DCM T-1A, Section 4.3.3.3. Local effects of these loads are considered and added to the global loads.

11.4.D. Creep, Shrinkage, and Cracking of Concrete. Not addressed. However, concrete design.is based on ACI 318-63 Code.

Treatment of the effects of creep, shrinkage, and cracking of concrete 3 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 20 SRP 3.8.1 Concrete Containment SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4.E. Dynamic Soil Pressure. Consideration of dynamic The walls of the containments are not embedded in soil and consideration of lateral soil lateral soil pressures on embedded walls of a pressure on them is not applicable the seismic design for the HE.

concrete containment (if applicable) is acceptable if the lateral earth pressure loads are evaluated for two cases. These are (1) lateral earth pressure equal to the sum of the static earth pressure plus the dynamic earth pressure calculated in accordance with ASCE 4-98 Section 3.5.3.2 and (2) lateral earth pressure equal to the passive earth pressure. If the above methods are shown to be overly conservative for the cases considered, then any alternative methods proposed will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

ll.4.H. Variation in Physical Material Properties For the In general, minimum specified material strengths are used for the HE load analysis of the effects of possible variations in the combinations. However, in certain cases, the average tested material strengths have physical properties of materials on the analytical been used. No variations (upper or lower bounds) in physical material properties have results, the upper and lower bounds of these been considered.

properties should be used, wherever critical. The physical properties that may be critical include the However, to account for possible variations in the parameters used in the dynamic soil modulus, modulus of elasticity, and Poisson's analyses, such as mass values, material properties, and material sections, the ratio of concrete. calculated floor spectra were broadened.

11.4.1. Thickened Penetrations. The effect of the large, See Subsection 11.4.C.

thickened penetration regions on the overall behavior of the containment may be treated by the same method used for localized loads as discussed in Subsection 11.4.C 4 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 20 SRP 3.8.1 Concrete Containment SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4.J. Steel Liner Plate and Anchors . For the design See liner acceptance criteria discussion below in 5.B.

and analysis of the liner plate and its anchorage system, the procedures furnished are found adequate and acceptable if in accordance with the provisions of Subarticle CC-3600 of the ASME Code.

11.4.K. Ultimate Capacity of Concrete Containment. Per DCM T-1A, Section 4.3.7, the containment has significant internal pressure capacity or margin of safety beyond the design basis. The capacity was evaluated using average tested material strength.

11.5. Structural Acceptance Criteria See below.

11.5.A. For the structural portions of the containment, the The DCPP Design Basis relies on ACI Standard Building Code Requirements for specified allowable limits for stresses and strains are Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-63) and AISC Specification for the Design, Fabrication, acceptable if they are in accordance with Subsection and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, February 12, 1969, for structural CC-3400 of theASME Code and RG 1.136 (see acceptance criteria.

Subsection 11.3 of this SRP section), with the following exceptions: For load combinations including HE, average of the tested strength values were used in lieu of minimum specified design strength.

5 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 20 SRP 3.8.1 Concrete Containment SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.5.B. For the liner plate and its anchorage system, the The liner plate acceptance is based on:

specified limits for stresses and strains are acceptable if in accordance with Tables CC-3720-1 Part UW, "Requirements for Unfired Pressure Vessels Fabricated by Welding," Section and CC-3730-1 of the ASME Code, respectively. VIII, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1968 Edition, including addenda through summer 1968.

The compression and tension strain limits are identical between CC-3720-1 and DCPP criteria; however, CC-3720-1 requires an additional membrane plus bending check.

The anchorage system acceptance is based on:

AISC Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, February 12, 1969.

The Accident level allowable yield strength (fy) is 1.0 fy (liner anchorage) and 0.95 fy (attachments and Basemat anchors) compared the CC-3730 allowable of 0.9 fy.

6 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 21 SRP 3.8.3 Concrete and Steel Internal Structures for Concrete Containment - Interior Concrete Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2. Applicable Codes, Standards, and Specifications - See below.

The design, materials, fabrication, erection, inspection, testing, and in-service surveillance, if any, of containment internal structures are covered by codes, standards, and guides that are applicable either in their entirety or in part 11.2. ACI 349 (Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures) DCPP licensing basis is ACI 318-63, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete. However, ACI 318-77 has also been used for specific application (shear friction has been used in the design of the reactor shield wall).

11.2. ASME Section III, Division 2, Subsection CC (Concrete ASME Section III, Division 2, Subsection CC is not applicable to DCPP Reactor Vessels and Containments) containment internal structures.

11.2. ASME Section III, Division 1, Subsection NE (Class MC ASME Section III, Division 1, Subsection NE is not applicable to DCPP Components) containment internal structures.

11.2. ANSI/AISC N690-1994 including Supplement 2 (2004) DCPP licensing basis is the AISC Specification For The Design, Fabrication, (Steel Safety-Related Structures for Nuclear Facilities) and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, February 12, 1969 (AISC, 7 th Edition).

11.2. RG 1.142 (Safety Related Concrete Structures for DCPP licensing basis is ACI 318-63, Building Code Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants, Other Than Reactor Vessels and Reinforced Concrete. However, ACI 318-77 has also been used for specific Containments) application (shear friction has been used in the design of the reactor shield wall).

11.2. RG 1.199 (Anchoring Components and Structural Design of embedded plates including steel anchors and anchorage into Supports in Concrete) concrete is in accordance with DCM C-63, which is based on ACI 318-63 for concrete, AISC, 7 th Edition for steel and TRW Nelson Division catalogs for studs.

1 of 7

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 21 SRP 3.8.3 Concrete and Steel Internal Structures for Concrete Containment - Interior Concrete Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3. Loads and Load Combinations The specified loads See below.

and load combinations for containment internal structures are acceptable if they are consistent with the guidance given below:

11.3.A. Concrete Structures All loads and load ACI 349 uses Strength Design load combinations and load factors.

combinations to be in accordance with ACI 349 and RG 1.142, with supplemental criteria. The DCPP Load Combination containing HE is:

U=D+L+CP+ HE+R+J+M For structures or structural components subjected to hydrodynamic loads resulting from LOCA and/or SRV U = required load capacity of section actuation, such loads should be considered as indicated D = Dead loads in the appendix to SRP Section 3.8.1. Fluid structure L = Live Load interaction associated with these hydrodynamic loads CP = accident pressure load due to loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) or and those from earthquakes should be taken into high-energy line break (HELB) account. HE = loads due to Hosgri Earthquake R, J = pipe restraint and pipe whip reactions, and jet impingement loads, due to LOCA or HELB M = Missile Impact Per DCM T-1 B, Section 4.3.3.2, accident temperature loads, TA (accident temperature), are not included in the load combinations as they are secondary and do not affect the capability of the structures to perform their required functions.

The containment recirculation sump, strainer and debris interceptors are evaluated for concurrent hydrodynamic effects of SSE acting during LOCA flooding.

2 of 7

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 21 SRP 3.8.3 Concrete and Steel Internal Structures for Concrete Containment - Interior Concrete Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4. Desigqn and Analysis Procedures The design and See below.

analysis procedures used for the containment internal structures are acceptable if found to be in accordance with the following:

11.4.A. PWR Dry Containment Internal Structures See below.

4.A.i. Primary Shield Wall and Reactor Cavity See below.

11.4.A.i. The design and analysis procedures for the shield DCPP licensing basis is ACI 318-63, Building Code Requirements for wall are acceptable if found to be in accordance with Reinforced Concrete. However, ACI 318-77 has also been used for specific ACI 349 with additional guidance provided by RG 1.142. application (shear friction has been used in the design of the reactor shield The design and analysis of anchors on concrete wall).

structures are acceptable if found to be in accordance with ACI 349, Appendix B, with additional guidance Design of embedded plates including steel anchors and anchorage into provided by RG 1.199 concrete is in accordance with DCM C-63, which is based on ACI 318-63 for concrete, AISC, 7 th Edition for steel and TRW Nelson Division catalogs for studs.

11.4.A.i. Analyses for LOCA loads applicable to the primary The effect of LOCA loads, jet impingement and missiles are considered with shield wall are acceptable if these loads are treated as Hosgri loads per load combinations listed in DCM T-1 B, Section 4.3.3.2 and dynamic time-dependent loads, with supplemental FSAR 3.8.1.3.2.2.

criteria 11.4.A.ii. Secondary Shield Walls See below.

3 of 7

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 21 SRP 3.8.3 Concrete and Steel Internal Structures for Concrete Containment - Interior Concrete Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.4.A.ii. The procedures for the secondary shield walls are DCPP licensing basis is ACI 318-63, Building Code Requirements for acceptable if found to be in accordance with Reinforced Concrete. However, ACI 318-77 has also been used for specific conventional beam/slab design and analysis procedures application (shear friction has been used in the design of the reactor shield described in ACI 349, with additional guidance per RG wall).

1.142. The design and analysis of anchors on concrete structures are acceptable if found to be in accordance Design of embedded plates including steel anchors and anchorage into with ACI 349, Appendix B, with additional guidance per concrete is in accordance with DCM C-63, which is based on ACI 318-63 for RG 1.199 concrete, AISC, 7 th Edition for steel and TRW Nelson Division catalogs for studs.

11.4.A.ii. Similar to the primary shield wall, the secondary The effect of LOCA loads, jet impingement, and missiles are considered with shield walls are also subject to dynamic LOCA loads. Hosgri loads per load combinations listed in DCM T-1B, Section 4.3.3.2 and Methods described in Subsection 11.4.A.i are applicable. FSARU 3.8.1.3.2.2.

11.4.A.iii. Other Interior Structures See below.

11.4.A.iii. Analytical techniques for these Category I DCPP licensing basis is ACI 318-63, Building Code Requirements for structures are acceptable if found to be in accordance Reinforced Concrete. However, ACI 318-77 has also been used for specific with ACI 349, with additional guidance provided by RG application (shear friction has been used in the design of the reactor shield 1.142 and 1.199 for concrete and anchors, respectively, wall).

and with ANSI/AISC N690-1994 including Supplement 2 (2004) for steel Design of embedded plates including steel anchors and anchorage into concrete is in accordance with DCM C-63, which is based on ACI 318-63 for concrete, AISC, 7 th Edition for steel and TRW Nelson Division catalogs for studs.

For steel, the DCPP licensing basis is Specification For The Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, February 12, 1969 (AISC, 7 th Edition).

4 of 7

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 21 SRP 3.8.3 Concrete and Steel Internal Structures for Concrete Containment - Interior Concrete Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4.E. For all containment internal structures, the design See below.

and analysis methods described in Subsections 11.4 of SRP Sections 3.8.1 (concrete) and 3.8.2 (steel) also need to be considered.

SRP 3.8.1, Section 11.4 (Concrete) See below.

11.4.E. See SRP Section 3.7.2.

3.8.1.11.4.A. Assumptions on Boundary Conditions 11.4.E. See SRP Section 3.7.2.

3.8.1.11.4.B. Treatment of Axisymmetric and nonaxisymmetric loads -

11.4.E. See SRP Section 3.7.2.

3.8.1.11.4.C. Treatment of transient and localized loads 11.4.E.3.8.1 .11.4.D. Treatment of the effects of creep, See SRP Section 3.7.2.

shrinkage, and cracking of concrete 11.4.E. No embedded internal structures.

3.8.1.11.4.E. Dynamic Soil Pressure 11.4.E. See SRP Section 3.7.2.

3.8.1.11.4.G. The treatment of the effects of seismically induced tangential (membrane) shears.

5 of 7

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 21 SRP 3.8.3 Concrete and Steel Internal Structures for Concrete Containment - Interior Concrete Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4.E.3.8.1.11.4.H. The evaluation of the effects of In general, minimum specified material strengths are used for the HE load variation in specified physical properties of materials on combinations. However, in certain cases, the average tested material analytical results strengths have been used. No variations (upper or lower bounds) in physical material properties have been considered. However, to account for possible variations in the parameters used in the dynamic analyses, such as mass values, material properties, and material sections, the calculated floor spectra were broadened.

11.4.E.3.8.1.11.4.1. The treatment of large, thickened Containment internal structures do not have large, thickened penetration penetration regions. regions.

11.4.E.3.8.1.ll.4.J. The treatment of the steel liner plate See SRP Section 3.7.2.

and its anchors SRP 3.8.2, Section 11.4 (Steel) See below.

11.4.E.3.8.2.11.4.A. Treatment of nonaxisymmetric and See SRP Section 3.7.2.

localized loads 11.4.E.3.8.2.11.4.B. Treatment of buckling effects The effect of buckling is generally considered in accordance with the code of record for steel and concrete as listed in section 11.2. "Applicable Codes, Standards, and Specifications".

11.5. Structural Acceptance Criteria The structural See below.

acceptance criteria for containment internal structures described in Subsection 1.1 of this SRP section are acceptable iffound to be in accordance with the guidance given below. See Section 11.4.E of this SRP section for criteria relating to modular construction 6 of 7

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 21 SRP 3.8.3 Concrete and Steel Internal Structures for Concrete Containment - Interior Concrete Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.5.A. Concrete Structures ACI 349 and RG 1.142 define DCPP licensing basis is ACI 318-63, Building Code Requirements for the structural acceptance criteria for concrete Reinforced Concrete. However, ACI 318-77 has also been used for specific structures. The structural acceptance criteria for application (shear friction has been used in the design of the reactor shield anchors to concrete structures are acceptable if found wall).

to be in accordance with Appendix B to ACI 349, with additional guidance provided by RG 1.199 The average tested strength of the materials was used for the load combinations with the HE while the minimum specified was used for the other load combinations.

11.5.B. Steel Structures ANSI/AISC N690-1994 including For steel, the DCPP licensing basis is AISC Specification For The Design, Supplement 2 (2004) defines the structural acceptance Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, February 12, 1969.

criteria for steel structures The N690-1994, Plastic Design allowable strength for the "Abnormal Extreme" load combination is 0.9Y (N690, Section Q2.1), where Y = the required section strength based on plastic design methods. The DCPP Design Basis is 1.OY (for load combinations with HE)

The average tested strength of the materials was used for the load combinations with the HE while the minimum specified was used for the other load combinations.

7 of 7

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 22 SRP 3.8.3 Concrete and Steel Internal Structures for Concrete Containment - Annulus Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.2. Applicable Codes, Standards, and Specifications -

The design, materials, fabrication, erection, inspection, testing, and in-service surveillance, if any, of containment internal structures are covered by codes, standards, and guides that are applicable either in their entirety or in part 11.2.- ACI 349 (Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete DCPP licensing basis is ACI 318-63, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Structures) Concrete.

11.2. - ANSI/AISC N690-1994 including Supplement 2 DCPP licensing basis is AISC Specification For The Design, Fabrication, and (2004) (Steel Safety-Related Structures for Nuclear Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, February 12, 1969 (AISC, 7th Edition).

Facilities) 11.2. - RG 1.142 (Safety Related Concrete Structures for DCPP licensing basis is ACI 318-63, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Nuclear Power Plants, Other Than Reactor Vessels and Concrete.

Containments) 11.2. - RG 1.199 (Anchoring Components and Structural DCPP licensing basis is ACI 318-63, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Supports in Concrete) Concrete.

11.3. Loads and Load Combinations - The specified loads See below.

and load combinations for containment internal structures are acceptable if they are consistent with the guidance given below:

1 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 22 SRP 3.8.3 Concrete and Steel Internal Structures for Concrete Containment - Annulus Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3.A. Concrete Structures - All loads and load The DCPP Load Combination containing HE are:

combinations to be in accordance with ACI 349 and RG 1.142, with supplemental criteria. Working Stress Design (WSD):

1.7C = D + HE 1.7C = D + HE + Ra Ultimate Strength Design (USD):

U=D+HE For structures or structural components subjected to U = D + HE + Ra hydrodynamic loads resulting from LOCA and/or SRV actuation, such loads should be considered as indicated C = Required capacity of the section based on the WSD method of ACI 318-63 in the appendix to SRP Section 3.8.1. Fluid structure U = Section capacity interaction associated with these hydrodynamic loads D = Dead loads and those from earthquakes should be taken into HE = Hosgri Earthquake loads account. Ra = Pipe loads associated with abnormal conditions 2 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 22 SRP 3.8.3 Concrete and Steel Internal Structures for Concrete Containment - Annulus Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3.B. Steel Structures - All loads and load combinations The DCPP Load Combination containing HE are:

are to be in accordance with ANSI/AISC N690-1994 including Supplement 2 (2004) with the supplemental WSD:

criteria for concrete structures also being applicable for 1.7S = D + HE steel structures. 1.7S = D + HE + Ra Plastic Design:

Y=D+HE Y = D + HE + Ra S = Required capacity of the section based on WSD methods of AISC, 7 th Edition, Part 1 Y = Required capacity of the section based on plastic design methods of AISC, 7 th Edition, Part 2 D = Dead loads HE = Hosgri Earthquake loads Ra = Pipe loads associated with abnormal conditions The Plastic Design Loads and Load Combinations are consistent with N690, Section Q2.1 (Plastic Design).

11.4. Design and Analysis Procedures - The design and See below.

analysis procedures used for the containment internal structures are acceptable if found to be in accordance with the following:

11.4.A. PWR Dry Containment Internal Structures See below.

11.4.A.i. Primary Shield Wall and Reactor Cavity See below.

3 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 22 SRP 3.8.3 Concrete and Steel Internal Structures for Concrete Containment - Annulus Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4.A.i. The procedures for the shield wall are acceptable if The design and analysis procedures for the primary shield wall and reactor cavity found to be in accordance with ACI 349 with additional are not applicable to the seismic design of the annulus structure for the HE.

guidance provided by RG 1.142. The design and analysis of anchors on concrete structures are acceptable if found to be in accordance with ACI 349, Appendix B, with additional guidance provided by RG 1.199 11.4.A.i. Analyses for LOCA loads applicable to the primary The design and analysis procedures for the primary shield wall and reactor cavity shield wall are acceptable if these loads are treated as are not applicable to the seismic design of the annulus structure for the HE.

dynamic time-dependent loads, with supplemental criteria 11.4.A.ii. Secondary Shield Walls See below.

11.4.A.ii. The procedures for the secondary shield walls are The design and analysis procedures for secondary shield walls are not applicable acceptable if found to be in accordance with to the seismic design of the annulus structure for the HE.

conventional beam/slab design and analysis procedures described in ACI 349, with additional guidance per RG 1.142. The design and analysis of anchors on concrete structures are acceptable if found to be in accordance with ACI 349, Appendix B, with additional guidance per RG 1.199 11.4.A.ii. Similar to the primary shield wall, the secondary The design and analysis procedures for secondary shield walls are not applicable shield walls are also subject to dynamic LOCA loads, to the seismic design of the annulus structure for the HE.

Methods described in Subsection 11.4.A.i are applicable.

11.4.A.iii. Other Interior Structures See below.

4 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 22 SRP 3.8.3 Concrete and Steel Internal Structures for Concrete Containment - Annulus Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.4.A.iii. Analytical techniques for these Category I For concrete, the DCPP licensing basis is ACI 318-63, Building Code Requirements structures are acceptable if found to be in accordance for Reinforced Concrete.

with ACI 349, with additional guidance provided by RG 1.142 and 1.199 for concrete and anchors, respectively, For steel, the DCPP licensing basis is AISC Specification For The Design, and with ANSI/AISC N690-1994 including Supplement 2 Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, February 12, 1969 (2004) for steel (AISC, 7th Edition).

11.4.E. For all containment internal structures, the design See below.

and analysis methods described in Subsections 11.4 of SRP Sections 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 also need to be considered 11.4.E. SRP 3.8.2, Section 11.4 (Steel) See below.

11.4.E. SRP 3.8.2, Section 11.4.A. Treatment of The annulus is not an axisymmetric structure; therefore combination of nonaxisymmetric and localized loads axisymmetric and nonaxisymmetric loads is not applicable to the annulus structure.

l1.4.E. 3.8.2, Section 11.4.B. Treatment of buckling effects The annulus is a steel frame structure. It does not contain atypical box-sections or shells requiring detailed treatment of buckling effects; however, design is based on AISC code 1969 Edition (AISC, 7 th Edition).

11.5. Structural Acceptance Criteria - The structural See below.

acceptance criteria for containment internal structures described in Subsection 1.1 of this SRP section are acceptable iffound to be in accordance with the guidance given below. See Section 11.4.E of this SRP section for criteria relating to modular construction 5 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 22 SRP 3.8.3 Concrete and Steel Internal Structures for Concrete Containment - Annulus Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.5.B. Steel Structures - ANSI/AISC N690-1994 including For steel, the DCPP licensing basis is AISC Specification For The Design, Supplement 2 (2004) defines the structural acceptance Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, February 12, 1969 (AISC criteria for steel structures 7 th Edition).

The yield strengths of steel for the HE are taken as the average values of properly substantiated test results (rather than nominal minimum design strengths).

The N690-1994, Plastic Design allowable strength for the "Abnormal Extreme" load combination is 0.9Y (N690, Section Q2.1), the DCPP Design Basis is 1.OY (for load combinations with HE) 6 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 23 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Outdoor Water Storage Tanks (OWST's)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.2. Applicable Codes, Standards, and See below.

Specifications The design, materials, fabrication, erection, inspection, testing, and surveillance, if any, of Seismic Category I structures are covered by codes standards, and guides that are either applicable in their entirety or in portions thereof.

A list of such documents follows:

11.2. ACI 349 ("Code Requirements for Nuclear The Code of Record for concrete structures at DCPP is ACI 318-63.

Safety-Related Concrete Structures" with The Hosgri re-evaluation is in accordance with ACI 318-71, including the 1973 Supplement.

additional criteria provided by RG 1.142) 11.2. ANSI/AISC N690-1994, including Supplement The Code of Record for steel structures at DCPP is AISC Specification for the Design, 2 (2004) ["Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, 6 th and 7 th Editions.

Fabrication and Erection of Steel Safety-Related Structures for Nuclear Facilities"]

11.2. RG 1.142 ("Safety-Related Concrete The Code of Record for concrete structures at DCPP is ACI 318-63.

Structures for Nuclear Power Plants {Other Than Reactor Vessels and Containments)) The Hosgri re-evaluation is in accordance with ACI 318-71, including the 1973 Supplement.

11.2. RG 1.199 ("Anchoring Components and ACI 318-63 and 318-71 are the Codes of Record for concrete structures. Rock anchor Structural Supports in Concrete") capacities are based on field testing per DCM T-28, Section 4.3.4.

11.3. Loads and Load Combinations See below.

11.3.A. Concrete Structures Per FSARU Section 3.8.3.5.2 for evaluation of concrete tank structures (i.e., refueling Water All loads and load combinations are to be in storage tanks, condensate storage tanks and transfer tank) to accommodate Hosgri loads, accordance with ACI 349 and RG 1.142 ..... the Code of Record is ACI 318-71 for ultimate strength design of concrete sections.

Per FSARU Section 3.8.3.3.2, the load combination applicable to the HE design of the

[Upon review of RG 1.142, Rev. 2 (Nov. OWST is:

2001), ACI 349-97 is appropriatecode 1 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 23 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Outdoor Water Storage Tanks (OWST's)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis edition that is discussed in that RG.] U = D + HS + 1.0 HE + 1.0 RA U = strength required to resist abnormal loads 11.3.B. Steel Structures D = dead load of tank All loads and load combinations are to be in HS = hydrostatic load accordance with AISC N690-1994 including HE = loads resulting from the Hosgri Earthquake (HE)

Supplement 2 (2004). This specification uses RA = pipe reactions during abnormal conditions, including dead, thermal, and DDE the allowable stress design (ASD) method... or HE loads 11.4. Design and Analysis Procedures See below.

The design and analysis procedures used for Seismic Category I structures, including assumptions about boundary conditions and expected behavior under loads, are acceptable if found to be in accordance with the following:

l1.4.A. For concrete structures, the procedures are The Code of Record for concrete structures at DCPP is ACI 318-63.

in accordance with ACI 349, as supplemented by RG 1.1.42.... The Hosgri re-evaluation is in accordance with ACI 318-71, including the 1973 Supplement.

11.4.B. The design and analysis methods described See below.

in Subsections 11.4 of SRP Sections 3.8.1 and 3.8.2, which apply to the other Category I concrete and steel structures, respectively, also need to be considered. Items to be considered include assumptions on boundary conditions, transient and localized loads, and shrinkage and cracking of concrete. See below.

Various Consideration Areas per SRP 3.8.1 See below.

(Concrete Containment), Subsection 11.4 judged pertinent to seismic design of OWSTs 2 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 23 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Outdoor Water Storage Tanks (OWST's)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4.B. Surface cracking and spalling of the gunite concrete shrouds on the OWST's have been 3.8.1.11.4.D. Creep, Shrinkage, and Cracking of identified and addressed via reduction in safety margins.

Concrete 11.4.B. OWST walls are not embedded in soil.

3.8.1.11.4.E. Dynamic Soil Pressure Consideration of dynamic lateral soil pressures on embedded walls of a concrete containment (if applicable) is acceptable if the lateral earth pressure loads are evaluated ...

IL.4.B. Methodologies per ACI 318-71 for ultimate strength design of concrete sections are used.

.3.8.1.11.4.G. Tangential Shear 11.4.B. In general, minimum specified material strengths are used for the HE load combinations.

3.8.1.11.4.H. Variation in Physical Material However, in certain cases, the average tested material strengths have been used. No Properties variations (upper or lower bounds) in physical material properties have been considered.

For the analysis of the effects of possible variations in the physical properties of materials on the analytical results, the upper and lower bounds of these properties should be used, wherever critical. The physical properties that may be critical include the soil modulus, modulus of elasticity, and Poisson's ratio of concrete.

11.4.B. Tank vault openings in the steel liner plates and concrete shroud and pipe nozzles are 3.8.1.11.4.1. Thickened Penetrations considered in the design. Both axisymmetric mathematical model and a 3-D, nonaxisymmetric mathematical model, with the fluid level up to design levels are used.

The 3-D nonaxisymmetric model is used to assess the stress distribution in the steel liner and concrete shell in and around the vault opening area.

3 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 23 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Outdoor Water Storage Tanks (OWST's)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4.B. For the evaluation of the steel liner plates,Section VIII, Division 2, of the ASME B&PV, 1974 3.8.1.11.4.J. Steel Liner Plate and Anchors applies.

For the evaluation of the welded studs, acceptance criteria in DCM C-63 apply.

11.4.B. OWST's are not required to maintain pressure boundary integrity.

3.8.1.11.4.K. Ultimate Capacity of Concrete Containment 11.4.B. SRP 3.8.2, Section 11.4 (Steel) 11.4.B. In general, buckling/ovaling is not an issue because the tanks steel shells are shrouded in 3.8.2.11.4.B. Treatment of buckling effects and stiffened with reinforced concrete. Buckling is addressed for the fire water tank, but is assumed not to affect the structural integrity of the outer tank and/or the functionality of the interconnecting systems.

II.4.C. For steel structures, the procedures are in For the evaluation of structural steel elements for the HE load combination, Part 2 of AISC accordance with ANSI/AISC N690-1994, 7 th Edition, the Plastic Design method applies.

including Supplement 2 (2004).

11.4.H. Consideration of dynamic lateral soil OWST walls are not embedded in soil.

pressures on embedded walls is acceptable if the lateral earth pressures are evaluated for two cases. These are (1) lateral earth pressure equal to the sum of the static earth pressure plus the dynamic earth pressure calculated in accordance with ASCE 4-98, Section 3.5.3.2, and (2) lateral earth pressure equal to the passive earth pressure. If these methods are shown to be overly conservative for the cases considered, then the staff reviews alternative methods on a case-by-case basis. For earth retaining walls, the guidance in ASCE 4-98 Sections 3.5.3.1 through 3.5.3.3 is acceptable.

4 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 23 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Outdoor Water Storage Tanks (OWST's)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.5. Structural Acceptance Criteria - Per FSARU Section 3.8.3.5.2, for concrete elements the strength design method of ACI 318-71 applies for HE loads.

For each of the loading combinations delineated in Subsection 11.3 of this SRP section, the structural For the evaluation of structural steel elements for the HE load combination, Part 2 of AISC acceptance criteria appear in ACI 349 and RG 1.142 7 th Edition, the Plastic Design method applies.

for concrete structures, and AISC N690-1994, including Supplement 2 (2004), for steel structures. For the evaluation of the steel liner plates,Section VIII, Division 2, of the ASME B&PV, 1974 applies (allowable stresses are increased by a factor of 2.4 for the evaluation of local stresses around the nozzles.).

For the evaluation of the welded studs, acceptance criteria in DCM C-63 apply. DCM C-63 criteria are based on ACI 318-63 for concrete, AISC, 7 th Edition for steel and TRW Nelson Division catalogs for studs.

5 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 24 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category 1 Structures - Auxiliary Building SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2. Applicable Codes, Standards, and Specifications The design, materials, fabrication, erection, inspection, testing, and surveillance, if any, of Seismic Category I structures are covered by codes standards, and guides that are either applicable in their entirety or in portions thereof. A list of such documents follows:

11.2. ACI 349 ("Code Requirements for Nuclear ACI 349 will be discussed later in this table, under SRP Acceptance Criteria 3 (Loads and Safety-Related Concrete Structures" with additional Load Combinations), 4 (Design and Analysis Procedures), and 5 (Structural Acceptance criteria provided by RG 1.142) Criteria).

11.2. ANSI/AISC N690-1994, including Supplement 2 Structural steel systems will be covered by other SRP reviews such as platforms.

(2004) ["Specification for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Steel Safety-Related Structures for Nuclear Facilities"]

11.2. RG 1.142 ("Safety-Related Concrete Structures See SRP Acceptance Criteria 3 (Loads and Load Combinations), 4 Design and Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants {Other Than Reactor Procedures), and 5 (Structural Acceptance Criteria).

Vessels and Containments})

11.2. RG 1.199 ("Anchoring Components and ACI 318-63 is the code of record for concrete structures.

Structural Supports in Concrete")

11.3. Loads and Load Combinations See below.

11.3.A. Concrete Structures Per FSARU Section 3.8.2.3.2.2 for evaluation of concrete structural elements to All loads and load combinations are to be in accommodate Hosgri loads, the code of record is ACI 318-63 for ultimate strength of accordance with ACI 349 and RG 1.142 ....." concrete elements.

[Upon review of RG 1.142, Rev. 2 (Nov. 2001), ACI Per FSARU Section 3.8.2.3.2.2, the following PG&E load combination is applicable for 349-97 is appropriatecode edition that is discussed Hosgri Event, including definition of individual load term symbols.

in that RG.]

U = D+L+TA+RA+1.OPA+1.0(Yi+Ym+Yr)+HE 1 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 24 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Auxiliary Building SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis The baseline load combinations for reinforced-concrete elements per ACI 349-97 that include SSE U = ultimate strength required to resist design loads load term (i.e., Ess) are as follows: D = dead load of structure and equipment loads L = live load

4. U = D + F + L + H + To + Ro+Ess To= thermal loads during normal operating conditions Ro = pipe reactions during normal operating conditions

8. U = D + F + L + H + Ta + Ra + 1.0 Pa TA = thermal loads on structure generated by a postulated pipe break, including To

+ 1.0 (Yr + Yj + Y,) + 1.0 Es, RA = pipe reactions on structure from unbroken pipe generated by postulated pipe break conditions, including Ro ACI 349 Load Combination 8 will envelope ACI PA = pressure load within or across a compartment and/or building generated by a 349 Load Combination 4 since Ta and Ra effects postulated pipe break, and including an appropriate dynamic factor (DLF) to include To and Ro effects, respectively from account for the dynamic nature of the load Load Combination 4. Therefore, governing Yj = jet load on structure generated by a postulated pipe break, including an appropriate SRP SSE load combination is ACI 349 Load DLF Combination 8. Yr = missile impact load on a structure generated by, or during, a postulated pipe break, such as a whipping pipe, including an appropriate DLF Yr= reaction on structure from broken pipe generated by a postulated pipe break, including an appropriate DLF HE = loads resulting from an HE 11.4. Design and Analysis Procedures See below.

The design and analysis procedures used for Seismic Category I structures, including assumptions about boundary conditions and expected behavior under loads, are acceptable if found to be in accordance with the following:

11.4.A. For concrete structures, the procedures are in Per FSARU Sections 3.8.2.3.2.2, 3.8.2.5.2, and 3.8.2.5.3, ACI 318-63 is the design code accordance with ACI 349, as supplemented by RG of record for concrete elements associated with HE. In-plane loads for concrete 1.1.42. The design and analysis of anchors (steel elements are not explicitly covered by ACI 318-63. A separate document was created to embedments) used for component and structural address in-plane loads for the auxiliary building that is based on test data and consistent supports on concrete structures are acceptable if with provisions ACI 318-63.

found in accordance with Appendix B to ACI 349, as supplemented by RG 1.199.

2 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 24 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Auxiliary Building SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.4.B. The design and analysis methods described in See below.

Subsections 11.4 of SRP Sections 3.8.1 and 3.8.2,which apply to the other Category I concrete and steel structures, respectively, also need to be considered. Items to be considered include assumptions on boundary conditions, transient and localized loads, and shrinkage and cracking of concrete.

Various Consideration Areas per SRP 3.8.1 (Concrete See below.

Containment), Subsection 11.4 11.4.B. Because the auxiliary building is not a cylindrical/spherical structure, consideration of 3.8.1.11.4.B. Axisymmetric and Nonaxisymmetric these types of load concerns are not necessary for the seismic design for the HE.

Loads 11.4.B. The effects of high energy line break postulated during abnormal conditions which 3.8.1.11.4.C. Transient and Localized Loads produce global (compartment pressure, PA, and temperature, TA) as well as local effects (pipe reactions RA and YR, pipe whip load YM and jet impingement load, Yi) are addressed.

11.4.B. Concrete design is based on ACI 318-63 requirements.

3.8.1.11.4.D. Creep, Shrinkage, and Cracking of Concrete IL.4.B. This item is addressed under SRP 3.8.4 Acceptance Criteria Item 11.4.H.

3.8.1.11.4.E. Dynamic Soil Pressure 11.4.B. In general, minimum specified material strengths are used for the HE load combinations.

3.8.1.11.4.H. Variation in Physical Material Properties In certain cases, the average tested material strengths have been used. No variations For the analysis of the effects of possible variations (upper or lower bounds) in physical material properties have been considered.

in the physical properties of materials on the analytical results, the upper and lower bounds of To account for possible variations in the parameters used in the dynamic analyses, such 3 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 24 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Auxiliary Building SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis these properties should be used, wherever critical, as mass values, material properties, and material sections, the calculated floor spectra The physical properties that may be critical include were broadened.

the soil modulus, modulus of elasticity, and Poisson's ratio of concrete.

11.4.B. The auxiliary building does not have thickened penetration regions.

3.8.1.11.4.1. Thickened Penetrations 11.4.B. The Spent Fuel Liner Plate is addressed under SRP 3.8.4 Acceptance Criteria, 3.8.1.11.4.J. Steel Liner Plate and Anchors Appendix D (separate SRP review).

11.4.B. The auxiliary building is not a concrete containment structure and determination of its 3.8.1.11.4.K. Ultimate Capacity of Concrete internal pressure capacity is not relevant to its seismic design.

Containment 11.4.C. For steel structures, the procedures are in Structural steel SSCs are out-of-scope for this SRP table as various structural steel SSCs accordance with ANSI/AISC N690-1994, including (e.g., platforms) are covered by other separate SRP-reviews.

Supplement 2 (2004).

11.4.G. The design of the spent fuel pool and racks is The SFP walls are already included in this SRP comparison review under reinforced-considered acceptable when it meets the criteria of concrete portions of auxiliary building and Appendix D does not contain any unique Appendix D to this SRP section. seismic criteria for these walls. The SFP racks are addressed through another SRP-review for these specific racks. The seismic requirements for the SFP liner, as required by Appendix D, are addressed in a separate SRP comparison table.

11.4.H. Consideration of dynamic lateral soil pressures DCPP design/licensing bases does not specify how embedded auxiliary building walls are on embedded walls is acceptable if the lateral earth evaluated for dynamic lateral soil pressures induced by seismic events.

pressures are evaluated for two cases. These are (1) lateral earth pressure equal to the sum of the static earth pressure plus the dynamic earth pressure calculated in accordance with ASCE 4-98, Section 3.5.3.2, and (2) lateral earth pressure equal to the passive earth pressure. If these methods are shown to be overly conservative for the cases 4 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 24 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Auxiliary Building SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis considered, then the staff reviews alternative methods on a case-by-case basis. For earth retaining walls, the guidance in ASCE 4-98 Sections 3.5.3.1 through 3.5.3.3 is acceptable.

11.5. Structural Acceptance Criteria - Per FSARU Section 3.8.2.3.2.2 and DCM T-2, Sections 4.3.3.2 and 4.3.5.1, the code of record is ACI 318-63.

"For each of the loading combinations delineated in Subsection 11.3 of this SRP, the structural acceptance criteria appear in ACI 349 and RG 1.142 for concrete structures..."

11.8. Masonry Walls The masonry walls inside the auxiliary building are addressed in a separate SRP comparison table that is specific to all power-block masonry walls.

5 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 25 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category 1 Structures - Containment Plant Vent SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2. Applicable Codes, Standards, and Specifications Per review of FSARU Sections 3.7.1, 3.7.2, 3.7.3, and 3.8, the applicable design codes for structural analysis of containment plant vent are not explicitly addressed.

The design, materials, fabrication, erection, inspection, testing, and surveillance, if any, of Seismic Category I Per Section 3.5 of DCM T-1F, applicable codes are as follows:

structures are covered by codes standards, and guides that are either applicable in their entirety or in portions "Structural Steel - American Institute of Steel Construction Specification For The thereof. A list of such documents follows: Design, Fabrication, And Erection Of Structural Steel For Buildings, 1969 (AISC)"

" ANSI/AISC N690-1994, including Supplement 2 (2004) "Concrete anchorages - American Concrete Institute Building Code Requirements for

["Specification for the Design, Fabrication and Erection Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-63)"

of Steel Safety-Related Structures for Nuclear Facilities"]

" For concrete structures, the procedures are in accordance with ACI 349, as supplemented by RG 1.142. The design and analysis of anchors (steel embedments) used for component and structural supports on concrete structures are acceptable if found in accordance with Appendix B to ACI 349, as supplemented by RG 1.199.

11.4. Design and Analysis Procedures Per review of FSARU Sections 3.7.1, 3.7.2, 3.7.3, and 3.8, the applicable design The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section codes for structural analysis of containment plant vent is not explicitly addressed.

3.8.4, subsection 11.4, are applicable.

Per Section 3.5 of DCM T-1 F, applicable codes are as follows:

The design and analysis procedures used for Seismic Category I structures, including "Structural Steel - American Institute of Steel Construction Specification For The assumptions about boundary conditions and Design, Fabrication, And Erection Of Structural Steel For Buildings, 1969 (AISC)"

expected behavior under loads, are acceptable if found to be in accordance with the following: "Concrete anchorages - American Concrete Institute Building Code Requirements for 11.4.A For concrete structures, the procedures are in Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-63)"

accordance with ACI 349, as supplemented by RG 1.1.42..

1 of 2

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 25 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Containment Plant Vent SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4.B For steel structures, the procedures are in accordance with ANSI/AISC N690-1994, including Supplement 2 (2004).

11.5. Structural Acceptance Criteria Per review of FSARU Sections 3.7.1, 3.7.2, 3.7.3, and 3.8, the applicable structural The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.8.4, acceptance criteria associated with structural analysis of containment plant vent is not subsection 11.5, are applicable, explicitly addressed.

For each of the loading combinations delineated in Per above DCPP Design/Licensing Basis discussions for SRP Acceptance Criteria 3 Subsection 11.3 of this SRP, the structural acceptance (Loads and Load Combinations), and 4 (Design and Analysis Procedures), PG&E's criteria appear in ACI 349 and RG 1.1.42 for concrete code of record is 1969 AISC Specification for structural steel.

structures, and AISC N690-1994, including Per "Nomenclature" sections of 1969 AISC Specification and AISC N690-1994, the Supplement 2 (2004), for steel structures. definition of FY is "Specified minimum yield stress of the type of steel being used... as used in this Specification, 'yield stress' denotes either the specified minimum yield point (for those steels that have a yield point) or specified minimum yield strength (for those steels that do not have a yield point)."

Per Sections 4.3.4.1 and 4.3.4.2 of DCM T-1 F, it is indicated that, "Actual average material properties as determined by properly substantiated test results may be used for the HE load combination."

Table Q1.5.8.1 of AISC N690-1994 that addresses allowable ductility factors for structural steel elements: Section 4.3.4.2 of DCM T-1F cites ductility values that are permitted for the HE (i.e., ductility equals 3 and 6 locally). DCM T-1F does not address ductility limits. For box sections, the permissible PG&E ductility values appear to be more stringent than Table Q1.5.8.1 of AISC N690-1994.

2 of 2

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 26 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Fuel Handling Building Steel Superstructure (FHBSS)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2. Applicable Codes, Standards, and Specifications The design, materials, fabrication, erection, inspection, testing, and surveillance, if any, of Seismic Category I structures are covered by codes, standards, and guides, either applicable in their entirety or in portions thereof.

11.2. ACI 349 (Concrete) The FHBSS is a steel frame building; however, per DCM T-3, the column anchorage into the auxiliary building concrete is within the boundary of the building. DCM T-3 references ACI 318-63 for concrete design.

11.2. ANSI/AISC N690-1994 (including Supplement 2 Code of record is AISC Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of (2004) (Structural Steel) Structural Steel for Buildings, 1969 Edition.

11.2. RG 1.142 (Safety Related Concrete Structures The FHBSS is a steel frame building; however, per DCM T-3, the column anchorage into for Nuclear Power Plants) the auxiliary building concrete is within the boundary of the building.

11.2. RG 1.199 (Anchoring Components and Column anchorage is designed per ACI 318-63.

Structural Supports in Concrete) 11.4. Design and Analysis Procedures - The design See below.

and analysis procedures used for Seismic Category I structures, including assumptions about boundary conditions and expected behavior under loads, are acceptable if found to be in accordance with the following:

11.4.A. The design and analysis of anchors used for Per the DCM T-3, Sections 3.5 and 4.0, the column anchorage into the auxiliary building component and structural supports on concrete concrete is within the boundary of the building and is designed per ACI 318-63.

structures are acceptable if found in accordance with Appendix B of ACI 349, as supplemented by RG 1.199.

1 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 26 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Fuel Handling Building Steel Superstructure (FHBSS)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4.B. The design and analysis methods described in See individual sections listed below.

Subsections of 11.4 of SRP Sections 3.8.1 and 3.8.2, which apply to other Category I concrete and steel structures, respectively, also need to be considered:

11.4.B. Treatment of concrete near embedded columns is addressed per ACI 318-63 SRP 3.8.1, Section 11.4 (Concrete) requirements.

11.4.B. See below.

SRP 3.8.2, Section 11.4 (Steel) 11.4.B. The FHBSS is not an axisymmetric structure; therefore, combination of axisymmetric and SRP 3.8.2, Section 11.4.A. Treatment of nonaxisymmetric loads is not necessary.

nonaxisymmetric and localized loads 11.4.B. The FHBSS is a steel frame structure. It does not contain atypical box-sections or shells SRP 3.8.2, Section 11.4.1. Treatment of buckling requiring detailed treatment of buckling effects. However, design is based on AISC effects Code 1969 Edition.

11.4.C. For steel structures, the procedures are in AISC 7 th Edition (1969) is used for design and analysis of the FHBSS. The major accordance with ANSI/AISC N690-1994, including differences between N690 and AISC 7th Edition steel manual are with respect to required Supplement 2 (2004) loads and load combinations and allowable stresses. These topics are discussed in more detail in "Section 5.0 - Structural Acceptance Criteria" below.

11.5. Structural Acceptance Criteria - For each of the See below.

loading combinations delineated in Subsection 11.3 of this SRP section, the structural acceptance criteria appear in the following:

2 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 26 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Fuel Handling Building Steel Superstructure (FHBSS)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.5. Concrete Structures - ACI 349 and RG 1.142 The acceptance criteria used for the FHB column anchorage are consistent with the SRP and RG 1.199 acceptance criteria with the following exceptions:

U=D+F+L+H+To+Ro+Ess - The anchorage is evaluated using ACI 318-63 methodology.

U=D+F+L+H+Ta+Ra+Pa+(Yr+Yj+Ym)+Ess - Material strengths used for load combinations, which include HE, utilized average tested rather than minimum strengths.

of minimum specified ACI 349 requires the use material strengths.

11.5. Steel Structures - AISC N690-1994, including The FHB steel acceptance criteria is based on AISC Specification for the Design, Supplement 2 (2004) Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, 1969 Edition.

The gaps between the DCPP Design Basis and AISC N690-1994 are as follows:

Elastic Design: [N690 Supplement 2 Table Q1.5.7.1]: The N690-1994, Plastic Design allowable strength for the "Abnormal Extreme" load 1.6S=D+L+Ro+To+Es combination is 0.9 Y; the DCPP Design Basis is 1.0 Y (for load combinations with HE).

1.7S=D+L+Ra+Ta+Yr+Yj+Ym+Es+Pa Plastic Design:[N690 Section Q2.1]: Y = Required section strength based on plastic design methods and stresses.

Y=1.1(D+L+Ta+Ra+Pa+Yj+Yr+Rm+Es) For the load combinations with SSE as listed in N690-1994, with Supplement 2, the Stress Limit Coefficients for shear stresses in members and bolts is 1.4. DCPP criteria AISC N690-1994 incl. Supplement 2 (2004) specify a limit of 1.6.

specifies the use of minimum strength properties in the acceptance criteria. N690-1994 specifies the use of minimum strength properties. DCPP acceptance criteria For the load combinations with SSE as listed in allow material strengths used for load combinations, which include HE, to utilize average teedrhrtanmiumsegh.

N690-1994, with Supplement 2, the Stress Limit tested rather than minimum strengths.

Coefficients for shear stresses in members and N690-1994 bolt allowables are different than those specified in the DCM T-3 and AISC bolts is 1.4. Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, N690-1994 provides the allowable loads for bolts. 1969 Edition.

3 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 26 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Fuel Handling Building Steel Superstructure (FHBSS)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.8. Masonry Walls - Appendix A to this SRP section Addressed in a separate SRP comparison table (SRP 3.8.4 review for Masonry walls).

contains the acceptance criteria for masonry walls 4 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 27 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category 1 Structures - Turbine Building SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2. Applicable Codes, Standards, and Specifications - The See codes discussed below.

design, materials, fabrication, erection, inspection, testing, and surveillance, if any, of Seismic Category I structures are covered by codes, standards, and guides, either applicable in their entirety or in portions thereof.

11.2. ACI 349 (Concrete) The Hosgri evaluation of the turbine building is in accordance with ACI 318-71, including the 1973 Supplement. The original code of record for concrete structures at DCPP was ACI 318-63.

11.2. ANSI/AISC N690-1994 including Supplement 2 (2004) The Hosgri evaluation of the turbine building is in accordance with the AISC (Structural Steel) Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, Dated February 12, 1969 ( 7 th Edition). However, AISC specification dated November 1, 1978 (8 th Edition) is used for the evaluation of selected connections.

11.2. RG 1.142 (Safety Related Concrete Structures for ACI 318-63 is the code of record for concrete structures.

Nuclear Power Plants) 11.2. RG 1.199 (Anchoring Components and Structural ACI 318-63 is the code of record for concrete structures.

Supports in Concrete) 11.3. Loads and Load Combinations - The specified loads The turbine building is a combination of a steel structure (columns, beams, braces, and load combinations are acceptable if found to be in roof trusses) and a concrete structure (shear walls, floor slabs, buttresses, accordance with the guidance given below: foundations); therefore, both material types are addressed.

1 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 27 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Turbine Building SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3.A. Concrete Structures - All loads and load combinations DCM T-4, Section 4.3.4.2 specifies the following load combination for turbine to be in accordance with ACI 349 and RG 1.142, with building for the HE:

supplemental criteria.

- Dead + Abnormal Live + Abnormal Pipe Reaction + HE DCM T-4 Section 4.3.4.2 specifies the following load combinations for Turbine Pedestal for the HE:

ACI 349 Section 9.2.1 provides two load combinations - Dead + HE which include the SSE (Es8). - Dead + HE + Condenser Vacuum + Normal Generator Torque + Normal Turbine Torque U=D+F+L+H+To+Ro+Ess - Dead + [(HE) 2 + (Turbine Generator Short Circuit Torque) 2]O.5 + Condenser U=D+F+L+H+Ta+Ra+Pa+(Yr+Yj+Ym)+Ess Vacuum Specific loads not addressed:

- Fluid Loads (not applicable)

- Soil pressure (not applicable)

- Pipe Rupture Loads

- Jet Impingement Loads

- Thermal Loads Note: Even though the crane loads (including rated capacity) are not explicitly specified in the load combination equation, DCM T-4, Section 4.3.2.2 indicates that the crane loads, including hook loads, are included in the live load.

2 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 27 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category 1 Structures - Turbine Building SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.3.B. Steel Structures - All loads and load combinations to DCM T-4, Section 4.3.4.2 specifies the following load combination for the HE:

be in accordance with AISC N690-1994 including Supplement 2 (2004), with the supplemental criteria - Dead + Live + Abnormal Pipe Reaction + HE specified for concrete structures.

Specific loads not addressed:

AISC N690- 1994 provides the following load combinations which include the SSE (E,,). - Pipe Rupture Loads

- Jet Impingement Loads Elastic Design: [N690 Supplement 2 Table Q1.5.7.1] - Thermal Loads 1.6S=D+L+Ro+To+Es 1.7S=D+L+Ra+Ta+Yr+Yj+Ym+Es+Pa Note: Even though the crane loads (included rated capacity) are not explicitly Plastic Design: [N690 Section Q2.1] specified in the load combination equation; DCM T-4, Section 4.3.2.2 and Y=1.1 (D+L+Ta+Ra+Pa+Yj+Yr+Rm+Es) AISC N690-1994 Q1.3.2 indicate that the crane loads, including hook loads, are included in the live load.

11.4.4. Design and Analysis Procedures - The design and See procedures discussed below.

analysis procedures used for Seismic Category I structures, including assumptions about boundary conditions and expected behavior under loads, are acceptable if found to be in accordance with the following:

11.4.A. For concrete structures, the procedures are in The Hosgri evaluation and design of the turbine building is in accordance with ACI accordance with ACI 349, as supplemented by RG 1.142. 318-71 including 1973 Supplements. ACI 318-63 was the original code of record The design and analysis of anchors used for component for the turbine building as documented in DCM T-4.

and structural supports on concrete structures are acceptable iffound in accordance with Appendix B of ACI 349, as supplemented by RG 1.199 11.4.B. The design and analysis methods described in See design and analysis methods discussed below.

Subsections of 11.4 of SRP Sections 3.8.1 and 3.8.2, which apply to other Category I concrete and steel structures, respectively, also need to be considered:

3 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 27 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Turbine Building SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4.B. See below.

SRP 3.8.1, Section 11.4 (Concrete)

SRP 3.8.1.11.4.H. The evaluation of the effects of variation In general, minimum specified material strengths are used for the HE load in specified physical properties of materials on analytical combinations. In certain cases, the average tested material strengths have been results used. No variations (upper or lower bounds) in physical material properties have been considered. To account for possible variations in the parameters used in the dynamic analyses, such as mass values, material properties, and material sections, the calculated floor spectra were broadened.

11.4.B. Not applicable or addressed in other sections of this SRP comparison table.

SRP 3.8.2. Section 11.4 (Steel) 11.4.C. For steel structures, the procedures are in accordance The Hosgri evaluation and design of the turbine building is in accordance with the with ANSI/AISC N690-1994, including Supplement 2 AISC Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for (2004) Buildings, Dated February 12, 1969 (7 th Edition). However, AISC specification dated November 1, 1978 (8 th Edition), is used for the evaluation and design of selected connections.

11.4.H. Consideration of dynamic lateral soil pressures on Lateral earth pressure, including the effects of the weight of any permanent facility embedded walls is acceptable if the lateral earth pressure supported on the ground, is considered. Dynamic earth pressures acting on the loads are evaluated for two cases (see SRP for description diesel fuel oil trench walls are considered. Dynamic lateral soil pressure on of two cases) embedded portion of the building is not addressed.

11.5. Structural Acceptance Criteria - For each of the loading See acceptance criteria discussed below.

combinations delineated in Subsection 11.3 of this SRP section, the structural acceptance criteria appear in the following:

4 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 27 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Turbine Building SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.5. Concrete Structures - ACI 349 and RG 1.142 and RG The concrete structure is evaluated for the HE using ACI 318-71, including 1973 1.199 supplement methodology. ACI 318-63 was the original code of record for the turbine building.

Material strengths used for load combinations which include HE utilize average tested values rather than minimum strengths.

Inelastic behavior is permitted in lateral force resisting elements subjected to ductility limits.

11.5. Steel Structures - AISC N690-1994, including The turbine building steel acceptance criteria is based on AISC Specification for Supplement 2 (2004) the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, dated February 12, 1969.

N690-1994 specifies the use of minimum strength properties Selected steel connections acceptance criteria is based on AISC Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, dated N690-1994 specifies the shear stress limit coefficients for November 1, 1978 (8th Edition).

load combinations with SSE in members and bolts are 1.4.

The gaps between the DCPP Design Basis and AISC N690-1994 are as follows:

N690-1994 does not allow inelastic deformation.

The N690-1994, Plastic Design allowable strength for the "Abnormal Extreme" load combination is 0.9Y; the DCPP Design Basis is 1.OY (for load combinations with HE).

DCPP criteria specify the shear stress limit coefficients for load combinations with SSE in members and bolts are 1.6.

DCPP acceptance criteria allow material strengths used for load combinations, which include HE to utilize average tested values rather than minimum strengths.

N690-1994 bolt allowables are different than those specified in the AISC Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, 1969 or 1978 Editions.

5 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 27 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Turbine Building SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis DCPP acceptance criteria allow lateral force resisting elements to deform inelastically subject to ductility limits.

11.8. Masonry Walls - Appendix A to this SRP section The turbine building contains a number of masonry walls, but their seismic design contains the acceptance criteria for masonry walls is addressed in a separate SRP comparison table specific to masonry walls, rather than being included with the review for the turbine building.

6 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 28 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Intake Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2. Applicable Codes, Standards, and Specifications - The design, materials, fabrication, erection, inspection, testing, and surveillance, if any, of Seismic Category I structures are covered by codes, standards, and guides, either applicable in their entirety or in portions thereof.

11.2. ACI 349 (Concrete) The FSARU and DCM T-5 reference ACI 318-63 for concrete design.

11.2. ANSI/AISC N690-1994 (including The intake structure is a reinforced concrete structure.

Supplement 2 (2004) (Structural Steel) 11.2. RG 1.142 (Safety Related Concrete ACI 318-63 is the Code of Record for concrete structures.

Structures for Nuclear Power Plants) 11.2. RG 1.199 (Anchoring Components and ACI 318-63 is the Code of Record for concrete structures.

Structural Supports in Concrete) 11.3. Loads and Load Combinations - The See below.

specified loads and load combinations are acceptable if found to be in accordance with the guidance given below:

1 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 28 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Intake Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3.A. Concrete Structures and Anchorage - All The FSARU provides minimal loading information. DCM T-5 provides greater detail regarding loads and load combinations to be in Intake Structure loads:

accordance with ACI 349, RG 1.142, and RG 1.199, with supplemental criteria. C = D + L+ MH + R, + HE + EP + DEP C = combined load demand U=D+F+L+H+To+Ro+Ess D = Dead loads U=D+F+L+H+Ta+Ra+Pa+(Yr+Yj+Ym)+Ess L = Live loads MH = Mechanical and Hydraulic Loads due to the operation of circulating and ASW pumps.

Ro= Pipe Reactions EP = Static Lateral Earth Pressure DEP = Dynamic Lateral Earth Pressure HE = Loads due to Hosgri Earthquake Temperature loads (both To and Ta) are not listed in the DCM T-5 load combinations as required by ACI 349. Loads related to postulated pipe rupture (Ra, Pa, Yr, Yj, Ym) are not listed in the DCM T-5 load combinations as per ACI 349, but normal pipe reactions (Ro) are included.

11.4. Design and Analysis Procedures - The See below.

design and analysis procedures used for Seismic Category I structures, including assumptions about boundary conditions and expected behavior under loads, are acceptable if found to be in accordance with the following:

11.4.A. The design and analysis of concrete The FSARU and DCM T-5 reference ACI 318-63 for concrete design.

structures and anchors used for component and structural supports on concrete structures are acceptable if found in accordance with Appendix B of ACI 349, as supplemented by RG 1.199.

2 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 28 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Intake Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.4.B. The design and analysis methods See below.

described in Subsections of 11.4 of SRP Sections 3.8.1 and 3.8.2, which apply to other Category I concrete and steel structures, respectively, also need to be considered:

11.4.B. See below.

SRP 3.8.1, Section 11.4 (Concrete) 11.4.B. The current models for Hosgri evaluation are based on a fixed base boundary condition.

SRP 3.8.1.11.4.A. Assumptions on Boundary Conditions 11.4.B. Load combinations for HE do not address transient and localized loads for the intake structure.

SRP 3.8.1.11.4.C. Transient and localized loads 11.4.B. Concrete design is based on ACI 318-63 Code.

SRP 3.8.1.11.4.D. Creep, shrinkage, and cracking of concrete 11.4.B. DCM T-5 indicates that static and lateral earth pressures are considered, but ASCE 4-98 Methods SRP 3.8.1.11.4.E. Dynamic soil pressure are not referenced.

Static plus dynamic soil pressure in accordance with ASCE 4-98 and passive earth pressure should be considered.

3 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 28 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category 1 Structures - Intake Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4.B. In general, minimum specified material strengths are used for the HE load combinations. In SRP 3.8.1.11.4.H. Variation in physical certain cases, the average tested material strengths have been used. No variations (upper or material properties lower bounds) in physical material properties have been considered.

To account for possible variations in the parameters used in the dynamic analyses, such as mass values, material properties, and material sections, the calculated floor spectra were broadened.

11.4.B. The intake structure is a reinforced concrete structure.

SRP 3.8.2, Section 11.4 (Steel) 11.4.C. For steel structures, the procedures are in The intake structure is a reinforced concrete structure.

accordance with ANSI/AISC N690-1994, including Supplement 2 (2004) 11.4.H. Consideration of dynamic lateral soil DCM T-5, Section 4.3.2 indicates that static and lateral earth pressures are considered, but ASCE pressures on embedded walls is acceptable if 4-98 Methods are not referenced.

the lateral earth pressure loads are evaluated for two cases (see SRP for description of two cases) 11.5. Structural Acceptance Criteria - For each See below.

of the loading combinations delineated in Subsection 11.3 of this SRP section, the structural acceptance criteria appear in the following:

4 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 28 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Intake Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.5. Concrete Structures - ACI 349 and RG The acceptance criteria used for the intake structure are consistent with SRP acceptance criteria 1.142 and RG 1.199 with the following exceptions:

C = D + L+ MH + R, + HE + EP + DEP U=D+F+L+H+To+Ro+Ess U=D+F+L+H+Ta+Ra+Pa+(Yr+Yj+Ym)+Ess Maximum strength of structural elements is determined in accordance with the applicable building codes (ACI). This strength must be equal or greater than the load demand C. Shear strength of concrete shear walls is based on methods described in Section 3(c) of Recommended Lateral Force Requirements, 1974 Seismology Committee, Structural Engineers Association of California.

Concrete structural elements are evaluated in accordance with ACI 318-63 methodology.

DCPP acceptance criteria allows the following:

For load combinations involving HE effects, the maximum strengths can be calculated using averages of tested material properties in-lieu of code specified minimum values.

In the evaluation of required section strength, the Hosgri load demand may be reduced by considering the structure's ductility. For concrete, a ductility ratio of 1.3 is permitted.

5 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 29 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Masonry Walls SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2. Applicable Codes, Standards, and See codes discussed below.

Specifications - The design, materials, fabrication, erection, inspection, testing, and surveillance, if any, of Seismic Category I structures are covered by codes, standards, and guides, either applicable in their entirety or in portions thereof.

11.2. Uniform Building Code 1979 DCM T-31, Section 3.5.4 references the Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1970.

The safety-related masonry walls were designed to meet the criteria of the NRC Bulletin IE 80-11.

ANSI/AISC N690-1994 (including Supplement 2 The Hosgri evaluation of the masonry walls is in accordance with the AISC Specification for (2004) (Structural Steel) the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, dated February 12, 1969.

11.2. RG 1.199 (Anchoring Components and The design of the masonry walls is in accordance UBC 1970 and ACI 531.

Structural Supports in Concrete) 11.3. Loads and Load Combinations - The Safety-related masonry walls are addressed below:

specified loads and load combinations are acceptable if found to be in accordance with the guidance given below:

1 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 29 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Masonry Walls SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3.A. Masonry Structures - All loads and load FSARU Section 3.8.7.3.1.7 and DCM T-31 Section 4.4.3 specify the following load combinations to be in accordance with SRP combination for safety-related masonry wall for the HE:

3.8.4 Appendix A Section 2.

- Dead + Live + Normal Thermal + Normal Pipe Reaction + HE The following load combinations are applicable to the evaluation of a structure subjected to an - Dead + Live + Abnormal Thermal + Abnormal Pipe Reaction + HE SSE:

SRP 3.8.4, Appendix A provides two load combinations which include the SSE (E') combine U=D+L+To+Ro+E' additional loads compared to the HE load combination for the safety-related masonry wall.

U=D+L+Ta+Ra+Pa+(Yr+Yj+Ym)+E' Specific loads not addressed:

- Jet Impingement Loads Note: DCM T-31, Section 4.1.1.2 states that the masonry walls are not relied upon to withstand jet loads or reactions resulting from HELB's.

11.3.B. Steel Structures - All loads and load FSARU Section 3.8.7.3.1.7 and DCM T-31, Section 4.4.3 specify the following load combinations to be in accordance with AISC combination for safety-related masonry wall for the HE:

N690-1994 including Supplement 2 (2004, with the supplemental criteria specified for concrete - Dead + Live + Normal Thermal + Normal Pipe Reaction + HE structures.

- Dead + Live + Abnormal Thermal + Abnormal Pipe Reaction + HE The following load combinations are applicable to the evaluation of a structure subjected to an AISC N690- 1994 Table Q1.5.7.1 provides two load combinations which include the SSE (Es)

SSE: combine several additional loads compared to the HE load combination for the safety-related masonry walls. Specific loads not addressed:

Elastic Design: [N690 Supplement 2 Table Q1.5.7.1] - Pipe Rupture Loads 1.6S=D+L+Ro+To+Es - Jet Impingement Loads 1.7S=D+L+Ra+Ta+Yr+Yj+Ym+Es+Pa Plastic Design: [N690 Section Q2.1] Notes:

Y=1.1(D+L+Ta+Ra+Pa+Yj+Yr+Rm+Es) (1) DCM T-31, Section 4.1.1.2 states that masonry walls are not relied upon to withstand jet loads or reactions resulting from HELB's.

2 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 29 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Masonry Walls SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis (2) Even though the crane loads (included rated capacity) is not explicitly specified in the load combination equation; DCM T-4, Section 4.3.2.2 and AISC N690-1994 Q1.3.2 indicate that the crane loads, including hook loads, are included in the live load.

11,4. Desigjn and Analysis Procedures - The See procedures discussed below.

design and analysis procedures used for Seismic Category I structures, including assumptions about boundary conditions and expected behavior under loads, are acceptable if found to be in accordance with the following:

11,4.A. For masonry structures, the procedures are The Hosgri evaluation of the masonry walls is in accordance with UBC 1970 and ACI 531-79.

in accordance with UBC 1979 11.4.B. The design and analysis methods described See design and analysis methods discussed below.

in Subsection 4 of SRP 3.8.4 Appendix A, which apply to safety-related masonry walls, also need to be considered:

Appendix A, 4.D. Variations and uncertainties In general, minimum specified material strengths are used for the HE load combinations. In in mass, materials, and other pertinent certain cases, the average tested material strengths have been used. No variations (upper parameters or lower bounds) in physical material properties have been considered.

Appendix A, 4.H. Minimum reinforcement Per applicable codes (UBC 1970 and ACI 531-79).

requirements shall be as provided in ACl 531 Appendix A, 4.K. SRP Section 3.5.3 should DCM T-31, Section 4.1.1.2 states that masonry walls are not relied upon to withstand jet apply for masonry walls requiring protection for loads or reactions resulting from HELB. Therefore, SRP Section 3.5.3 is not applicable.

spalling and scabbing resulting from accident pipe reaction, jet impingement and missile impact.

3 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 29 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Masonry Walls SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4.C. For steel structures, the procedures are in The Hosgri evaluation of the masonry walls is in accordance with the AISC Specification for accordance with ANSI/AISC N690-1994, the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, dated February 12, including Supplement 2 (2004) 1969 (7th Edition).

11.4.H. Consideration of dynamic lateral soil Does not apply to masonry walls. No embedded walls.

pressures on embedded walls is acceptable if the lateral earth pressure loads are evaluated for two cases (see SRP for description of two cases) 11.4.1. The design of masonry walls is considered The safety-related masonry walls are evaluated according to NRC issued IE Bulletin 80-11, acceptable when it meets the requirements of which required that operating plant licensees establish a program for the evaluation of Appendix A of this SRP. masonry walls supporting or in the proximity of safety-related items.

11.5. Structural Acceptance Criteria - For each of See acceptance criteria discussed below.

the loading combinations delineated in Subsection 2 of this SRP Appendix A, the structural acceptance criteria appear in the following:

11.5. Masonry Structures - UBC 1979 The masonry structure is evaluated using UBC 1970.

Material strengths used for load combinations which include HE utilize average tested value rather than minimum strengths.

Shear allowable values for reinforced solid and hollow unit masonry are different between UBC 1979 and UBC 1970.

4 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 29 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Masonry Walls SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.5. Masonry Structures - ACI 531-79 Inspection procedure is based on Section 4.5 of ACI 531-79.

(inspection, and allowable stress with some exceptions) Some allowable stresses for extreme environmental condition (load combination with HE) are different between SRP 3.8.4, Appendix A, Subsection 3 and DCM T-31, Section 4.4.4. For example, DCM T-31, Section 4.4.4.2.1 allows a moment capacity strength reduction factor of 1.0 (based on 1.0 fy, where fy = yield strength), while SRP limits the reinforcement stress to 0.9 fy. DCM T-31, Section 4.4.4.7 specifies allowable capacities of expansion anchors at masonry wall connections to the building structure as 1/3 of the ultimate capacities, while SRP limits the allowable stress to 1.5 times that from ACl 531-79.

11.5. Steel Structures - AISC N690-1994, The steel acceptance criteria are based on AISC Specification for the Design, Fabrication, including Supplement 2 (2004) and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, Dated February 12, 1969.

Elastic Design: [N690 Supplement 2 Table The gaps between the DCPP Design Basis and AISC N690-1994 are as follows:

Q 1.5.7.1]:

1.6S=D+L+Ro+To+Es DCPP criteria specify a limit of 1.6.

1 .7S=D+L+Ra+Ta+Yr+Yj+Ym+Es+Pa DCPP acceptance criteria allow material strengths used for load combinations which include Plastic Design: [N690 Section Q2.1]: HE to utilize average tested values rather than minimum strengths.

Y= 1.1 (D+L+Ta+Ra+Pa+Yj+Yr+Rm+Es)

N690-1994 bolt allowables are different than those specified in the AISC Specification for the AISC N690-1994 incl. Supplement 2 (2004) Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, 1969 Edition.

specifies the use of minimum strength properties in the acceptance criteria.

For the load combinations with SSE as listed in N690-1994, with Supplement 2, the Stress Limit Coefficients for shear stresses in members and bolts is 1.4.

N690-1994 provides the allowable loads for bolts.

5 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 30 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Spent Fuel Racks SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis Appendix D,

Introduction:

Reg. Guide 1.29 "Seismic Fuel storage racks are classified as PG&E Design Class I.

Design Classification" classifies spent fuel racks as Seismic Category I structures.

Appendix D, Section 1: Description of the Spent Not applicable to the seismic design for the HE.

Fuel Pool and Racks Appendix D, Section 2: Applicable Codes, See below.

Standards, and Specifications Appendix D, Section 2 - Construction materials ASME III NF is referenced as a design code and construction materials are ASTM should conform to ASME Section III Div. 1, A-240- Type 3054/304L, ASTM 479-S21800, and ASTM SA564-630, (and weld filler Subsection NF and should be selected to be metal ASME SFA-5-9 Type 304/308L and 308LSI), which are approved ASME Il1-1 compatible with the fuel pool environment and to materials.

minimize corrosion and galvanic effects.

Appendix D, Section 3: Seismic and Impact Loads. See below.

Appendix D, Section 3 - For plants where dynamic See SRP Sections 3.7.1 "Seismic Design Parameters."

input data such as floor response spectra or ground response spectra are not available, necessary dynamic analyses may be performed using the criteria described in SRP Section 3.7. The ground response spectra and damping values should correspond to RG 1.60 and 1.61, respectively. For plants where dynamic data are available (e.g.,

ground response spectra for a fuel pool supported by the ground, floor response spectra for fuel pools supported on soil where soil-structure interaction was considered in the pool design, or a floor response spectra for a fuel pool supported by the reactor building), the design and analysis of the new rack system may be performed by using either the existing input parameters including the old damping values or new parameters in accordance with RG 1 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 30 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Spent Fuel Racks SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 1.60 and 1.61. The use of existing input with new damping values in RG 1.61 is not acceptable.

Appendix D, Section 3 - Seismic excitation along This topic is covered by SRP Section 3.7.1 "Seismic Design Parameters."

three orthogonal directions should be imposed simultaneously for the design of the new rack system.

Appendix D, Section 3 - The peak response from This topic is covered by SRP Section 3.7.1 "Seismic Design Parameters."

each direction should be combined by SRSS in accordance with RG 1.92.

Appendix D, Section 3 - If response spectra are This topic is covered by SRP Section 3.7.1 "Seismic Design Parameters."

available for a vertical and horizontal direction only, the same horizontal spectrum may be used for both horizontal directions.

Appendix D, Section 3 - It should be demonstrated This requirement is not related specifically to the HE. Load drop force due to an that the impact loads on the fuel assembly do not accidental drop of a lifted fuel assembly (the heaviest load) from the maximum height of lead to damage of the fuel. 36 inches above the top of the ra.cks is considered in the design.

Appendix D, Section 3 - Loads from other impact Other impact events are not included in any load combination associated with the HE.

events may be acceptable based on missile mass Load drop force due to an accidental drop of a lifted fuel assembly (the heaviest load) and velocity and ductility ratio of target material, from the maximum height of 36 inches above the top of the racks is considered in the design.

Appendix D, Section 4: Loads and Load See below.

Combinations Appendix D, Section 4 - Maximum uplift forces Uplift forces from the crane are not included in any load combination associated with the available from the crane should be indicated and HE. However, fuel binding load generated by the unlikely event that a fuel assembly considered in the rack and pool floor/liner design, if would bind in the rack while being lifted by the spent fuel bridge crane is considered in applicable, the design.

2 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 30 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Spent Fuel Racks SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis Appendix D, Section 4 - Load drops (cask, fuel Load drop effects are not included in any load combination associated with the HE.

assembly, etc) should be considered. However, load drop force due to an accidental drop of a lifted fuel assembly (the heaviest load) from the maximum height of 36 inches above the top of the racks is considered in the design.

Appendix D, Section 4 - The specific loads and load DCM S-42B, Appendix E, Section 4.3.3 refers to ASME Code,Section III, Subsection combinations are acceptable if they conform with the NF, 1983 Edition for load combinations.

applicable portions of this SRP, Subsection 11.3, and Table 1 provide in this Appendix. Per Appendix D of the SRP, which is specific to fuel racks, ASME criteria are used in place of AISC N690-1994.

Loads and Load Combinations - Steel Structures:

All loads and load combinations are to be in accordance with AISC N690-1994 including Supplement 2 (2004). This specification uses the allowable stress design (ASD) method. The supplemental criteria on the use of loads and load combinations presented above for concrete structures also apply to steel structures.

Appendix D, Section 5: Design and Analysis Procedures Appendix D, Section 5 - American National Design of the racks and stress limits are in accordance with ASME Code,Section III, Standards Institute, N210-76, "Requirements for Subsection NF, 1983 Edition.

Light Water Reactor Spent Fuel Storage Facilities at Nuclear Power Plants, Design," provides general information regarding design of spent fuel pool racks.

Appendix D, Section 5 - Seismic analysis of un- NUREG/CR-5912 is not referenced in the DCM S-42B, Appendix E, but it only provides anchored (sliding) racks is typically performed using general guidance and suggestions on modeling strategy, not strict requirements. The nonlinear dynamic time history analysis methods. racks are analyzed using nonlinear time history analyses.

NUREG/CR-5912 provides further guidance on the design and analysis of free-standing fuel racks.

3 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 30 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Spent Fuel Racks SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis Appendix D, Section 6: Structural Acceptance See below.

Criteria Appendix D, Section 6 - When the design considers Neither buckling loads nor Appendix XVII is mentioned in the FSARU or DCM S-42B, buckling loads, the criteria provided in ASME Code, Appendix E. However, the racks are designed for impact forces resulting from an Section III, Division 1, Appendix XVII should limit the accidental drop of a lifted fuel assembly and from inter-rack or rack-structure impact.

structural acceptance criteria.

Appendix D, Section 6 - The fuel pool structure Fuel pool structure and liner evaluations are not applicable to the topic/SSC "Spent Fuel should be designed for the increased loads that stem Racks."

from the new and/or expanded high-density racks.

The fuel pool liner leak-tight integrity should be DCPP already utilizes high density racks.

maintained, or the functional capability of the fuel pool should be demonstrated.

Appendix D, Notes: 3. The provisions of ASME The design of the racks is based on nonlinear analyses and the racks are freestanding.

Code,Section III, Division 1, Subsection NF 3231.1 shall be amended by the requirements of paragraphs

c. 2, 3, and 4 of RG 1.124.

(RG 1.124 modifies and clarifies the regulatory position regarding allowable stresses for Class 1 Linear-Type Supports)

Appendix D, Notes: 4. Fd is the force caused by the Load drops are not applicable to the seismic design for the HE. However, load drop accidental drop of the heaviest load from the force due to an accidental drop of a lifted fuel assembly (the heaviest load) from the maximum possible height, and Pf is the upward force maximum height of 36 inches above the top of the racks is considered in the design.

on the racks caused by a postulated struck fuel assembly.

4 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 31 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Pipeway Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2. Applicable Codes, Standards, and See below.

Specifications - The design, materials, fabrication, erection, inspection, testing, and surveillance, if any, of Seismic Category I structures are covered by codes, standards, and guides, either applicable in their entirety or in portions thereof.

11.2.- ACI 349 (Concrete) ACI 318-63 is referenced for elements such as concrete local to embedded plates and anchors. In general, pipeway is a steel frame structure.

11.2.- ANSI/AISC N690-1994 (including Code of Record for design of steel structures is the AISC Specification for the Design, Supplement 2 (2004) (Structural Steel) Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, 1969 Edition.

11.2.- RG 1.142 (Safety Related Concrete ACI 318-63 is the Code of Record for concrete structures. In general, pipeway is a steel Structures for Nuclear Power Plants) frame structure. However, concrete requirements are used for items such as embedded plates and anchors.

11.2.- RG 1.199 (Anchoring Components and ACI 318-63 is the Code of Record for concrete structures.

Structural Supports in Concrete) 11.3. Loads and Load Combinations - The See below.

specified loads and load combinations are acceptable iffound to be in accordance with the guidance given below:

1 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 31 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Pipeway Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3.A. Concrete Structures - All loads and load ACI 318-63 is referenced for elements such as concrete local to embedded plates and combinations are to be in accordance with anchors. In general, pipeway is a steel frame structure.

ACI 349 and RG 1.142, with supplemental criteria. FSARU 3.8.6 does not specify concrete load combinations.

U=D+F+L+H+To+Ro+Ess Where Working Stress Design (WSD) methods are used:

U=D+F+L+H+Ta+Ra+Pa+(Yr+Yj+Ym)+Ess 1.7C = D + HE Where ultimate strength design (USD) methods are used:

U=D+HE C = Required capacity of the section based on the WSD methods of ACI 318-63.

U = Required capacity of the section based on USD methods of ACI 318-63.

D = Dead Loads HE = Loads resulting from Hosgri Earthquake The DCPP load combinations for the HE do not include the following loads in SRP acceptance criteria:

- Live

- Thermal

- Pipe Break/Pipe Whip/Jet Impingement 2 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 31 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Pipeway Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3.B. Steel Structures - All loads and load Code of Record for steel structures is AISC Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and combinations to be in accordance with Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, 1969 Edition.

AISC N690-1994 including Supplement 2 (2004), with the supplemental criteria Where elastic working stress design methods are used:

specified for concrete structures.

1.7S = D + HE The following load combinations are applicable to the evaluation of a structure subjected to an S = required section strength based on elastic design methods and allowable stresses SSE: defined in Part 1 of the AISC "Specifications for the Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings," 1969 Edition.

Elastic Design: [N690 Supplement 2 Table Q1 .5.7.1] Where plastic design methods are used:

1.6S=D+L+Ro+To+Es 1.7S=D+L+Ra+Ta+Yr+Yj+Ym+Es+Pa (DCM T-1 E lists no HE load combinations)

Plastic Design: [N690 Section Q2.1]

Y=1. 1(D+L+Ta+Ra+Pa+Yj+Yr+Rm+Es) The DCPP load combinations for the HE do not include the following loads in the SRP acceptance criteria:

- Live

- Thermal

- Pipe Break/Pipe Whip/Jet Impingement 11.4. Design and Analysis Procedures - The See below.

design and analysis procedures used for Seismic Category I structures, including

• assumptions about boundary conditions and expected behavior under loads, are acceptable if found to be in accordance with the following:

3 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 31 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Pipeway Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4.A. For concrete structures, the procedures are ACI 318-63 is referenced for use in checking concrete local to embedded plates and anchors.

in accordance with ACI 349, as supplemented by RG 1.142. The design and analysis of anchors used for component and structural supports on concrete structures are acceptable if found in accordance with Appendix B of ACI 349, as supplemented by RG 1.199 11.4.B. The design and analysis methods described See below.

in Subsections of 11.4 of SRP Sections 3.8.1 and 3.8.2, which apply to other Category I concrete and steel structures, respectively, also need to be considered:

11.4.B. Treatment of concrete near embedded anchors is addressed in various other SRP SRP 3.8.1, Section 11.4 (Concrete) comparison tables and is per ACI 318-63. Pipeway is a steel frame structure.

11.4.B. See below.

SRP 3.8.2, Section 11.4 (Steel) 11.4.B. - The pipeway is not an axisymmetric structure; therefore combination of axisymmetric and 3.8.2, Section 11.4.A. Treatment of nonaxisymmetric loads is not necessary.

nonaxisymmetric and localized loads 11.4.B. The pipeway is a steel frame structure. It does not contain atypical box-sections or shells 3.8.2, Section 11.4.B. Treatment of buckling effects requiring detailed treatment of buckling effects; however, design is based on AISC Code 1969 Edition.

11.4.C. For steel structures, the procedures are in Code of record for steel structures is AISC Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and accordance with ANSI/AISC N690-1994, Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, 1969 Edition.

including Supplement 2 (2004) 4 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 31 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Pipeway Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4.H. Consideration of dynamic lateral soil There are no embedded portions of the pipeway structure in soil.

pressures on embedded walls is acceptable if the lateral earth pressure loads are evaluated for two cases (see SRP for description of two cases) 11.5. Structural Acceptance Criteria - For each of the loading combinations delineated in Subsection 11.3 of this SRP section, the structural acceptance criteria appear in the following:

11.5. - Concrete Structures - ACI 349 and RG The pipeway is a steel frame structure, but concrete acceptance criteria may be applicable to 1.142 the design of embedded plates and anchors.

U=D+F+L+H+To+Ro+Ess Where WSD methods are used:

U=D+F+L+H+Ta+Ra+Pa+(Yr+Yj+Ym)+Ess 1.7C = D + HE C = required capacity of the section based on the working stress design (WSD) methods of the ACI 318-63 Where ultimate strength design (USD) methods are used:

U=D+HE U= required capacity of the section based on USD methods of the ACI 318-63.

WSD methods are not covered in the ACI 349.

Material strengths used for load combinations which include HE utilize average tested rather than minimum strengths.

5 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 31 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category 1 Structures - Pipeway Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.5. - Steel Structures - AISC N690-1994, Where elastic working stress design methods are used:

including Supplement 2 (2004) 1.7S = D + HE Elastic Design: [N690 Supplement 2 Table S= Required section strength based on elastic design methods and allowable Q 1.5.7.1]: stresses defined in Part 1 of the AISC "Specifications for the Fabrication and 1.6S=D+L+Ro+To+Es Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings," 1969 Edition.

1.7S=D+L+Ra+Ta+Yr+Yj+Ym+Es+Pa Where plastic design methods are used:

Plastic Design: [N690 Section Q2.1]:

Y=1. 1(D+L+Ta+Ra+Pa+Yj+Yr+Rm+Es) (DCM T-1E lists no HE load combinations)

AISC N690-1994 incl. Supplement 2 (2004) The 1.7 factor on elastic section strength exceeds the 1.6"factor required per the SRP.

specifies the use of minimum strength properties in the acceptance criteria. Material strengths used for load combinations which include HE utilize average tested rather than minimum strengths.

For the load combinations with SSE as listed in N690-1994, with Supplement 2, the Stress Limit Load combinations including pipe break load, local section strength capacities may be Coefficients for shear stresses in members and exceeded provided there is no loss of function of any safety-related system.

bolts is 1.4.

N690-1994 provides the allowable loads for bolts.

6 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 32 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Containment Polar Crane SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2. Applicable Codes, Standards, and Specifications - The design, materials, fabrication, erection, inspection, testing, and surveillance, if any, of Seismic Category I structures are covered by codes, standards, and guides, either applicable in their entirety or in portions thereof.

11.2.- ACI 349 (Concrete) ACI 318-63 is the Code of Record for design of concrete elements associated with the crane rail anchorage.

11.2.- ANSI/AISC N690-1994 including Supplement 2 The polar crane was designed in accordance with the Association of Iron and (2004) (Structural Steel) Steel Engineers (AISE), Standard Number 6, "Specification for Electric Overhead Traveling Cranes for Steel Mill Service" (Tentative, May 1, 1969), and "Specifications for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural steel for Buildings" by the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), 7 th Edition, as required by PG&E Specification 8839, Section 5.3.

11.2.- RG 1.142 (Safety Related Concrete Structures for ACI 318-63 is the Code of Record for design of concrete elements associated Nuclear Power Plants) with the crane rail anchorage.

11.2.- RG 1.199 (Anchoring Components and Structural ACI 318-63 is the Code of Record for design of concrete elements associated Supports in Concrete) with the crane rail anchorage.

11.3. Loads and Load Combinations - The specified loads See below.

and load combinations are acceptable if found to be in accordance with the guidance given below:

1 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 32 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Containment Polar Crane SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3.A. Concrete Structures and Anchorage - All loads and (Concrete load combinations may be applicable to the polar crane rail load combinations to be in accordance with ACI 349, anchorage design)

RG 1.142, and RG 1.199, with supplemental criteria. Per FSARU:

U=1.7S= D+TD+L+HE U=D+F+L+H+To+Ro+Ess U=D+F+L+H+Ta+Ra+Pa+(Yr+Yj+Ym)+Ess U = Capacity of the section D = Dead loads L = Crane rated live load TD = Trolley dead weight HE = Loads resulting from the Hosgri Earthquake Per DCM S-42B, Appendix A:

Elastic Design:

1.7S=D+TD+L+HE+DSCp 1.7S=D+TD+HE+DSCo Plastic Design:

1.OY=D+TD+L+HE+DSCp 1.OY=D+TD+HE+DSCo S = Required section strength based on elastic design methods Y = Required section strength based on plastic design methods DSCp = Gravity and seismic contribution of the dome service crane in parked position.

DSCo = Gravity and seismic contribution of the dome service crane in operating position.

Load combinations for the polar crane are consistent with SRP acceptance criteria (if F, H, To, Ro, and pipe break related loads are considered not applicable to the crane). However, per the SRP (and as noted in the DCM S-42B, Appendix A), jet impingement forces and containment compartment pressurization are applicable loads for the polar crane but are not combined with HE loads.

2 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 32 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Containment Polar Crane SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3.B. Steel Structures - All loads and load combinations to Per FSARU:

be in accordance with AISC N690-1994 including U=1.7S=D+TD+L+HE Supplement 2 (2004), with the supplemental criteria specified for concrete structures. U = Capacity of the section Elastic Design: [N690 Supplement 2 Table Q1.5.7.1] D = Dead loads 1.6S=D+L+Ro+To+Es L = Crane rated live load 1.7S=D+L+Ra+Ta+Yr+Yj+Ym+Es+Pa TD = Trolley dead weight Plastic Design: [N690 Section Q2.1] HE = Loads resulting from the Hosgri Earthquake Y=1. 1(D+L+Ta+Ra+Pa+Yj+Yr+Rm+Es)

Per DCM S-42B, Appendix A:

Elastic Design:

1.7S=D+TD+L+HE+DSCp 1.7S=D+TD+HE+DSCo Plastic Design:

1.OY=D+TD+L+HE+DSCp 1.OY=D+TD+HE+DSCo S = Required section strength based on elastic design methods Y = Required section strength based on plastic design methods DSC, = Gravity and seismic contribution of the dome service crane in parked position.

DSCo = Gravity and seismic contribution of the dome service crane in operating position.

Load combinations for the polar crane are consistent with SRP acceptance criteria (if F, H, To, Ro, and pipe break related loads are considered not applicable to the crane). However, per the SRP (and as noted in the DCM S-42B, Appendix A), jet impingement forces and containment compartment pressurization are applicable loads for the polar crane but are not combined with HE loads.

3 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 32 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Containment Polar Crane SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4. Design and Analysis Procedures - The design and See below.

analysis procedures used for Seismic Category I structures, including assumptions about boundary conditions and expected behavior under loads, are acceptable if found to be in accordance with the following:

11.4.A. For concrete structures, the procedures are in Strength of bolt anchorage is based on ultimate stresses defined in Part IV-B of accordance with ACI 349, as supplemented by RG 1.142. the ACI 318-63 Code.

The design and analysis of anchors used for component and structural supports on concrete structures are acceptable if found in accordance with Appendix B of ACI 349, as supplemented by RG 1.199 11.4.B. The design and analysis methods described in See below.

Subsections of 11.4 of SRP Sections 3.8.1 and 3.8.2, which apply to other Category I concrete and steel structures, respectively, also need to be considered:

11.4.B. These criteria are generally addressed as part of other SRP sections. Note SRP 3.8.1, Section 11.4 (Concrete) that the polar crane is steel structure except for its rail anchorage interface with concrete.

11.4.B.- These criteria are generally addressed as part of other SRP sections.

SRP 3.8.2, Section 11.4 (Steel) 11.4.C. For steel structures, the procedures are in accordance The polar crane was designed in accordance with the Association of Iron and with ANSI/AISC N690-1994, including Supplement 2 (2004) Steel Engineers (AISE), Standard Number 6, "Specification for Electric Overhead Traveling Cranes for Steel Mill Service" (Tentative, May 1, 1969), and "Specifications for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural steel for Buildings" by the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), 7 th Edition, as required by PG&E Specification 8839, Section 5.3.

4 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 32 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Containment Polar Crane SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.5. Structural Acceptance Criteria - For each of the loading See below.

combinations delineated in Subsection 11.3 of this SRP section, the structural acceptance criteria appear in the following:

11.5.- Concrete Structures - ACI 349 and RG 1.142 and RG Strength of bolt anchorage is based on ultimate stresses defined in Part IV-B of 1.199 the ACI 318-63 Code.

U=D+F+L+H+To+Ro+Ess (Concrete load combinations may be applicable to the polar crane rail U=D+F+L+H+Ta+Ra+Pa+(Yr+Yj+Ym)+Ess anchorage design)

Per FSARU:

U=1.7S=D+TD+L+HE Per DCM S-42B, Appendix A:

Plastic Design:

1.QY=D+TD+L+HE+DSCp 1.OY=D+TD+HE+DSCo For load combinations including Hosgri seismic loads, section strengths and load demands defined in Section 4.3.3 may be reduced by considering the structure's ductility in accordance with DCM T-6.

11.5.- Concrete Structures - ACI 349 and RG 1.142 and DCPP acceptance criteria for polar came allow use of actual tested properties RG 1.199 of materials. The section strength may be determined on the basis of these material properties, if a specific heat used for the element evaluated is identified on construction drawings and in the calculations.

5 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 32 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Containment Polar Crane SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.5.- Steel Structures - AISC N690-1994, including Per FSARU:

Supplement 2 (2004) U=1.7S=D+TD+L+HE Elastic Design: [N690 Supplement 2 Table Q1.5.7.1] Per DCM S-42B, Appendix A:

1.6S=D+L+Ro+To+Es Elastic Design:

1.7S=D+L+Ra+Ta+Yr+Yj+Ym+Es+Pa 1.7S=D+TD+L+HE+DSCp Plastic Design: [N690 Section Q2.1] 1.7S=D+TD+HE+DSCo Y= 1.1 (D+L+Ta+Ra+Pa+Yj+Yr+Rm+Es)

Plastic Design:

1.OY=D+TD+L+HE+DSCp 1.OY=D+TD+HE+DSCo For load combinations including Hosgri seismic loads, section strengths and load demands defined in Section 4.3.3 may be reduced by considering the structure's ductility in accordance with DCM T-6.

AISC N690-1994 including Supplement 2 (2004) specifies the use of minimum strength properties. However, DCPP acceptance criteria for polar came allow use of actual tested properties of materials. The section strength may be determined on the basis of these material properties, if a specific heat used for the element evaluated is identified on construction drawings and in the calculations.

The N690-1994, Plastic Design allowable strength for the "Abnormal Extreme" load combination is (1/1.1=) 0.9Y; the DCPP Design Basis is 1.OY (for load combinations with HE)

For the load combinations with SSE as listed in N690-1994, with Supplement 2, the Stress Limit Coefficients for shear stresses in members and bolts is 1.4.

DCPP criteria specify a limit of 1.6.

N690-1994 bolt allowables are different than those specified in the AISC Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, 1969 Edition.

6 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 33 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Fuel Handling Building (FHB) Crane SRP Acceptance Citeria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2. Applicable Codes, Standards, and See codes discussed below.

Specifications - The design, materials, fabrication, erection, inspection, testing, and surveillance, if any, of Seismic Category I structures are covered by codes, standards, and guides, either applicable in their entirety or in portions thereof.

11.2. ACI 349 (Concrete) FHB crane is a steel structure supported by the FHBSS columns and use of ACI code is not necessary for design of any of its structural elements.

11.2. ANSI/AISC N690-1994 (including The Hosgri evaluation of the FHB crane is in accordance with the AISC Specification for the Design, Supplement 2 (2004) (Structural Steel) Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, Dated February 12, 1969 (7 th Edition), and AISE Standard Number 6 "Specification For Electric Overhead Traveling Cranes For Steel Mill Service."

11.2. RG 1.199 (Anchoring Components and FHB crane is a steel structure supported by the FHBSS columns and use of ACI code is not Structural Supports in Concrete) necessary for design of any of its structural elements.

11.3. Loads and Load Combinations - The The FHB crane is a steel structure (grid, beams, braces, truck and wheel assembly, trolley, hoist specified loads and load combinations are and crane rail etc). Therefore, only steel material types are addressed below.

acceptable if found to be in accordance with the guidance given below:

1 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 33 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Fuel Handling Building (FHB) Crane SRP Acceptance Citeria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3.B. Steel Structures - All loads and load DCM S-42B, Appendix C, Section 4.3.2.3 specifies crane operation loads:

combinations to be in accordance with AISC N690-1994 including Supplement - Vertical impact for cab operated traveling crane = 30% of maximum wheel load 2 (2004) - Lateral force = 5% each of the bridge dead load, the trolley dead load, and the maximum lifted load

- Longitudinal force = 10% of the trolley dead load and the maximum lifted load DCM S-42B, Appendix C, Section 4.3.3.3 specifies the following load combination for the HE:

- Dead + Lift Load + HE (with both the loaded and unloaded crane conditions)

- Dead + HE (this combination applicable only to the Seismically Induced Systems Interaction evaluation of miscellaneous items attached to FBH crane)

The gaps between the DCPP Design Basis and AISC N690-1994 are as follows:

The following compares the differences between crane impact loads between these two codes (DCCP vs. SRP):

- Vertical impact: 30% vs. 25%

- Lateral force: 10% (= 2 x 5%) vs. 20%

- Longitudinal force: 10% vs. 10%

AISC N690-1994, Table Q1.5.7.1 provides two load combinations, which include the SSE (Es,) load combined with several additional loads compared to the HE load combination for the FHB crane.

Specific loads not addressed:

- Pipe Rupture Loads

- Jet Impingement. Loads

- Thermal Loads However, DCM S-42B, Appendix C, Section 4.4 states that there are no missiles or pipe rupture requirements applicable to the FHB crane.

2 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 33 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Fuel Handling Building (FHB) Crane SRP Acceptance Citeria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.4. Desigqn and Analysis Procedures - The See procedures discussed below.

design and analysis procedures used for Seismic Category I structures, including assumptions about boundary conditions and expected behavior under loads, are acceptable iffound to be in accordance with the following:

11.4.B. The design and analysis methods See design and analysis methods discussed below.

described in Subsections of 11.4 of SRP Sections 3.8.1 and 3.8.2, which apply to other Category I concrete and steel structures, respectively, also need to be considered:

11.4.B.- The FHB crane is a steel structure and meeting any concrete related criteria are not necessary.

SRP 3.8.1, Section 11.4 (Concrete) 11.4.B. - See below.

SRP 3.8.2, Section 11.4 (Steel) 11.4.B. - The FHB crane is not an axisymmetric structure. Nonaxisymmetric and localized loads in this SRP 3.8.2.11.4.A Treatment of non- context need not be addressed for the seismic design of the FHB crane for the HE.

axisymmetric and localized loads 11.4.C. For steel structures, the procedures The Hosgri evaluation of the FHB Crane is in accordance with the AISC Specification for the Design, are in accordance with ANSI/AISC Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, Dated February 12, 1969 (7 th Edition), and N690-1994, including Supplement 2 AISE Standard Number 6 "Specification For Electric Overhead Traveling Cranes For Steel Mill (2004) Service."

3 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 33 SRP 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures - Fuel Handling Building (FHB) Crane SRP Acceptance Citeria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.5. Structural Acceptance Criteria - For See acceptance criteria discussed below.

each of the loading combinations delineated in Subsection 11.3 of this SRP section, the structural acceptance criteria appear in the following:

11.5. - Concrete Structures - ACI 349 and The FHB crane is a steel structure supported by the FHBSS columns and use of ACI code is not RG 1.142 and RG 1.199 necessary for design of any of its structural elements.

11.5.- Steel Structures - AISC N690-1994, The FHB crane steel acceptance criteria is based on AISC Specification for the Design, Fabrication, including Supplement 2 (2004) and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, Dated February 12, 1969 (7 th Edition), and AISE Standard Number 6 "Specification For Electric Overhead Traveling Cranes For Steel Mill Service" for steel members.

AISC Specification for Structural Joints Using ASTM A325 or A490 Bolts, 2000 edition for bolts.

The gaps between the DCPP Design Basis and AISC N690-1994 are as follows:

The N690-1994, Plastic Design allowable strength for the "Abnormal Extreme" load combination is 0.9Y (where Y = required section strength based on plastic design methods and stresses). DCPP Design Basis is 1.OY (for load combinations with HE).

For the load combinations with SSE as listed in N690-1994, with Supplement 2, the Stress Limit Coefficients for shear stresses in members and bolts is 1.4. DCPP criteria specify a limit of 1.6.

N690-1994 specifies the use of minimum strength properties. For structural steel elements associated with the original fabrication of the crane, DCPP acceptance criteria for load combinations, which include HE, utilize average tested values rather than minimum strengths.

4 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 34 SRP 3.8.5 Foundations - Containment Exterior Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2. Applicable Codes, Standards, and Specifications - See below.

The design, materials, fabrication, erection, inspection, testing, and surveillance, if any, of Seismic Category I foundations are covered by codes, standards, and guides, either applicable in their entirety or in part.

Subsection 11.2 of SRP Section 3.8.4 includes a list of such documents:

11.2. - ACI 349 (Concrete) The Code of Record for concrete design is ACI 318-63.

11.2.- RG 1.142 (Safety Related Concrete Structures ACI 318-63 is used for design and analysis of the containment structure foundation.

for Nuclear Power Plants)

In addition, the documents listed in Subsection 11.2 of See below.

SRP Section 3.8.1 are acceptable for the containment foundation:

11.3. Loads and Load Combinations - The specified See below.

loads and load combinations used in the design of Seismic Category I foundations are acceptable iffound to be in accordance with:

11.3. Containment Foundation - Combinations See below.

referenced irh Subsection 11.3 of SRP Section 3.8.1 for containment foundation:

1 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 34 SRP 3.8.5 Foundations - Containment Exterior Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3. The specified loads and load FSARU: "Exterior Shell and Base Slab:"

combinations are acceptable if found to be in U = D+/-0.05D+Pa+T+HE accordance with Article CC-3000 of the ASME Code with the exceptions to the requirements U = Required load capacity of section specified in Table CC-3230-1 listed in D = Dead loads Subsection 11.3 of SRP Section 3.8.1 PA = Load due to accident pressure T = Load due to maximum temperature associated with 1 .OPA Two SSE Load Combinations are required:

1. D+L+F+G+To+Ess+Ro+Pv HE = Loads due to Hosgri Earthquake

2. D+L+F+G+Pa+Ta+Ess+Ra+Rr DCM T-1A:

U = D+/-0.05D+P+T+HE Ess = Safe Shutdown Earthquake U = D+/-0.05D+HE+To+R+J+M Weights considered shall be the same as for Eo (Operating Basis Earthquake): To = Thermal operating loads "Only the actual dead load and existing live P = Internal Pressure associated with the postulated LOCA.

load weights need be considered in R = Pipe Rupture evaluating seismic response forces" J = Jet Impingement M = Missile Impact Dead Loads = including hydrostatic and permanent equipment loads Dead Loads consist of the weight of concrete, reinforcing steel, steel liner, structural steel, and permanent equipment loads.

Live Loads = including any movable equipment loads and other loads which Live Loads consist of temporary equipment loads and a uniform load to account for vary with intensity and occurrence, such as the miscellaneous temporary loadings that may be placed on the structure.

soil pressures.

Note 1 to Table CC-3230-1 indicates that The DCPP definition of Dead Load is consistent with the SRP.

Live Load also includes all temporary construction loading during and after The DCPP definition of Live Load does not include the soil pressure loading required construction of containment. by the SRP.

With the exceptions listed below. FSARU Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 indicates that computer models for DE/DDE seismic analysis include the weight of mechanical equipment. DCM T-6 Section 4.3.1 indicates that the HE and DE/DDE models are similar with the exception of the fixed-base assumption.

2 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 34 SRP 3.8.5 Foundations - Containment Exterior Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4. Design and Analysis Procedures - The design and See below.

analysis procedures used for Seismic Category I foundations are acceptable if found to be in accordance with the following:

11.4.A. The design should consider the soil-structure See SRP section 3.7.2 for Containment Exterior and Interior Structure.

interaction, hydrodynamic effect, and dynamic soil Dynamic soil pressure is not addressed in the DCM T-1A or the FSARU. The HE pressure. model is based on fixed base assumption.

11.4.D. For the containment foundation, if in See below.

accordance with the design and analysis procedures referenced in SRP Section 3.8.1, Subsection 11.4:

11.4.D. Design is per ACI 318-63. Analysis descriptions do not mention evaluation for the 3.8.1.I1.4.D. Treatment of the effects of effects of concrete cracking on dynamic behavior.

creep, shrinkage, and cracking of concrete 11.4.D. In general, minimum specified material strengths are used for the HE load 3.8.1.11.4.H. The evaluation of the effects combinations. However, in certain cases, the average tested material strengths of variation in specified physical properties have been used. No variations (upper or lower bounds) in physical material of materials on analytical results properties havebeen considered.

11.4. Additionally, the design and analysis procedures See below.

for the following details are reviewed on a case-by-case basis:

3 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 34 SRP 3.8.5 Foundations - Containment Exterior Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4.B. The method to calculate the factor of safety See SRP section 3.7.2 for Containment Exterior and Interior Structure against sliding. If sliding is the sum of shear friction along the base mat and passive pressures induced by embedment effects, how these effects are considered in an analysis based on a consistent lateral displacement criterion?

(To be reviewed on a case-by-case basis)

I1.4.C. Evaluation of the capability of a foundation to Application of waterproofing, or lack thereof, is not explicitly addressed in FSARU or transfer shear when waterproofing is used for a pertinent DCMs T-1A and T-6, Appendix A.

range of site conditions (soil sites with shear wave velocity of 1000 feet per second to hard rock)?

(To be reviewed on a case-by-case basis) 11.4.E. Detail explanation of how settlement (including See SRP section 3.7.2 for Containment Exterior and Interior Structure.

potential effects of static or dynamic differential The basemat was poured against underlying rock. The bedrock is rigid and settlement) was considered. settlement is not applicable.

(To be reviewed on a case-by-case basis) 11.4.E. Evaluation of the allowable settlement See SRP section 3.7.2 for Containment Exterior and Interior Structure.

(total and differential) that can be accommodated in Effects of containment tilting on safety-related systems connected to containment the foundation/structures? (To be reviewed on a have been addressed in SSER08, Section 3.8.5.4.1.

case-by-case basis) 11.4.F. The maximum toe pressure for base mat Toe pressure is not explicitly addressed in the FSARU or DCM T-1A for HE loading.

design under worst-case static and dynamic loads and its justification. Under DDE seismic loading the containment was subject to extremely large (To be reviewed on a case-by-case basis) overturning moments. Under this condition, foundation resisting pressure was concentrated over a small area near the edge of the basemat. Analysis for HE was changed from this methodology to the finite element method where uplift of the basemat was considered. There is no further mention of toe pressure.

4 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 34 SRP 3.8.5 Foundations - Containment Exterior Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4.G. The stiff and soft spots evaluation in the Stiff and soft spots are not addressed in the FSARU or DCM T-1A. The foundation soil to maximize the bending moments containment foundation is supported by a rigid rock foundation.

used in the design of the foundation mat.

(To be reviewed on a case-by-case basis) 11.4.H. Description of the design details of critical The description of design details of critical locations is addressed in DCMs T-1A and locations, such as the junction of sidewall and base T-6, Appendix A.

mat and the junctions of base mat to sumps.

(To be reviewed on a case-by-case basis) 11.4.1. Detail explanation of the load path from all Superstructure load paths to the foundation are addressed in DCMs T-1A and T-6, superstructures to the foundation mat to the Appendix A.

subgrade. Discussion of any unique design features that occur in the load path (e.g., any safety-related function that the tendon gallery may have as part of the foundation in a prestressed containment or the connection of any internal structures to a steel containment and its supporting foundation).

(To be reviewed on a case-by-case basis) 11.5. Structural Acceptance Criteria - For each of the See below.

loading combinations delineated in Subsection 11.3 of this SRP section, the allowable limits that constitute the acceptance criteria are referenced in Subsection 11.5 of SRP Section 3.8.1 for the containment foundation:

11.5.A. For the structural portions of the containment, the See below.

specified allowable limits for stresses and strains are acceptable if they are in accordance with:

5 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 34 SRP 3.8.5 Foundations - Containment Exterior Structure SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.5.- ASME Subsection CC-3400 and exceptions ACI 318-63 was used for concrete capacity calculations. Additionally, ductility and relating to tangential shear stress carried by concrete average tested material strengths were used for the HE seismic analyses.

listed in Subsection 11.5 of SRP Section 3.8.1 11.5.- Concrete Structures - ACI 349 and RG 1.142 ACI 318-63 is the Code of Record for concrete design.

11.5.- For the five other load combinations in Subsection The Safety Factor against overturning calculated during HE re-evaluation was 1.11.

11.3 of this SRP section, the factors of safety against overturning, sliding and flotation are acceptable if Sliding is not mentioned in the FSARU or DCM T-1A. However, the depth of found in accordance with Subsection 11.5 of this SRP embedment of the foundation into bedrock, specifically at the area of the reactor section, cavity, prevents seismically-induced sliding.

(Safety factor of 1.1 for sliding and overturning required for SSE event) 6 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 35 SRP 3.8.5 Foundations - Auxiliary Building SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2. Applicable Codes, Standards, and Specifications See below.

The design, materials, fabrication, erection, inspection, testing, and surveillance, if any, of Seismic Category I foundations are covered by codes, standards, and guides that are either applicable in their entirety or in part. Subsection 11.2 of SRP Section 3.8.4 includes a list of such documents. In addition, the documents listed in Subsection 11.2 of SRP Section 3.8.1 are acceptable for the containment foundation.

A list of such documents in above-mentioned SRP sections are as follows:

11.2. ACI 349 ("Code Requirements for Nuclear Note: ACI 349 will be discussed later in this table, under SRP Acceptance Criteria 3 Safety-Related Concrete Structures" with (Loads and Load Combinations), 4 (Design and Analysis Procedures), and 5 (Structural additional criteria provided by RG 1.142) Acceptance Criteria).

11.2. RG 1.142 ("Safety-Related Concrete Structures Note: RG 1.142 is discussed later in this table, under SRP Acceptance Criteria 3 (Loads for Nuclear Power Plants {Other Than Reactor and Load Combinations), 4 (Design and Analysis Procedures), and 5 (Structural Vessels and Containments}) Acceptance Criteria).

11.3. Loads and Load Combinations Per FSARU Section 3.8.4, foundation for auxiliary building is included in FSARU Section 3.8.2. Per Licensing Basis Relationship discussion of SRP acceptance criteria per "The specified loads and load combinations used Subsection 11.3 of SRP Section 3.8.4, the governing load combination per SRP criteria in the design of Seismic Category I foundations (i.e., ACI 349 and as supplemented by RG 1.142) for SSE associated with concrete are acceptable if found to be in accordance with portions of auxiliary building is not equivalent to PG&E's load combination for HE. The those combinations referenced in........ Subsection same applies for the auxiliary building foundation.

11.3 of SRP Section 3.8.4 for all other Seismic Category I foundations.

In addition to the load combinations referenced above, the combinations used to check against 1 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 35 SRP 3.8.5 Foundations - Auxiliary Building SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis sliding and overturning attributable to earthquakes, winds, tornadoes and against flotation because of floods are acceptable if found to be in accordance with the following:

A. D + H + E B. D + H + W C. D + H + E' (i.e., SSE case)

D. D + H + Wt E. D + F' Where D, E, W, E' and Wt are as referenced in Subsection 11.3 of SRP Section 3.8.4, where H is the lateral earth pressure, and F' is the buoyant force of the design-basis flood .......

Note: There is a problem with above SRP paragraphas E and E' are not specifically used in the referenced section (symbols are different for use in requiredACI 349-97). Based on my experience, E' represents the SSE load term.

11.4. Design and Analysis Procedures See below.

The design and analysis procedures used for Seismic Category I foundations are acceptable if found to be in accordance with the following:

11.4.A. The design should consider the soil-structure See SRP Section 3.7.2 for Auxiliary Building.

interaction, hydrodynamic effect and dynamic soil Per review of FSARU Sections 3.7.2.1.7.1 and 3.8.2.1, there is no specific discussion of pressure. SSI, hydrodynamic effect and dynamic soil pressures effects regarding design of auxiliary building foundation. However, SSI is addressed in Section 4.2.1.1 of Appendix B to D CM T-6, including effect of sloping surface on the east side of the auxiliary building.

Effects associated with water in SFP and associated modeling approaches are addressed in Section 4.2.2 of Appendix B to DCM T-6.

2 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 35 SRP 3.8.5 Foundations - Auxiliary Building SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.4.B. For Seismic Category I concrete foundations Per FSARU Section 3.8.2.3.2.2 for evaluation of concrete structural elements, including other than the containment foundations, the foundation, to accommodate Hosgri loads and Sections 4.3.3.2 and 4.3.5.3 of DCM T-2, procedures are in accordance with the ACI 349, the Code of Record is ACI 318-63 for ultimate strength of concrete elements.

with additional guidance provided by RG 1.142.

11.4.D. For the containment foundation, if in The auxiliary building foundation is independent of the containment foundation.

accordance with the design and analysis procedures referenced in SRP Section 3.8.1, Subsection 11.4.

In addition to the above, the design and analysis See below.

procedures for the following details are reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

I1.4.A. Method for determination of the bending See SRP Section 3.7.2.

moments and shear forces in the foundation mat There is no explicit mention of methods to determine overturning moments or shear forces for seismic loads? in foundation induced by HE.

11.4.B. Performance of the sliding analysis method See SRP Section 3.7.2.

and how the analysis adequately accounts for These SRP topics associated with sliding analysis are not explicitly addressed.

potential foundation mat liftoff effects, if However, the configuration of the auxiliary building foundation (below-ground basement appropriate? The method to calculate the factor levels embedded into the bedrock) makes sliding impossible.

of safety against sliding. If sliding resistance is the sum of shear friction along the base mat and passive pressures induced by embedment effects, how these effects are considered in an analysis based on a consistent lateral displacement criterion?

11.4.C. Evaluation of the capability of a foundation to Application of waterproofing, or lack thereof, is not addressed.

transfer shear when waterproofing is used for a range of site conditions (soil sites with shear wave velocity of 1000 feet per second to hard rock?

3 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 35 SRP 3.8.5 Foundations - Auxiliary Building SFRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.4.D. The definition of dead load for uplift evaluations Per review of FSARU Sections 3.7.2.1.7.1 and 3.8.2.1, there is no specific discussion of (flotation and seismic overturning), including the dead load for uplift evaluations, including treatment of stored volume of water in pools.

treatment of the stored volume of water in any There are no flotation concerns with auxiliary building foundation as it is above ground pools? water table. However, effects associated with water in SFP and associated modeling approaches are addressed in Section 4.2.2 of Appendix B to DCM T-6.

11.4.F. The maximum toe pressure for base mat The maximum toe pressure for auxiliary building foundation is not quantified.

design under worst-case static and dynamic loads and its justification.

11.4.G. The stiff and soft spots evaluation in the The auxiliary building foundation is on bedrock and/or concrete fill on bedrock.

foundation soil to maximize the bending moments used in the design of the foundation mat.

11.5. Structural Acceptance Criteria Per FSARU Section 3.8.2.3.2.2 for evaluation of concrete sections for the HE, including the foundation, the Code of Record is ACI 318-63 for concrete design.

"For the loading combinations referenced in the first paragraph of Subsection 11.3 of this SRP Per FSARU Section 3.8.2.3.2.2 for evaluation of concrete sections for HE including the section, the allowable limits that constitute the foundations, the ultimate strength method for determining capacities shall be based on acceptance criteria are referenced in Subsection ACI 318-63.

11.5 of SRP Section 3.8.1 for the containment foundation and in Subsection 11.5 SRP Section FSARU Sections 3.8.2.6.1 and 3.8.2.6.2, indicate that average tested material strengths 3.8.4 for all other foundations. In addition, for the are used to determine concrete section capacities for the HE.

five other load combinations in Subsection 11.3 of this SRP section, the factors of safety against In FSARU Section 3.8.2, there is no mention of existing safety factors for overturning and overturning, sliding, and floatation are acceptable if sliding of auxiliary building foundation associated with the HE.

found to be in accordance with the following:"

For Load Combination C that involves the SSE term, the requiredsafety factor for overturning and sliding is specified as 1.1.

4 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 36 SRP 3.8.5 Foundations - Turbine Building SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2. Applicable Codes, Standards, and See below.

Specifications - The design, materials, fabrication, erection, inspection, testing, and surveillance, if any, of Seismic Category I foundations are covered by codes, standards, and guides, either applicable in their entirety or in part. Subsection 11.2 of SRP Section 3.8.4 includes a list of such documents:

11.2.- ACI 349 (Concrete) ACI 318-71 including the 1973 Supplement is used for the HE analyses cases, with ACI 318-63 being the original Code of Record for the turbine building.

11.2.- RG 1.142 (Safety Related Concrete ACI 318-71 including the 1973 Supplement is used for the HE analyses cases, with Structures for Nuclear Power Plants) ACI 318-63 being the original Code of Record for the turbine building.

11.2.- 11.2. - ANSI/AISC N690-1994 including Foundation demand loads are based on the load combinations for steel structures, which is Supplement 2 (2004) (Structural Steel) based on AISC 1969 Edition.

11.2.- RG 1.199 (Anchoring Components and Allowable tensile loads for rock bolts as limited by the strength of the bolt steel are Structural Supports in Concrete) determined in accordance with the acceptance criteria for reinforcing steel in concrete structures per ACI 31-8-71 (DCM T-4, Section 4.3.5.2).

11.3. Loads and Load Combinations - The specified See below.

loads and load combinations used in the design of Seismic Category I foundations are acceptable if found to be in accordance with:

11.3.B. Seismic Category I Foundations - See below.

Combinations listed in Subsection 11.3 of SRP Section 3.8.4:

1 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 36 SRP 3.8.5 Foundations - Turbine Building SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3.B.Concrete Structures - All loads and Foundation demand loads are based on the load combinations for steel structures as given load combinations to be in accordance with in DCM T-4, Sections 4.3.4.2(c) for the HE.

ACI 349 and RG 1.142, with supplemental criteria. 1.OY = D + LA + RA + HE 1.7S = D + LA+ RA + HE Per ACI 349:

U=D+F+L+H+To+Ro+Ess Y = The maximum strength of the section based on the methods and allowable stresses U=D+F+L+H+Ta+Ra+Pa+Yr+Yj+Ym+Ess defined in Part 2 of the AISC Specifications, 1969.

S = Capacity of the section based on Part 1 of the AISC Specifications, 1969 Edition (for load combinations including HE)

D = Dead loads LA = Live loads present during abnormal conditions HE = Hosgri earthquake loads RA = Pipe reactions during abnormal conditions 11.3. Additional load combinations used to check Evaluations for sliding and overturning are not mentioned in the FSARU or DCM T-4.

against sliding and overturning attributable to earthquakes, winds, tornadoes and against Lateral soil pressure does not appear in turbine building load combinations for the HE.

flotation because of floods in Section 11.3 of this SRP Section. See SRP Section 3.7.2 for details on sliding and overturning. FSARU Section 3.7.2.13 states, "The maximum overturning moments for Design Class I Structures are determined as D+H+E' (where H = lateral soil pressure) part of the time-history modal superposition analyses. Vertical earthquake is considered to act concurrently with the maximum horizontal overturning moments."

Sliding of foundations is not explicitly addressed, although the portions of the turbine building that are embedded into the bedrock (e.g., basements at the 12kV cable spreading rooms, circulating water conduits, and caissons for the buttresses) prevent sliding.

11.4. Design and Analysis Procedures - The design See below.

and analysis procedures used for Seismic Category I foundations are acceptable if found to be in accordance with the following:

2 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 36 SRP 3.8.5 Foundations - Turbine Building SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4.A. The design should consider the soil- The FSARU and DCMs T-4 and T-6, Appendix C do not address SSI or dynamic soil structure interaction, hydrodynamic effect, and pressures. The model for HE evaluation is a fixed base model. The main (original) portion dynamic soil pressure. of the foundation base mat rests on base rock or on lean concrete fill down to base rock. At the west end of the west buttress areas the basemat is underlain with compacted fill, and support is provided by reinforced concrete grade beams and by drilled concrete piles extending down to the base rock.

DCM T-4 Section 4.4.2 indicates that flooding loads are not applicable inside or outside the turbine building. Therefore, hydrodynamic effects need not be considered as they are not mentioned in DCM T-4 or FSARU.

11.4.B. For Seismic Category I concrete ACI 318-71 including the 1973 Supplement is used for HE analyses, with ACI 318-63 being foundations other than containment the original Code of Record for the turbine building.

foundations, the procedures are in accordance with the ACI 349, with additional guidance provided by IRG 1.142.

Additionally, the design and analysis procedures See below.

for the following details are reviewed on a case-by-case basis:

11.4.D. The definition of dead load for uplift Dead load is defined as the weight of the structure, permanent attachments, and permanent evaluations (floatation and seismic overturning), equipment. No specific definition with respect to uplift load cases is provided. The turbine including the treatment of the stored volume of building does not contain pools of stored water.

water in any pools?

(To be reviewed on a case-by-case basis) 11.4.E. Detail explanation of how settlement Settlement is not discussed in the FSARU or DCM T-4. The main (original) portion of the (including potential effects of static or dynamic foundation basemat rests on base rock or on lean concrete fill down to base rock. At the differential settlement) was considered. west end of the west buttress areas the basemat is underlain with compacted fill, and (To be reviewed on a case-by-case basis) support is provided by reinforced concrete grade beams and by drilled concrete piles extending down to the base rock.

3 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 36 SRP 3.8.5 Foundations - Turbine Building SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4.F. The maximum toe pressure for base mat No discussion of the maximum toe pressure or procedures used to determine the maximum design under worst-case static and dynamic toe pressure is provided in the FSARU or DCM T-4. Allowable foundation pressures are loads and its justification. noted in DCM T-4.

(To be reviewed on a case-by-case basis) 11.4.G. The stiff and soft spots evaluation in the The main (original) portion of the foundation basemat rests on base rock or on lean concrete foundation soil to maximize the bending fill down to base rock. At the west end of the west buttress areas the basemat is underlain moments used in the design of the foundation with compacted fill, and support is provided by reinforced concrete grade beams and by I mat. drilled concrete piles extending down to the base rock.

(To be reviewed on a case-by-case basis) 11.4.H. Description of the design details of critical Descriptions of design details of critical locations are addressed in DCMs T-4 and T-6, locations, such as the junction of sidewall and Appendix C.

base mat and the junctions of base mat to sumps.

(To be reviewed on a case-by-case basis) 11.5. Structural Acceptance Criteria - For each of the See below.

loading combinations delineated in Subsection 11.3 of this SRP section, the allowable limits that constitute the acceptance criteria are referenced as follows:

11.5. - Subsection 11.5 of SRP Section 3.8.4 for all See below.

other foundations:

11.5.- ACI 349 and RG 1.142 for concrete ACI 318-71 including the 1973 Supplement is used for HE analyses, with ACI 318-63 being structures the original Code of Record for the turbine building. Additionally, ductility and average tested material strengths were used for HE seismic analyses in-lieu of minimum code values.

4 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 36 SRP 3.8.5 Foundations.- Turbine Building SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.5. - For the five other load combinations in Overturning and sliding factors of safety are not explicitly mentioned in the FSARU or DCMs Subsection 11.3 of this SRP section, the factors of T-4 and T-6, Appendix C.

safety against overturning, sliding and flotation are acceptable if found in accordance with Subsection However, FSARU Section 3.7.2.13 states, "The maximum overturning moments for Design 11.5 of this SRP section. Class I Structures are determined as part of the time-history modal superposition analyses.

(Safety factor of 1.1 for sliding and overturning Vertical earthquake is considered to act concurrently with the maximum horizontal required for SSE event) overturning moments."

Sliding of foundations is not explicitly addressed, though the portions of the turbine building that are embedded into the bedrock (e.g., basements at the 12kV cable spreading rooms, circulating water conduits, and caissons for the buttresses) prevent sliding.

5 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 37 SRP 3.8.5 Foundations - Intake Structure SRP Acceptance Requirements DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2. Applicable Codes, Standards, and Specifications - See below.

The design, materials, fabrication, erection, inspection, testing, and surveillance, if any, of Seismic Category I structures are covered by codes, standards, and guides, either applicable in their entirety or in part.

Subsection 11.2 of SRP Section 3.8.4 includes a list of such documents:

11.2.- ACI 349 (Concrete) ACI 318-63 is the Code of Record for concrete design.

11.2.- RG 1.142 (Safety Related Concrete Structures for ACI 318-63 is the Code of Record for concrete design.

Nuclear Power Plants) 11.3. Loads and Load Combinations - The specified See below.

loads and load combinations used in the design of Seismic Category I foundations are acceptable iffound to be in accordance with:

11.3.B. Seismic Category I Foundations - Combinations See below.

listed in Subsection 11.3 of SRP Section 3.8.4:

1 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 37 SRP 3.8.5 Foundations - Intake Structure SRP Acceptance Requirements DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3.B.Concrete Structures - All loads and load The FSARU provides minimal loading information. The DCM T-5 provides much combinations to be in accordance with ACI 349 and more detail regarding intake structure loads.

RG 1.142, with supplemental criteria.

C=D+L+MH+Ro+HE+EP+DEP

1. U=D+F+L+H+To+Ro+Ess

2. U=D+F+L+H+Ta+Ra+Pa+Yr+Yj+Ym+Ess C = Combined load demand D = Dead loads L = Live loads MH = Mechanical and Hydraulic Loads due to the operation of circulating and ASW pumps.

Ro = Pipe Reactions EP = Static Lateral Earth Pressure DEP = Dynamic Lateral Earth Pressure HE = Loads due to Hosgri Earthquake Temperature loads (both To and Ta) are not listed in the DCM T-5 load combinations as required by ACI 349. Loads related to postulated pipe rupture (Ra, Pa, Yr, Yj, Ym) are not listed in the DCM T-5 load combinations, but normal pipe reactions (Ro) are included.

11.4. Design and Analysis Procedures - The design and See below.

analysis procedures used for Seismic Category I foundations are acceptable if found to be in accordance with the following:

11.4.B. For Seismic Category I concrete foundations other ACI 318-63 is the Code of Record for concrete design.

than containment foundations, the procedures are in accordance with the ACI 349, with additional guidance provided by RG 1.142.

Additionally, the design and analysis procedures for the See below.

following details are reviewed on a case-by-case basis:

2 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 37 SRP 3.8.5 Foundations - Intake Structure SRP Acceptance Requirements DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4.B. Performance of the sliding analysis method and The sliding analysis methods are not explicitly presented in the FSARU or how the analysis adequately accounts for potential DCM T-5. However, sliding and overturning are indeed design considerations foundation mat liftoff effects, if appropriate? as stated in DCM T-5, Sections 4.3.5.3 and 4.3.7.1.

(To be reviewed on a case-by-case basis) 11.4.B. The method to calculate the factor of safety against DCM T-5, Section 4.3.7.1 states the factor of safety against sliding is based on sliding. If sliding is the sum of shear friction along the the shear strength of the bedrock, 8.3 kips per square foot, and the action of base mat and passive pressures induced by shear keys formed by the basemat configuration.

embedment effects, how these effects are considered in an analysis based on a consistent lateral displacement criterion?

(To be reviewed on a case-by-case basis) 11.4.C. Evaluation of the capability of a foundation to Shear transfer with respect to waterproofing methods is not discussed in the transfer shear when waterproofing is used for a range FSARU or DCM T-5. DCM T-5, Section 4.3.7.1 states the shear strength of of site conditions (soil sites with shear wave velocity of the bedrock is 8.3 kips per square foot when interacting with shear keys formed 1000 feet per second to hard rock)? by the basemat.

(To be reviewed on a case-by-case basis) 11.4.D. The definition of dead load for uplift evaluations DCM T-6, Appendix D covers the treatment of equipment with regards to dead (floatation and seismic overturning), including the load and seismic mass. DCM T-6, Appendix D, Section 5 states that the effect treatment of the stored volume of water in any pools? of virtual mass of the contained water is considered in the north-south direction (To be reviewed on a case-by-case basis) by including the total mass of water tributary to the transverse piers. The effect of water in the response of the structure to an earthquake in the east-west direction or the vertical direction is negligible and is ignored (water can flow in and out of the structure and exerts relatively little force on the structure).

11.4.E. Detail explanation of how settlement (including Topic is not addressed in the FSARU or DCM T-5; however, the foundation is potential effects of static or dynamic differential located in an excavation into bedrock.

settlement) was considered.

(To be reviewed on a case-by-case basis) 3 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 37 SRP 3.8.5 Foundations - Intake Structure SRP Acceptance Requirements DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4.E. Evaluation of the allowable settlement (total and Topic is not addressed in the FSARU or DCM T-5; however, the foundation is differential) that can be accommodated in the located in an excavation into bedrock.

foundation/structures?

(To be reviewed on a case-by-case basis) 11.4.F. The maximum toe pressure for base mat design The maximum toe pressure demand for basemat design is not explicitly under worst-case static and dynamic loads and its presented in the FSARU of DCM T-5. However, DCM T-5, Section 4.3.5.3 justification. states that the allowable foundation bearing pressure is 50,000 psf.

(To be reviewed on a case-by-case basis) 11.4.G. The stiff and soft spots evaluation in the foundation DCM T-6, Appendix D, Section 4.2.1 states that fixed boundary conditions are soil to maximize the bending moments used in the used for Hosgri analysis. The foundation is located in an excavation into design of the foundation mat. bedrock.

(To be reviewed on a case-by-case basis) 11.4.1. Detail explanation of the load path from all Load path is generally described in DCMs T-5 and T-6, Appendix D.

superstructures to the foundation mat to the subgrade.

Discussion of any unique design features that occur in the load path (e.g., any safety-related function that the tendon gallery may have as part of the foundation in a prestressed containment or the connection of any internal structures to a steel containment and its supporting foundation).

(To be reviewed on a case-by-case basis)

Subsection 11.5 of SRP Section 3.8.4 for all other See below.

foundations:

4 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 37 SRP 3.8.5 Foundations - Intake Structure SRP Acceptance Requirements DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.5. Concrete Structures - ACI 349 and RG 1.142 The acceptance criteria used for the intake structure (foundation) are consistent with SRP acceptance criteria with the following exceptions:

Concrete structural elements are evaluated in accordance with ACI 318-63 methodology.

DCPP acceptance criteria allows the following:

For load combinations involving HE effects, the maximum strengths can be calculated using averages of tested material properties in-lieu of code-specified minimum values.

In the evaluation of required section strength, the Hosgri load demand may be reduced by considering the structure's ductility. For concrete, a ductility ratio of 1.3 is permitted.

5 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 38 SRP 3.8.5 Foundations - Outdoor Water Storage Tank (OWST)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2. Applicable Codes, Standards, and Specifications See below.

The design, materials, fabrication, erection, inspection, testing, and surveillance, if any, of Seismic Category I foundations are covered by codes, standards, and guides that are either applicable in their entirety or in part. Subsection 11.2 of SRP Section 3.8.4 includes a list of such documents. In addition, the documents listed in Subsection 11.2 of SRP Section 3.8.1 are acceptable for the containment foundation.

A list of such documents in above-mentioned SRP sections are as follows:

11.2. ACI 349 ("Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety- Note: ACI 349 will be discussed later in this table, under SRP Acceptance Criteria 3 Related Concrete Structures" with additional criteria (Loads and Load Combinations), 4 (Design and Analysis Procedures), and 5 provided by RG 1.142) (Structural Acceptance Criteria).

11.2. RG 1.142 ("Safety-Related Concrete Structures for Note: RG 1.142 is discussed later in this table, under SRP Acceptance Criteria 3 Nuclear Power Plants {Other Than Reactor Vessels (Loads and Load Combinations), 4 (Design and Analysis Procedures), and 5 and Containments)) (Structural Acceptance Criteria).

11.3. Loads and Load Combinations Per licensing and design basis relationship discussion of SRP acceptance criteria per iused in Subsection 11.3 of SRP Section 3.8.4 for OWST's, the governing load combination per thedespeigofSeiedsmc Canload cfomindations SRP criteria (ACI 349) for SSE is not equivalent to PG&E's load combination for HE.

the design of Seismic Category I foundations are acceptable if found to be in accordance with those The same extension process would apply for foundation qualification work for OWST's.

combinations referenced in ........ Subsection 11.3 of However, the additional SRP acceptance criteria for Load Combination C for SSE are SRP Section 3.8.4 for all other Seismic Category I equivalent to PG&E's load combination for HE and used for qualification of tank foundations. foundations.

In addition to the load combinations referenced above, the combinations used to check against sliding and overturning attributable to earthquakes, winds, tornadoes and against flotation because of floods are 1 of 3

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 38 SRP 3.8.5 Foundations - Outdoor Water Storage Tank (OWST)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis acceptable iffound to be in accordance with the following:

A. D + H + E B. D + H + W C. D + H + E' (i.e., SSE case)

D. D + H + Wt E. D + F' Where D, E, W, E' and Wt are as referenced in Subsection 11.3 of SRP Section 3.8.4, where H is the lateral earth pressure, and F' is the buoyant force of the design-basis flood....."

11.4. Design and Analysis Procedures See below.

The design and analysis procedures used for Seismic Category I foundations are acceptable if found to be in accordance with the following:

11.4.B. For Seismic Category I concrete foundations other Per FSARU Sections 3.8.4.1.2 and 3.8.3.5.2, and DCM T-28, Section 4.3.4.2, the Code than the containment foundations, the procedures are of Record is ACI 318-63 and ACI 318-71 for ultimate strength design of concrete in accordance with the ACI 349, with additional sections for HE.

guidance provided by RG 1.142.

11.4. In addition to the above, the design and analysis See below.

procedures for the following details are reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

11.4.A. Method for determination of the bending moments This SRP topic is not explicitly addressed in FSARU Sections 3.7.2, 3.8.3, and 3.8.4.

and shear forces in the foundation mat for seismic loads? Per Section 4.3.5.1 of DCMT-28, it is specified that OWST foundations were checked for overturning and sliding associated with HE. The foundations include rock anchors to prevent sliding, overturning and uplift.

2 of 3

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 38 SRP 3.8.5 Foundations - Outdoor Water Storage Tank (OWST)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4.C. Evaluation of the capability of a foundation to Application of waterproofing, or lack thereof, is not explicitly addressed in FSARU or transfer shear when waterproofing is used for a range DCM T-28.

of site conditions (soil sites with shear wave velocity of 1000 feet per second to hard rock?

11.4.D. The definition of dead load for uplift evaluations Per review of FSARU Sections 3.7.2 and 3.8.4 and DCM T-28, there is no explicit (flotation and seismic overturning), including the definition of dead load for uplift evaluations. There are no flotation concerns with treatment of the stored volume of water in any pools? OWST foundations as it is above ground water table.

However, per FSARU Section 3.8.3.1, the OWST's, including their foundations, are anchored to supporting bed rock to prevent sliding, overturning, and uplift.

11.4.F. The maximum toe pressure for base mat design The maximum toe pressure for OWST foundations are not quantified in FSARU or under worst-case static and dynamic loads and its DCM T-28.

justification.

11.5. Structural Acceptance Criteria The additional SRP acceptance criteria for Load Combination C and its associated "For the loading combinations referenced in the first required minimum safety factor thresholds for overturning and sliding to qualify paragraph of Subsection 11.3 of this SRP section, the foundations for OWST's for SSE event is not explicitly mentioned in FSARU Sections allowable limits that constitute the acceptance criteria 3.7.2, 3.8.3, and 3.8.4.

are referenced in Subsection 11.5 of SRP Section 3.8.1 However, per Section C.3.2.7.3 of SSER 18 regarding seismic qualification of for the containment foundation and in Subsection 11.5 foundations for RWSTs, the factor of safety against overturning and sliding is 1.60 SRP Section 3.8.4 for all other foundations. In based on DCP qualification work. This safety factor for RWST foundations exceeds addition, Subsection,for 11.fof thethefis five other load combinations in SoPsether nactios foad Subsection 11.3 of this SRP section, the factors of of the minimum SRP acceptance criteria of 1.1 for overturning and sliding.

safety against overturning, sliding, and floatation are Per Section 4.3.5.1 of DCM T-28, it is specified that foundations were checked for acceptable if found to be in accordance with the overturning and sliding associated with HE.

following:"

ForLoad Combination C that involves the SSE term, the requiredsafety factor for overturning and sliding is specified as 1.1.

3 of 3

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 39 SRP 3.9.1 Special Topics for Mechanical Components - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Fuel Assembly SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3 - To meet the requirements of GDCs 1, 14, and 15, if No additional experimental stress analysis methods are used in-lieu of analytical experimental stress analysis methods are used in lieu methods for seismic SSE load condition.

of analytical methods for any seismic Category I Code or non-Code items, the section of the SAR addressing the experimental stress analysis methods is acceptable if the information meets the provisions of Appendix I to ASME Code,Section III, Division 1 and, as in the case of analytical methods, if the information is sufficiently detailed to show the design meeting the provisions of the Code-required "Design Specifications."

1 of I

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 40 SRP 3.9.1 Special Topics for Mechanical Components - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Pressurizer SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2. To meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, a list Many computer programs are listed in the Westinghouse AOR. The programs are of computer programs to be used in dynamic and listed below.

static analyses to determine the structural and functional integrity of seismic Category I Code and Recently, steam generators were replaced; however, that did not have a bearing on non-Code items and the analyses to determine pressurizer seismic analysis. The programs listed below are based on the seismic stresses should be provided. For each program the analysis from the 1970s and 1980s era.

following information should be provided to demonstrate applicability and validity: SEAL-SHELL-2 C.M. Friedrich, "Seal-Shell-2, A Computer Program for the Stress Analysis of a Thick 11.2.A Author, source, dated version, and facility. Shell of Revolution with Axisymmetric Pressures, Temperatures, and Distributed Loads," WAPD-TM-398, Addendum II, Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, Pittsburgh, 11.2.B A description and the extent and limitation of its Pennsylvania, 1963.

application.

Description:

Finite element program of 2-D axisymmetric shell analysis.

TIGER:

D.L. Briggs, "Tiger, Temperatures from Internal Generation Rates," KAPL-M-EC-29, Knowles Atomic Power Laboratory, Schenectady, New York, 1963.

Description:

Thermal analysis program (with heat generation).

TIGER-P W.A. Rinne, "Tiger-P, Temperatures from Internal Generation Rates with Provision for Plotting Thermal Output," WTD-ED (SA-70-006, Tampa, Florida, 1970).

SHAKE Smith, Peter G., "Computer Program SHAKE,"

WTD-SM-74-027, Westinghouse Electric Corp.; Tampa Division, Tampa, Florida, April 1974.

Description:

Modal analysis program.

1 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 40 SRP 3.9.1 Special Topics for Mechanical Components - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Pressurizer SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis "Source Listing with Test Case," Computer Programs SHAKE-SHAPE-RESAN, Microfiche TFTES97 (07/16/74), Engineering Library, Westinghouse Electric Corp.,

Tampa Division, Tampa, Florida SHAPE Smith, Peter G., "Computer Program SHAPE," WTD-SM-74-033, Westinghouse Electric Corp., Tampa Division, Tampa, Florida, May 1974.

Description:

Mode shape plot program.

RESAN Smith, Peter G., "Computer Program RESAN," WTD-SM-74-034, Westinghouse Electric Corp., Tampa Division, Tampa, Florida, May 1974.

Description:

Applies response spectrum method to determine maximum response.

SSAP "Source Listing with Test Case," Computer Program SSAP, Microfiche TFSSA98 (07/17/74), Engineering Library, Westinghouse Electric Corp., Tampa Division, Tampa, Florida Smith, Peter G., "User's Guide to Computer Program SSAP," WTD-ED(SA)-72-023, Westinghouse Electric Corp., Tampa Division, Tampa, Florida, April 1972.

Description:

Linear elastic static analysis using beam elements and other elastic elements (derived from SAP).

Harrell, David L., "Verification of the SSAP Computer Program," WTD-SM-74-051, Westinghouse Electric Corp., Tampa Division, Tampa, Florida, June 1974.

2 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 40 SRP 3.9.1 Special Topics for Mechanical Components - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Pressurizer SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis SAP Wilson, Edward L., "SAP A General Structural Analysis Program," Report Number SESM-70-20, Structural Engineering Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California, September 1970.

PVAP "Source Listing with Test Case," Computer Program PVAP, Microfiche TFPVA89 (07/22/74), Engineering Library, Westinghouse Electric Corp., Tampa Division, Tampa, Florida Smith, Peter G., "Computer Program PVAP: Vibration Analysis of Plates," WTD-ED(SA)-70-021, Westinghouse Electric Corp., Tampa Division, Tampa, Florida, June 1970.

Description:

Determines frequencies and mode shapes for elastic plate structures SAPIV "Bathe, K.J., Wilson, E.L., and Peterson, F.E., "SAPIV A Structural Analysis Program for Static and Dynamic Response of Linear Systems," Report Number EERC-73-1 1, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California, June 1973.

Description:

Provides static and dynamic analysis for linear systems.

"Source Listing with Test Case," Computer Program SAP4, Microfiche TFSAP07 (07/16/74), Engineering Library, Westinghouse Electric Corp., Tampa Division, Tampa, Florida Sidhu, H.S., "Training and Reference Manual for Solid SAP," Analytical and Technical Services, Inc., P. 0. Box 672, Barrington, Illinois, 60010, 1973.

3 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 40 SRP 3.9.1 Special Topics for Mechanical Components - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Pressurizer SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis PSAP Smith, Peter P., "Computer Program PSAP,"

WTD-SM-74-036, Westinghouse Electric Corp., Tampa Division, Tampa, Florida, May 1974.

Description:

Provides post processing for SAP IVresults.

WHEAT "Transient and Steady State Heat Conduction by the Finite Element Method (WHEAT),"

WTD-ED(SA)-70-044, 1970.

Description:

Finite Element Method heat conduction program 4 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL- 11-124 Enclosure Attachment 40 SRP 3.9.1 Special Topics for Mechanical Components - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Pressurizer SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.C - The computer program solutions to a series of test Not listed for every program in the AOR.

problems demonstrated to be substantially similar to For some programs, the "source" listing (preceding section) indicates a test case or solutions obtained from any one of sources (i) to (iv) verification is included in the documentation.

and source (v):

(i) Hand calculations (ii) Analytical results published in relevant engineering literature (iii) Acceptable experimental results (iv) Results from a similar program within acceptable margins (v) The benchmark problems prescribed in NUREG/CR-1677, "Piping Benchmark Problems,"

Vols. I and I1.

11.4. - To meet the requirements of GDCs 1, 14, and 15, Appendix F not used in all cases.

when Service Level D limits are specified by the applicant for Code Class 1 and core support Service Level D applies; however, some AOR documents may predate the "Level D" components and for supports, reactor internals, and definition.

other non-Code items, the methods of analysis to calculate the stresses and deformations should conform to the methods outlined in Appendix F to ASME Code,Section III, Division 1, subject to the conditions addressed in subsection 111.4 of this SRP section (elastic or elastic-plastic methods).

5 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 41 SRP 3.9.1 Special Topics for Mechanical Components - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.1 - The transients used in the design and fatigue Fatigue evaluations are not applicable for faulted condition transients such as the HE.

analysis of Code Class 1 components, supports, and reactor internals within the reactor coolant pressure boundary are acceptable if (1)the transient conditions selected for equipment fatigue evaluations are based upon a conservative estimate of the magnitude and frequency of the temperature and pressure conditions, and (2) the transients and consequent loads and load combinations with appropriate specified design and service limits should provide a complete basis for the design of the reactor coolant pressure boundary for all conditions and events expected over the service lifetime of the plant.

11.2. A list of computer programs used in the dynamic The RCP seismic analysis was performed using a finite element dynamic model of the and static analyses to determine the structural and RCP. The ANSYS computer program was used to compute the system response.

functional integrity of seismic Category I Code and The ANSYS computer program is a finite element program that may be used for solving non-Code items and the analyses to determine several types of engineering analyses. The analysis capabilities of ANSYS include the stresses should be provided. For each program the ability to solve static structural analysis, dynamic structural analysis, and mode-following information should be provided to frequency analysis. The response spectrum option of ANSYS mode-frequency demonstrate applicability and validity, analysis was used. The ANSYS program used for the RCP seismic AOR was authored by Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc. (October 1972). All the other information required 11.2.A. The author, source, dated version, and facility, to be provided for this SRP criterion is not documented in the AOR. Additionally, due to the timeframe in which the analysis was performed (1975), the information required by 11.2.B. A description and the extent and limitation of its this SRP criterion could not be located, and it is not known what level of test problems application, were performed.

11.2.C. The computer program solutions to a series of test problems demonstrated to be substantially similar to solutions obtained from any one of sources (i) through (iv) and source (v).

(i) Hand calculations 1 of 2

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 41 SRP 3.9.1 Special Topics for Mechanical Components - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis (ii) Analytical results published in relevant engineering literature (iii) Acceptable experimental tests (iv) Results from a similar program within the acceptable margins (v) The benchmark problems prescribed in NUREG/CR-1677 "Piping Benchmark Problems."

Vols. I and II 11.3. Experimental stress analysis methods used in lieu Analytical stress analysis methods were used to evaluate the DCPP RCP's rather than of analytical methods for seismic Category I Code or experimental stress analysis methods.

non-Code items shall meet the provisions of Appendix IIto ASME Code,Section III, Division 1. In the case of analytical methods, the information should be sufficiently detailed to show the design meeting the provisions of the Code-required Design Specification.

11.4. When service Level D limits are specified for Code The Code used in the evaluation of the DCPP RCP pressure boundary components is Class 1 and core support components and for the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, 1968 Edition with Addenda supports, reactor internals, and other non-Code items, through Winter 1970. Appendix F to the ASME Code,Section III, Division 1 is not part the methods of analysis to calculate the stresses and of the 1968 Edition with Addenda through Winter 1970 Code and was introduced into deformations should conform to the methods outlined the Code in a later edition.

in Appendix F to ASME Code,Section III, Division 1.

2 of 2

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 42 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs. - Piping, Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.1 - Relevant requirements of GDCs 1, 2, 4, The seismic analysis for SSE - Hosgri is focused on the methods for dynamic 14, and 15 are met if vibration, thermal analysis. This section is applicable with regards to thermal expansion and vibration expansion, and dynamic effects testing are during startup. There is no issue with respect to the HE.

conducted during startup functional testing for specified high- and moderate-energy piping and their supports and restraints.

The purpose of these tests are to confirm that the piping, components, restraints, and supports have been designed to withstand the dynamic loadings and operational transient conditions encountered during service as required by the code and to confirm that no unacceptable restraint of normal thermal motion occurs.

11.2.A(i)4 - Consideration of maximum relative Relative seismic displacements or seismic anchor motions between supports on the displacements among supports of Category RCL piping system are not considered in the RCL piping seismic analyses. It has I systems and components. been assumed that the separate support locations are sufficiently rigid with respect to each other and no significant relative displacements would be present. For other than RCL piping, the seismic anchor motion between supports is considered when the relative displacement results in greater than 1/16 inch.

11.2.A(ii) - Equivalent Static Load Method. An The RCL piping analysis used the dynamic method.

equivalent static load method is acceptable if:

1. There is justification that the system can be realistically represented by a simple model and the method produces conservative results in responses. Typical 1 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 42 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs. - Piping, Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis examples or published results for similar systems may be submitted in support of the use of the simplified method.

2. The design and simplified analysis account for the relative motion between all points of support.

3. To obtain an equivalent static load of equipment or components which can be represented by a simple model, a factor of 1.5 is applied to the peak acceleration of the applicable floor response spectrum. A factor of less than 1.5 may be used with adequate justification.

11.2.C - Basis for Selection of Frequencies. To The primary equipment support structures are included in the seismic analyses only avoid resonance, the fundamental as stiffness matrices. Inertial masses of the support structures are not included in frequencies of components and equipment the RCL piping analyses, so frequency response effects from the primary equipment selected preferably should be less than 1/2 supports on the RCL piping are not considered.

or more than twice the dominant frequencies of the support structure. Use of equipment frequencies within this range is acceptable if the equipment is adequately designed for the applicable loads.

2 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 42 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs. - Piping, Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.D - Three Components of Earthquake The seismic analyses of piping (i.e., DE, DDE, and HE) were performed using the Motion. Depending upon what basic modal response spectrum analysis method. The SRP acceptance criteria are to methods are used in the seismic analysis combine all three component responses by the SRSS method at a modal level.

(i.e., response spectra or time history However, the RCL piping analyses used multiple cases of one horizontal and one method) the following two approaches are vertical direction component combined by the absolute sum method. The time-acceptable for the combination of three- history analysis method is not applicable to the RCL piping since the modal response dimensional earthquake effects. spectrum analysis method was used.

i. Response Spectra Method. When the response spectra method is adopted for seismic analysis, the maximum structural responses due to each of the three components of earthquake motion should be combined by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of the maximum codirectional responses caused by each of the three components of earthquake motion at a particular point of the structure or of the mathematical model.

ii. Time-History Analysis Method. When the time history analysis method is employed for seismic analysis, two types of analysis are generally performed depending on the complexity of the problem. (1) To obtain maximum responses to each of the three components of the earthquake motion. (2) To obtain time history responses from each of the three components of the earthquake motion and combine them at each time step algebraically.

3 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 42 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs. - Piping, Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.E - Combination of Modal Responses. The combination of modal responses is performed using the SRSS method. The SRP Section 3.7.2 and RG 1.92, SRSS method is not used to combine three directions response. In addition the "Combining Modal Responses and Spatial effects of closely spaced modes are not considered with the SRSS method. It was Components in Seismic Response used before the issuance of RG 1.92 defining the modal combination method for Analysis," present criteria and guidance for closely spaced modes.

modal response combination methods acceptable to the staff.

11.2.G.- Multiply-Supported Equipment and The response spectra from multiple elevations are considered in the RCL piping Components with Distinct Inputs. analyses, but it is done by creating one composite spectra from the multiple Equipment and components in some cases elevations and applying it to the entire model. The pieces of the response spectra are supported at several points by either a were selected based on the modal response of the RCL piping and the response single structure or two separate structures. spectrum itself was developed from a composite of accelerations from different The motions of the primary structure or spectra elevations.

structures at each of the support points may be quite different.

11.2.H - Use of Constant Vertical Static Factors. Dynamic analysis (i.e., response spectrum analysis) was performed to evaluate the The use of constant vertical load factors as vertical seismic response. Constant vertical load factors were not used.

vertical response loads for the seismic design of all Category I systems, components, equipment, and their supports in lieu of a vertical seismic system dynamic analysis is acceptable only if the structure is demonstrably rigid in the vertical direction. The criterion for rigidity is that the lowest frequency in the vertical direction be more than 33 Hz.

4 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 42 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs. - Piping, Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.1 - Torsional Effects of Eccentric Masses. No eccentric masses, such as valve operators, are on the RCL piping system.

For Seismic Category I systems, ifthe Lumped-mass models are provided from the steam generator, reactor pressure torsional effect of an eccentric mass like a vessel, and RCP groups to be included in the RCL piping system seismic analysis. It valve operator in a piping system is judged is assumed that the provided lumped-mass models sufficiently represent the to be significant, the eccentric mass and its components with respect to the impact to the RCL piping system analyses.

eccentricity should be included in the mathematical model. The criteria for significance will have to be determined case by case.

11.2.J - Category I Buried Piping System. For There is no buried RCL piping.

category I buried piping system, the following item should be considered in the analysis:

• Inertial effects due to an earthquake

• Effects of static resistance of the surrounding soil on piping

• Effects of local soil settlements, soil settlements, soil arching etc.

11.2.K - Interaction of Other Piping with RCL piping is Category I piping and is evaluated for seismic. Non-Category I piping Category I Piping. To be acceptable, each is addressed in "Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)" SRP 3.9.2, non-Category I piping system should be Subsection 11.2.(K).

designed to be isolated from any Category I piping system by either a constraint or barrier or should be located remotely from the seismic Category I piping system.

5 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 42 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs. - Piping, Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3 - SRP requirements related to vibration The SRP acceptance criteria are related to the vibration testing, evaluations, and testing, evaluations, and hydrodynamic hydrodynamic effects of the reactor internals. Not applicable to the RCL piping.

effects of the reactor internals.

11.4 - SRP requirements related to vibration The SRP acceptance criteria are related to the vibration testing, evaluations, and testing, evaluations, and hydrodynamic hydrodynamic effects of the reactor internals. Not applicable to the RCL piping.

effects of the reactor internals.

11.5 - For requirements of GDCs 2, 4, 14, and DCPP criteria combines the LOCA loading with Hosgri loading. The adequacy of the 15 dynamic system analyses should confirm reactor coolant piping to withstand LOCA loading in combination with Hosgri is the structural design adequacy of the reactor documented in DCPP's Corrective Action Program, reference SAP Notifications internals and the reactor coolant piping (SAPN) 50403189 and 50403377.

(unbroken loops) to withstand the dynamic loadings of the most severe LOCA in combination with the SSE. Mathematical models used for dynamic system analysis for LOCAs in combination with SSE effects should include the following:

11.5.D - The effects of flow upon the mass and Fluid flow does not significantly affect the seismic analyses. For the RCL piping flexibility properties of the system should be LOCA analyses, the effects of flow are considered through the use of time-history addressed. RCL piping hydraulic forcing functions.

11.6 - SRP acceptance criteria related to The SRP acceptance criteria are related to the reactor internals. Not applicable to correlation of tests and analyses of the the RCL piping.

reactor internals.

11.7 - SRP acceptance criteria related to The SRP acceptance criteria are related to equipment testing. Not applicable to the equipment testing. seismic analysis of the RCL piping.

6 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 43 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs. - Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.1 - Relevant requirements of GDCs 1, 2, 4, Not applicable because the seismic analysis for the HE is focused on the methods 14, and 15 are met if vibration, thermal for dynamic analysis. This section applies to thermal expansion and vibration during expansion, and dynamic effects testing are startup.

conducted during startup functional testing for specified high- and moderate-energy piping and their supports and restraints. The purpose of these tests are to confirm that the piping, components, restraints, and supports have been designed to withstand the dynamic loadings and operational transient conditions encountered during service as required by the code and to confirm that no unacceptable restraint of normal thermal motion occurs.

1 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 43 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs. - Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.A(ii) - Equivalent Static Load Method. An The simplified analysis of small bore piping (nominal pipe size of 2 inch or less) equivalent static load method is acceptable applies peak acceleration of the applicable building response spectra envelope if: (Reference DCM M-40, Section 2.1).

1. There is justification that the system can be realistically represented by a simple model and the method produces conservative results in responses. Typical examples or published results for similar systems may be submitted in support of the use of the simplified method.

2. The design and simplified analysis account for the relative motion between all points of support.

3. To obtain an equivalent static load of equipment or components which can be represented by a simple model, a factor of 1.5 is applied to the peak acceleration of the applicable floor response spectrum. A factor of less than 1.5 may be used with adequate justification.

2 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 43

$RP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs. - Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.D - Three Components of Earthquake The seismic analyses of piping were performed using the modal response Motion. Depending upon what basic spectrum analysis method. The piping analysis has used one horizontal direction methods are used in the seismic analysis and vertical direction component and combined by absolute sum method. Similarly, (i.e., response spectra or time history the other perpendicular horizontal direction and vertical direction component and method) the following two approaches are combined them using the absolute sum method.

acceptable for the combination of three-For the reactor head vent piping and reactor vessel level instrumentation system dimensional earthquake effects. (RVLIS) piping, which are an integral part of the integrated head assembly, the

i. Response Spectra Method. When the response for each mode is calculated for a particular direction earthquake (e.g., X).

response spectra method is adopted for Then those modes were combined by SRSS method. Then the same calculation is seismic analysis, the maximum structural performed for remaining two other directions. The result of X direction is combined responses due to each of the three with Y direction using absolute sum. Similarly, the result of Z is combined with Y components of earthquake motion should direction using absolute sum. The final result is obtained by selecting the maximum be combined by taking the square root of of X+Y and Y+Z.

the sum of the squares of the maximum codirectional responses caused by each of the three components of earthquake motion at a particular point of the structure or of the mathematical model.

ii. Time History Analysis Method. When the time history analysis method is employed for seismic analysis, two types of analysis are generally performed depending on the complexity of the problem. (1) To obtain maximum responses to each of the three components of the earthquake motion. (2)

To obtain time history responses from each of the three components of the earthquake motion and combine them at each time step algebraically.

3 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 43 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs. - Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.2.E - Combination of Modal Responses. SRP The combination of modal responses is performed using the SRSS method. The Section 3.7.2 and RG 1.92, "Combining effects of closely spaced modes are not considered with the SRSS method.

Modal Responses and Spatial Components in Seismic Response Analysis," present criteria and guidance for modal response combination methods acceptable to the staff.

11.2.G - Multiply-Supported Equipment and At DCPP, the SSRS method has been used to combine the inertia analysis with the Components with Distinct Inputs. Equipment relative movements of the structure.

and components in some cases are supported at several points by either a single structure or two separate structures.

The motions of the primary structure or structures at each of the support points may be quite different.

II. 2.J - Category I Buried Piping System. For See the response from SRP 3.7.3, Subsection II, Item 12, "Buried piping, conduits, category I buried piping system, the and Tunnels."

following item should be considered in the analysis:

• Inertial effects due to an earthquake

• Effects of static resistance of the surrounding soil on piping

• Effects of local soil settlements, soil settlements, soil arching etc.

4 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 43 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs. - Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3 - To meet the requirement of GDCs 1 and 4, Not applicable to the non-RCL piping.

the following guidelines, in addition to RG 1.20" Comprehensive Vibration Assessment Program for Reactor Internals During Preoperational and Initial Startup Testing", apply to the analytical solutions to predict vibrations of reactor internals for prototype plants.

11.4 - For requirements of GDCs 1 and 4, the Not applicable to the non-RCL piping.

preoperational vibration and stress test program for the internals of a prototype reactor, for existing reactors under consideration for power uprate, and for non-prototype reactors whose valid or conditional prototypes have experienced structural failures due to adverse flow effects in any plant (e.g., steam dryer cracking and valve failures) should conform to the requirements for a prototype test as specified in RG 1.20, including vibration prediction, vibration monitoring, adverse flow effects (flow-induced acoustic and structural resonances, data reduction, bias errors and uncertainty analysis, and walkdown and surface inspections.

5 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 43 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs. - Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.5 - For requirements of GDCs 2, 4, 14, and 15 The response for RCL system is provided in the SRP comparison table for "Piping, dynamic system analyses should confirm Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL)" SRP 3.9.2, Subsection 11.5.

the structural design adequacy of the reactor internals and the reactor coolant piping (unbroken loops) to withstand the dynamic loadings of the most severe LOCA in combination with the SSE. Where a substantial separation between the forcing frequencies of the LOCA (or SSE) loading and the natural frequencies of the internal structures can be demonstrated, the analysis may treat the loadings statically.

11.6 - SRP acceptance criteria related to Not applicable to the non-RCL piping.

correlation of tests and analyses of the reactor internals.

11.7 - SRP acceptance criteria related to Not applicable to the non-RCL piping.

equipment testing.

6 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 44 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Pipe Supports, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.2.A - Seismic Analysis Methods The subjects are related to piping and not pipe supports. See SRP 3.9.2 "Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)."

11.2.B - Determination of Number of The subjects are related to piping and not pipe supports. See SRP 3.9.2 "Piping, Earthquake Cycles. non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)."

11.2.D - Three Components of Earthquake The subjects are related to piping and not pipe supports. See SRP 3.9.2 "Piping, Motion non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)."

11.2.E - Combination of Modal Responses The subjects are related to piping and not pipe supports. See SRP 3.9.2 "Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)."

11.2.F - Analytical Procedures for Piping The subjects are related to piping and not pipe supports. See SRP 3.9.2 "Piping, Systems non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)."

11.2.G - Multiply-Supported Equipment and The subjects are related to piping and not pipe supports. See SRP 3.9.2 "Piping, Components With Distinct Inputs non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)."

11.2.H - Use of Constant Vertical Static Factors The subjects are related to piping and not pipe supports. See SRP 3.9.2 "Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)."

11.2.1 - Torsional Effects of Eccentric Masses The subjects are related to piping and not pipe supports. See SRP 3.9.2 "Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)."

11.2.J - Category I Buried Piping Systems The subjects are related to piping and not pipe supports. See SRP 3.9.2 "Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)."

11.2.L - Criteria Used for Damping The subjects are related to piping and not pipe supports. See SRP 3.9.2 "Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)."

1 of 3

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 44 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Pipe Supports, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3 - To meet the requirements of GDCs 1 and The subjects are related to piping and not pipe supports. See SRP 3.9.2 "Piping, 4, the following guidelines, in addition to non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)."

RG 1.20 "Comprehensive Vibration Assessment Program for Reactor Internals During Preoperational and Initial Startup Testing", apply to the analytical solutions to predict vibrations of reactor internals for prototype plants.

11.4 - For requirements of GDCs 1 and 4, the The subjects are related to piping and not pipe supports. See SRP 3.9.2 "Piping, preoperational vibration and stress test non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)."

program for the internals of a prototype reactor, for existing reactors under consideration for power uprate, and for non-prototype reactors whose valid or conditional prototypes have experienced structural failures due to adverse flow effects in any plant (e.g., steam dryer cracking and valve failures) should conform to the requirements for a prototype test as specified in RG 1.20, including vibration prediction, vibration monitoring, adverse flow effects (flow-induced acoustic and structural resonances, data reduction, bias errors and uncertainty analysis, and walkdown and surface inspections.

11.5 - For requirements of GDCs 2, 4, 14, and The subjects are related to piping and not pipe supports. See SRP 3.9.2 "Piping, 15 dynamic system analyses should non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)."

confirm the structural design adequacy of the reactor internals and the reactor coolant 2 of 3

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 44 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Pipe Supports, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis piping (unbroken loops) to withstand the dynamic loadings of the most severe LOCA in combination with the SSE. Where a substantial separation between the forcing frequencies of the LOCA (or SSE) loading and the natural frequencies of the internal structures can be demonstrated, the analysis may treat the loadings statically.

i 11.6 - For requirements of GDC 1, as to the The subjects are related to piping and not pipe supports. See SRP 3.9.2 "Piping, correlation of tests and analyses of reactor non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)."

internals, the applicant should address the following items to ensure the adequacy and sufficiency of the test and analysis results.

11.7 - For new applications, test specifications The subjects are related to piping and not pipe supports. See SRP 3.9.2 "Piping, should be in accordance with ASME OM- non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)."

S/G-1 990, "Standards and Guides For Operation of Nuclear Power Plants," Part 3, "Requirements for Preoperational and Initial Start-Up Vibration Testing of Nuclear Power Plant Piping Systems," and Part 7, "Requirements for Thermal Expansion Testing of Nuclear Power Plant Piping Systems."

3 of 3

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 45 SRP 3.9.2. Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse)

- Fuel Assembly SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.1. Relevant requirements of GDCs 1, 2, 4, 14, and 15 Not applicable to the fuel assembly SSE qualification.

are met if vibration, thermal expansion, and dynamic effects testing are conducted during startup functional testing for specified high- and moderate-energy piping and their supports and restraints. The purposes of these tests are to confirm that the piping, components, restraints, and supports have been designed to withstand the dynamic loadings and operational transient conditions encountered during service as required by the code and to confirm that no unacceptable restraint of normal thermal motion occurs. An acceptable test program to confirm the adequacy of the designs should include the following:

I1.1 .A. A list of systems to be monitored. Not applicable to the fuel assembly SSE qualification.

I1.1 .B. A list of the flow modes of operation and transients like pump trips, valve closures, etc. to which the components will be subjected during the test. (For additional guidance see RG 1.68). For example, the transients of the reactor coolant system heatup tests should include but not necessarily be limited to:

(i) Reactor coolant pump start.

(ii) Reactor coolant pump trip.

(iii) Operation of pressure-relieving valves.

(iv) Closure of a turbine stop valve.

I1.1.D. A list of snubbers on systems which experience sufficient thermal movement to measure snubber travel from cold to hot position.

11.1.E. A description of the thermal motion monitoring program (i.e., verification of snubber movement, 1 of 14

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 45 SRP 3.9.2. Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse)

- Fuel Assembly SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis adequate clearances and gaps, including acceptance criteria and how motion will be measured).

II.1.F. If vibration is noted beyond the acceptance levels set by the criteria of Item I1.1.C above, corrective restraints should be designed, incorporated in the piping system analysis, and installed. If, during the test, piping system restraints are determined to be inadequate or are damaged, corrective restraints should be installed and another test should determine whether the vibrations have been reduced to an acceptable level. If no snubber piston travel is measured at those stations indicated in Item I1.1.D of the acceptance criteria, the corrective action to be taken to ensure that the snubber is operable should be described.

11.2.A.(ii) Equivalent Static Load Method. An equivalent A direct integration time-history method is used.

static load method is acceptable if:

(1) There is justification that the system can be realistically represented by a simple model and the method produces conservative results in responses.

Typical examples or published results for similar systems may be submitted in support of the use of the simplified method.

(2) The design and simplified analysis account for the relative motion between all points of support.

(3) To obtain an equivalent static load of equipment or components which can be represented by a simple model, a factor of 1.5 is applied to the peak acceleration of the applicable floor response spectrum. A factor of less than 1.5 may be used with 2 of 14

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 45 SRP 3.9.2. Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse)

- Fuel Assembly SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis adequate justification. In addition, for equipment which can be modeled adequately as a one-degree-of-freedom system, the use of a static load equivalent to the peak of the floor response spectra is acceptable.

For piping supported at only two points, the use of a static load equivalent to the peak of the floor response spectra is also acceptable.

11.2.D.(i) Response Spectra Method. When the response A direct integration time-history method is used.

spectra method is adopted for seismic analysis, the maximum structural responses due to each of the three components of earthquake motion should be combined by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of the maximum codirectional responses caused by each of the three components of earthquake motion at a particular point of the structure or of the mathematical model.

11.2.E. Combination of Modal Responses. SRP Section The fuel assembly seismic analysis is based on the direct integration time-history 3.7.2 and RG 1.92, "Combining Modal Responses and method. No modal responses are generated for the core plates.

Spatial Components in Seismic Response Analysis,"

present criteria and guidance for modal response combination methods acceptable to the staff.

11.2.F. Analytical Procedures for Piping Systems. The Not applicable to the fuel assembly.

seismic analysis of Category I piping may use either a dynamic analysis or an equivalent static load method.

The acceptance criteria for the dynamic analysis or equivalent static load methods are described in subsection 11.2.A of this SRP section.

11.2.G. Multiply-Supported Equipment and Components Not applicable to the fuel assembly.

With Distinct Inputs. Equipment and components in 3 of 14

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 45 SRP 3.9.2. Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse)

- Fuel Assembly SRP Acceptance Criteria I DCPP Design/Licensing Basis some cases are supported at several points by either a single structure or two separate structures. The motions of the primary structure or structures at each of the support points may be quite different. A conservative and acceptable approach for equipment items supported at two or more locations is to use an upper-bound envelope of all the individual response spectra for these locations to calculate maximum inertial responses of multiply-supported items. In addition, the relative displacements at the support points should be considered. Conventional static analysis procedures are acceptable for this purpose.

The maximum relative support displacements can be obtained from the structural response calculations or, as a conservative approximation, from the floor response spectra. For the latter option, the maximum displacement of each support (Sd) is predicted by:

where Sa is the spectral acceleration in "g's"at the high frequency end of the spectrum curve (which, in turn, is equal to the maximum floor acceleration), g is the gravity constant, and w is the fundamental frequency of the primary support structure in radians per second. The support displacements can then be imposed on the supported item in the most unfavorable combination. The responses due to the inertia effect and relative displacements should be combined by the absolute sum method.

In the case of multiple supports located in a single structure, an alternate acceptable method using the floor response spectra determines dynamic responses due to the worst single floor response spectrum selected from a set of floor response spectra at various floors and applied identically to all the floors 4 of 14

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 45 SRP 3.9.2. Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse)

- Fuel Assembly SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis provided there is no significant shift in frequencies of the spectra peaks. In addition, the support displacements should be imposed on the supported item in the most unfavorable combination by static analysis procedures. Further criteria and methods for the evaluation of multiple support arrangement analysis issues are described in SRP Sections 3.7.2 and 3.7.3. These methods can result in overestimation of seismic responses. Acceptable alternate resppnse spectrum analysis methods that provide more realistic estimation of seismic responses are discussed in subsection 11.9 of SRP Section 3.7.3.

In lieu of the response spectrum approach, time histories of support motions may be used as excitations to the systems. Because of the increased analytical effort compared to the response spectrum techniques, usually only a major equipment system would warrant a time history approach. The time history approach does, however, provide more realistic results in some cases as compared to the response spectrum envelope method for multiply-supported systems.

11.2.1. Torsional Effects of Eccentric Masses. For Seismic There are no torsional effects of eccentric masses for the fuel assembly.

Category I systems, if the torsional effect of an eccentric mass like a valve operator in a piping system is judged to be significant, the eccentric mass and its eccentricity should be included in the mathematical model. The criteria for significance will have to be determined case by case.

11.2.J. Category I Buried Piping Systems. For Category I Not applicable to the fuel assembly.

buried piping systems, the following items should be 5 of 14

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 45 SRP 3.9.2. Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse)

- Fuel Assembly SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis considered in the analysis:

(i) The inertial effects due to an earthquake upon buried piping systems should be adequately considered in the analysis. Use of the procedures described in the references is acceptable.

(ii) The effects of static resistance of the surrounding soil on piping deformations or displacements, differential movements of piping anchors, bent geometry and curvature changes, etc., should be adequately considered. Use of the procedures described in the references is acceptable.

(iii) When applicable, the effects of local soil settlements, soil arching, etc., also should be considered in the analysis.

11.2.K. Interaction of Other Piping with Category I Piping. Not applicable to the fuel assembly.

To be acceptable, each non-Category I piping system should be designed to be isolated from any Category I piping system by either a constraint or barrier or should be located remotely from the seismic Category I piping system. If isolation of the Category I piping system is not feasible or practical, adjacent non-Category I piping should be analyzed according to the same seismic criteria applicable to the Category I piping system. For non-Category I piping systems attached to Category I piping systems, the dynamic effects of the non-Category I piping should be simulated in the modeling of the Category I piping.

The attached non-Category I piping, up to the first anchor beyond the interface, also should be designed not to cause a failure of the Category I piping during an earthquake of SSE intensity.

6 of 14

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 45 SRP 3.9.2. Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse)

- Fuel Assembly SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3.A. The results of vibration & stress calculations should Not applicable to the fuel assembly.

consist of the following:

11.3.A.(i) Dynamic responses to operating transients at critical locations of the internal structures should be determined and, in particular, at the locations where vibration sensors will be mounted on the reactor internals. For each location, the maximum response, the modal contribution to the total response, (in case of cyclic or resonant behavior), and the response causing the maximum stress amplitude should be calculated.

11.3.A.(ii) - The damping factors for different modes should be properly selected and substantiated. In prior submissions, utilities have cited NRC damping guidance for very low frequency seismic analyses as justification for high damping factors for mid-to-high frequency analyses. RG 1.20 corrects this guidance and requires that damping factors used in structural dynamic modeling be based on mid- to high-frequency measurements or rigorous analyses conducted on structures typical of the reactor internal structure modeled.

11.3.B.(ii).(1 ).(d) - Whether the size of the scale model is A full-size scale model was tested.

sufficiently large to allow investigation of small relevant details in geometry (e.g., branch line openings).

11.3.B.(ii).(1 ).(e) - Validation of the SMT results by A full-size scale model was tested.

measurements in nuclear power plants.

7 of 14

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 45 SRP 3.9.2. Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse)

- Fuel Assembly SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3.B.(ii).(2) CFD - If CFD simulations are used to develop No CFD simulations were used for the fuel assembly models.

unsteady forcing functions, the following areas should be considered.

11.3.B.(ii).(2).(a) - Include acoustic/vibration coupling to No CFD simulations were used to develop unsteady forcing functions.

simulate enhancement of flow instabilities (if any).

11.3. B.(ii).(2).(b) Grid size sensitivity tests.

11.3.B.(ii).(2).(c) The Courant number requirement should be met.

11.3. B.(ii).(2).(d) There should be unsteady simulations using Large Eddy Simulation (LES) or Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) at high Reynolds number flow and including compressibility effects to model any coupling of the flow with the acoustic waves in the fluid (self-excitation or lock-in effects).

11.3.B.(ii).(2).(e) Real gas simulation should be used (i.e.,

use state equation of steam as real gas).

11.3.B.(ii).(2).(f) The simulation procedures should be validated on similar (i.e., complex and high Reynolds number) flow situations.

11.3.B.(ii).(3) - Acoustic Modeling of Steam System: If an No acoustic modeling of steam system is computed for the fuel assembly at SSE load acoustic model of the steam system (the steam within conditions.

the MSLs and the RPV) computes fluctuating pressures within the RPV and on BWR steam dryers inferred from measurements of fluctuating pressures within the MSLs connected to the RPV, the following areas should be considered.

8 of 14

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 45 SRP 3.9.2. Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse)

- Fuel Assembly SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis ll.3.B.(ii).(3).(a) - There should be at least two Not applicable to pressurized water reactors (PWR).

measurement locations on each MSL in a BWR; however, three measurement locations on the MSLs improve input data to an acoustic model, particularly if the locations are spaced logarithmically, reducing uncertainty in describing the waves coming from and going into the RPV. With two or three measurement locations, there should be no acoustic sources between the measurement locations, unless justified.

11.3.B.(ii).(3).(b) - Strain gages (at least four gages No acoustic modeling of steam system is computed for the fuel assembly at SSE load circumferentially oriented and placed at equal distance conditions.

along the circumference) may be used to relate the hoop strain in the MSL to the internal pressure. Strain gages should be calibrated according to the MSL dimensions (diameter, thickness, and static pressure).

Alternatively, pressure measurements made with transducers flush-mounted against the MSL internal surface may be used. The effects of flow turbulence on any direct pressure measurements should be considered, however.

11.3.B.(ii).(3).(c) - The speed of sound in any acoustic models should not be changed from plant to plant but rather be a function of temperature and steam quality.

ll.3.B.(ii).(3).(d) - Reflection coefficients at any boundary between steam and water should be based on rigorous modeling or on direct measurement. The uncertainty of the reflection coefficients should be clearly defined.

9 of 14

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 45 SRP 3.9.2. Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse)

- Fuel Assembly SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3.1B.(ii).(3).(e) - Any sound attenuation coefficients should be a function of steam quality (variable between the chimney and reactor dome) rather than constant throughout a steam volume (like the volume within the RPV).

1I.3.B.(ii).(3).(f) - Once validated, the same speed of sound, attenuation coefficient, and reflection coefficient should be used in other plants; however, different flow conditions (temperature, pressure, quality factor) may require adjustments of these parameters.

11.3.B.(ii).(4) Response-deduction method: based on a No response-deduction method is computed for the fuel assembly at SSE load derivation of response characteristics from plant or condition.

SMT data, forcing functions should be formulated; however, as such functions may not be unique and are also expected to depend on material properties and loss factors, the computational procedures and the basis for selection of the representative forcing functions should be described together with all bias errors and uncertainties (see subsection 11.3.B.(ii)(1) of this SRP section, "Scale Model Tests," for guidelines on inferring forcing functions from plant or scale model testing data). Alternately, the applicant/licensee may use other approaches to formulate the forcing function. However, sufficient supporting justification should be provided to demonstrate that the selected approach is technically sound and realistically predicts the forcing function. In addition, an assessment of bias errors and uncertainties should be provided.

i 11.3.C.(iii) If the forcinq functions are not predetermined, The LOCA forcing functions of the reactor internal model were predetermined by 10 of 14

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 45 SRP 3.9.2. Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse)

- Fuel Assembly SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis either a special analysis of response signals Westinghouse's LOCA group.

measured from reactor internals of similar design may predict amplitude and modal contributions or parameter studies useful for extrapolating the results from tests of internals or components of similar designs based on composite statistics may be used.

The latter approach should be used only when the expectation that flow-induced vibration or acoustic resonance will not occur for the operation conditions covering the extrapolated range of the forcing functions is shown beyond doubt.

11.4. For requirements of GDCs 1 and 4, the Not applicable to the fuel assembly SSE qualification.

preoperational vibration and stress test program for the internals of a prototype reactor, for existing reactors under consideration for power uprate, and for non-prototype reactors whose valid or conditional prototypes have experienced structural failures due to adverse flow effects in any plant (e.g., steam dryer cracking and valve failures) should conform to the requirements for a prototype test as specified in RG 1.20, including vibration prediction, vibration monitoring, adverse flow effects (flow-induced acoustic and structural resonances, data reduction, bias errors and uncertainty analysis, and walkdown and surface inspections. The test program to demonstrate design adequacy of the reactor internals should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:

11.4.A. The vibration testing should be conducted with the This acceptance criterion does not apply to the analysis of the fuel assembly SSE fuel elements in the core or with dummy elements with qualification.

equivalent dynamic effects and flow characteristics.

11 of 14

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 45 SRP 3.9.2. Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse)

- Fuel Assembly SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis Testing without fuel elements in the core may be acceptable if testing in this mode is demonstrably conservative.

11.4.C. Testing to evaluate potential adverse flow effects This acceptance criterion does not apply to the analysis of the fuel assembly SSE on reactor internal components should include the qualification.

steam dryer and MSL valves. The instrumentation directly mounted on the steam dryer should include pressure sensors, strain gages, and accelerometers.

The MSLs also should be instrumented to collect data to determine steam pressure fluctuations to identify the presence of flow-excited acoustic resonances and to allow the analysis of those pressure fluctuations to calculate MSL valve loading and vibration and steam dryer loading and stress. Accelerometers should be mounted on the main steam valves to record the presence and the level of any flow-excited acoustic resonance or vibration.

11.4.E. Testing should include all of the flow modes of No fuel assembly testing is performed for upset transient flow conditions. Not normal operation and upset transients. The proposed applicable to fuel assembly SSE qualification.

set of flow modes is acceptable if it provides a conservative basis for determining the dynamic response of the tested components and is reviewed on request. The power ascension program for startup testing should include specific hold points with sufficiently long duration to allow data recording and reduction, comparisons with predetermined limit loading, and inspections and walkdowns for steam, feedwater, and condensate systems. The test program also should include details of actions to be taken if acceptance criteria are not satisfied. Further information on test procedure is addressed in RG 1.20.

12 of 14

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 45 SRP 3.9.2. Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse)

- Fuel Assembly SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4.H. The applicant/licensee is expected to provide a This request is for plant startup and power ascension, and does not directly apply to summary evaluation of plant startup and power the fuel assembly analyses SSE qualification.

ascension to the staff within 90 days of plant startup. If full licensed power is not achieved in that time period, the applicant/licensee is expected to provide a supplemental report within 30 days after achieving full licensed power.

11.5.C. Any system structural partitioning and directional There is no structural partitioning or directional decoupling in the fuel dynamic system decoupling in the dynamic system modeling should be modeling.

justified.

11.6.C. Comparison of the response amplitude time Not applicable to the reactor internal and fuel assembly SSE qualification.

variation and the frequency content from test and analysis for verification of the postulated forcing function.

11.6.D. Comparison of the measured amplitudes, Not applicable to the reactor internal and fuel assembly SSE qualification.

frequencies, and time variations of loads with those predicted by test-analysis combination method for validation of the predicted forcing function.

11.6.G. Comparison of measurements and predictions of No flow-excited acoustic and/or structural resonance is induced by the SSE load.

any adverse flow phenomena (e.g., flow-excited acoustic and/or structural resonances) for validation of the model(s) predicting the loading induced by the phenomena.

11.7. For new applications, test specifications should be in Not applicable to the fuel assembly.

accordance with ASME OM-S/G-1990, "Standards and Guides For Operation of Nuclear Power Plants,"

Part 3, "Requirements for Preoperational and Initial Start-Up Vibration Testing of Nuclear Power Plant 13 of 14

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 45 SRP 3.9.2. Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse)

- Fuel Assembly SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis Piping Systems," and Part 7, "Requirements for Thermal Expansion Testing of Nuclear Power Plant Piping Systems."

14 of 14

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 46 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Pressurizer SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.1. Relevant requirements of GDCs 1, 2, 4, 14, and 15 Not applicable to HE seismic evaluation of the pressurizer.

are met if vibration, thermal expansion, and dynamic effects testing are conducted during startup functional testing for specified high- and moderate-energy piping and their supports and restraints. The purposes of these tests are to confirm that the piping, components, restraints, and supports have been designed to withstand the dynamic loadings and operational transient conditions encountered during service as required by the code and to confirm that no unacceptable restraint of normal thermal motion occurs.

An.acceptable test program to confirm the adequacy of the designs should include the following:

I1.1.A. - A list of systems to be monitored.

11.1 .B. - A list of the flow modes of operation and transients like pump trips, valve closures, etc. to which the components will be subjected during the test. (For additional guidance see RG 1.68). For example, the transients of the reactor coolant system heatup tests should include but not necessarily be limited to:

(i) Reactor coolant pump start.

(ii)Reactor coolant pump trip.

(iii) Operation of pressure-relieving valves.

(iv) Closure of a turbine stop valve.

11.2.B - Determination of Number of Earthquake Cycles. Not applicable to HE seismic evaluation of the pressurizer.

The number of earthquake cycles during one seismic event, the maximum number of cycles for which applicable systems and components are designed, and the criteria and the applicant's procedures to establish these parameters are reviewed by the staff in 1 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 46 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Pressurizer SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis accordance with the guidance of SRP Section 3.7.3.

11.2.F - Analytical Procedures for Piping Systems. The Not applicable for pressurizer.

seismic analysis of Category I piping may use either a dynamic analysis or an equivalent static load method.

11.2.H - Use of Constant Vertical Static Factors. The use of The modeling and load analyses were carried out with use of vertical spectra as constant vertical load factors as vertical response opposed to use of a constant vertical seismic load factor.

loads for the seismic design of all Category I systems, components, equipment, and their supports in lieu of a vertical seismic system dynamic analysis is acceptable only if the structure is demonstrably rigid in the vertical direction. The criterion for rigidity is that the lowest frequency in the vertical direction be more than 33 Hz.

11.2.1 - Torsional Effects of Eccentric Masses. For Seismic Not applicable for pressurizer.

Category I systems, if the torsional effect of an eccentric mass like a valve operator in a piping system is judged to be significant, the eccentric mass and its eccentricity should be included in the mathematical model. The criteria for significance will have to be determined case by case.

11.2.J - Category 1 Buried Piping System Not applicable for pressurizer.

11.2.K - Interaction of Other Piping with Category I Piping Not applicable for pressurizer.

11.2.L - Criteria Used for Damping. RG 1.61, "Damping For Westinghouse qualified RCS (i.e., reactor pressure vessel, steam generators and Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants," Pressurizer), a damping value of 4 % was used rather than 3 % as shown in RG 1.61 provides acceptable values which may be used. The (SSER 7, Section 3.9.3.2) (WCAP 7921-AR, May 1974).

methods for analysis of damping should be consistent with those described in SRP Section 3.7.2.

2 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 46 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Pressurizer SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3 - To meet the requirements of GDCs 1 and 4, the Not applicable for Pressurizer.

following guidelines, in addition to RG 1.20 "Comprehensive Vibration Assessment Program for Reactor Internals During Preoperational and initial Startup Testing", apply to the analysis solutions to predict vibration of reactor internals for prototype plants.

11.4. - For requirements of GDCs 1 and 4, the Not applicable for pressurizer.

preoperational vibration and stress test program for the internals of a prototype reactor, for existing reactors under consideration for power uprate, and for non-prototype reactors whose valid or conditional prototypes have experienced structural failures due to adverse flow effects in any plant (e.g., steam dryer cracking and valve failures) should conform to the requirements for a prototype test as specified in RG 1.20, 11.5 - For requirements of GDCs 2, 4, 14, and 15 dynamic Not applicable for pressurizer.

system analyses should confirm the structural design adequacy of the reactor internals and the reactor coolant piping (unbroken loops) to withstand the dynamic loadings of the most severe LOCA in combination with the SSE.

11.6 - For requirements of GDC 1, as to the correlation of Not applicable for pressurizer.

tests and analyses of reactor internals, the applicant should address the following items to ensure the adequacy and sufficiency of the test and analysis results.

3 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 46 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Pressurizer SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.6.A - Comparison of the measured response frequencies with the analytically obtained natural frequencies of the reactor internals for validation of the mathematical models used in the analysis. Comparison of the measured and predicted damping factors as a function of natural frequencies for validation of the damping assumed in the analysis.

11.6.B. - Comparison of the analytically obtained mode shapes with the shape of measured motion for identification of the modal combination or verification of a specific mode.

11.6.C. - Comparison of the response amplitude time variation and the frequency content from test and analysis for verification of the postulated forcing function.

11.6.D. - Comparison of the measured amplitudes, frequencies, and time variations of loads with those predicted by test-analysis combination method for validation of the predicted forcing function.

11.6.E. - Comparison of the maximum responses from test and analysis for verification of stress levels.

11.6.F. - Comparison of the mathematical model for dynamic system analysis under operational flow transients and under combined LOCA and SSE loadings for similarities.

11.6.G. - Comparison of measurements and predictions of any adverse flow phenomena (e.g., flow-excited 4 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 46 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Pressurizer SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis acoustic and/or structural resonances) for validation of the model(s) predicting the loading induced by the phenomena.

11.7: - For new applications, test specifications should be in Not applicable for pressurizer.

accordance with ASME OM-S/G-1990, "Standards and Guides For Operation of Nuclear Power Plants," Part 3, "Requirements for Preoperational and Initial Start-Up Vibration Testing of Nuclear Power Plant Piping Systems," and Part 7, "Requirements for Thermal Expansion Testing of Nuclear Power Plant Piping Systems."

5 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 47 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse)

- Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.1 - Relevant requirements of GDCs 1, 2, 4, 14, and 15 Not applicable to RCP seismic analysis.

are met if vibration, thermal expansion, and dynamic effects testing are conducted during startup functional testing for specified high- and moderate-energy piping and their supports and restraints. The purposes of these tests are to confirm that the piping, components, restraints, and supports have been designed to withstand the dynamic loadings and operational transient conditions encountered during service as required by the code and to confirm that no unacceptable restraint of normal thermal motion occurs.

11.2.A.(i).(4) - Maximum relative displacements among Relative seismic displacements between supports are not considered for the RCP supports of Category I systems and components is seismic analysis. The RCP supports are represented in the RCP seismic analysis considered, model as a single stiffness matrix, which is reported in the RCP design specification.

It is assumed that support locations are sufficiently rigid with respect to one another that no significant relative displacements would be present.

11.2.A.(ii).(1) through (3) - "Equivalent Static Analysis": Dynamic analysis was performed.

11.2.B - The number of earthquake cycles during 1 seismic HE is considered a faulted condition earthquake event for which no fatigue evaluation event, the maximum number of cycles for which would be required.

applicable systems and components are designed, and the criteria and the applicant's procedures to establish these parameters are reviewed by the staff in accordance with guidance of SRP Section 3.7.3.

1 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 47 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse)

- Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.C - The fundamental frequencies of components and The RCP is designed for the applicable loads defined in the design specification and equipment selected preferably should be less than /2 the HE faulted load condition.

or more than twice the dominant frequencies of the support structure to avoid resonance. Use of equipment frequencies within this range is acceptable if the equipment is adequately designed for the applicable loads.

11.2.D.(i) - When the response spectra method is adopted The RCP seismic analysis combines 2-dimensional earthquake effects and does not for seismic analysis, the maximum structural combine 3-dimensional earthquake effects. Additionally, the RCP seismic AOR does responses due to each of the 3 components of not combine the maximum co-directional responses caused by the components of earthquake motion should be combined by taking the earthquake motion. Instead, the RCP seismic analysis first adds the greater absolute SRSS of the maximum codirectional responses value of the X and Z horizontal response of each mode to the absolute value of the Y caused by each of the 3 components of earthquake vertical response of the corresponding mode [H1 +V1 , H2+V2, Hn+Vn], then combines motion at a particular point of the structure or the the resulting values using the SRSS method:

mathematical model.

{(H1 +Vl )2+ (H2+V2 )2+. .. (Hn+Vn )A2)}112.

Hi... H, = absolute horizontal response for modes 1 ... n, V 1 .. .Vn = absolute vertical response for modes 1... n 11.2.D.(ii) - Requirement is for time history analysis Seismic response spectra analysis was performed.

method.

11.2.E - Criteria and guidance acceptable to the staff for The modal response combination for the RCP seismic analysis is not in accordance modal response combination methods are presented with RG 1.92. The response combination for the RCP seismic analysis is as follows:

in SRP Section 3.7.2 and RG 1.92"Combining Modal Total response = {(H1+V1 ) 2+(H2+V2) 2+. .. (Hn+Vn)A21"2.

Responses and Spatial Components in Seismic where, Response Analysis". H,... Hn = absolute horizontal response for modes 1 ... n, V 1 .. .Vn = absolute vertical response for modes 1... n The combination method above combines the directional spatial response using a 2-dimensional absolute sum method and the modal response using the SRSS method.

2 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 47 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse)

- Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.F - Requirement is for seismic analysis of Category I Not applicable to RCP seismic analysis.

piping.

11.2.G - Equipment and components in some cases are The RCP seismic analysis does not consider different spectra as input at multiple supported at several points by either a single structure support locations. The RCP seismic model represents the RCP supports as one or two separate structures. The motions of the primary stiffness matrix and applies the response spectra input to the support (i.e., stiffness structure or structures at each of the support points matrix). It is assumed that support locations are sufficiently rigid with respect to one may be quite different. A conservative and acceptable another, and relatively close, such that no significant differences in support motion approach for equipment items supported at two or would be present.

more locations is to use an upper-bound envelope of all the individual response spectra for these locations to calculate the maximum inertial responses of multiply-supported items. In addition, the relative displacements at the support points should be considered.

11.2.H - The use of constant vertical load factors such as A seismic response spectrum analysis was used to evaluate the vertical seismic vertical response loads for the seismic design of all response of the RCP.

Category I systems, components, equipment, and their supports in lieu of vertical seismic system dynamic analysis is acceptable only if the structure is demonstrated to be rigid in the vertical direction. The criterion for rigidity is that the lowest frequency in the vertical direction be more than 33 Hz.

11.2.J.(i) through (iii) - Requirement is for Category I buried Not applicable to the RCP seismic analysis.

piping systems.

11.2.K - Requirement is for the interaction of other piping Not applicable to the RCP seismic analysis.

with Category I piping.

3 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 47 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse)

- Reactor Coolant Pump (RCPI SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.L - RG 1.61 "Damping Values for Seismic Design of HE seismic analysis considers 4% damping. The HE damping value is different from Nuclear Power Plants," provides acceptable values the 3% damping value per RG 1.61 (SSER 7, Section 3.9.3.2) (WCAP 7921-AR, May which may be used. The methods for analysis of 1974).

damping should be consistent with those described in SRP Section 3.7.2.

11.3 - To meet the requirements of GDCs 1 and 4, the Not applicable to RCP seismic analysis.

following guidelines, in addition to RG 1.20 "Comprehensive Vibration Assessment Program for Reactor Internals During Preoperational and initial Startup Testing", apply to the analysis solutions to predict vibration of reactor internals for prototype plants.

11.4 - For requirements of GDCs 1 and 4, the Not applicable to RCP seismic analysis.

preoperational vibration and stress test program for the internals of a prototype reactor, for existing reactors under consideration for power uprate, and for non-prototype reactors whose valid or conditional prototypes have experienced structural failures due to adverse flow effects in any plant (e.g., steam dryer cracking and valve failures) should conform to the requirements for a prototype test as specified in RG 1.20.

11.5 - Requirements are for reactor internals and reactor Not applicable to RCP HE seismic analysis.

coolant piping.

4 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 47 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse)

- Reactor Coolant Pump (RCPI SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.6 - For requirements of GDC 1, as to the correlation of Not applicable to RCP HE seismic analysis.

tests and analyses of reactor internals, the applicant should address the following items to ensure the adequacy and sufficiency of the test and analysis results.

11.6.A - Comparison of the measured response frequencies with the analytically obtained natural frequencies of the reactor internals for validation of the mathematical models used in the analysis.

Comparison of the measured and predicted damping factors as a function of natural frequencies for validation of the damping assumed in the analysis.

11.6.B. Comparison of the analytically obtained mode shapes with the shape of measured motion for identification of the modal combination or verification of a specific mode.

11.6.C. - Comparison of the response amplitude time variation and the frequency content from test and analysis for verification of the postulated forcing function.

11.6.D. - Comparison of the measured amplitudes, frequencies, and time variations of loads with those predicted by test-analysis combination method for validation of the predicted forcing function.

11.6.E. - Comparison of the maximum responses from test and analysis for verification of stress levels.

5 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 47 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse)

- Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis 11.6.F. - Comparison of the mathematical model for dynamic system analysis under operational flow transients and under combined LOCA and SSE loadings for similarities.

11.6.G. - Comparison of measurements and predictions of any adverse flow phenomena (e.g., flow-excited acoustic and/or structural resonances) for validation of the model(s) predicting the loading induced by the phenomena.

11.7 - For new applications, test specifications should be in Not applicable to RCP seismic analysis.

accordance with ASME OM-S/G-1 990, "Standards and Guides For Operation of Nuclear Power Plants,"

Part 3, "Requirements for Preoperational and Initial Start-Up Vibration Testing of Nuclear Power Plant Piping Systems," and Part 7, "Requirements for Thermal Expansion Testing of Nuclear Power Plant Piping Systems."

6 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 48 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) -

Reactor Internals and Reactor Vessel SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design I Licensing Basis 11.2. A. (i).(3) - Investigation of a sufficient number of Direct integration time-history method was used.

modes to ensure participation of all significant modes. The criterion for sufficiency is that the inclusion of additional modes does not result in more than a 10-percent increase in responses.

11.2. A.(ii) - Equivalent Static Load Method Direct integration time-history method was used.

11.2.C. - Basis for Selection of Frequencies. To avoid Direct integration time-history method was used.

resonance, the fundamental frequencies of components and equipment selected preferably should be less than 1/2 or more than twice the dominant frequencies of the support structure. Use of equipment frequencies within this range is acceptable if the equipment is adequately designed for the applicable loads.

11.2.E - Combination of Modal Responses. SRP Section Direct integration time-history method was used.

3.7.2 and RG 1.92,"Combining Modal Responses and Spatial Components in Seismic Response Analysis," present criteria and guidance for modal response combination methods acceptable to the staff.

11.2 F - Analytical Procedures for Piping Systems. The Not applicable to reactor internals and reactor vessel.

seismic analysis of Category I piping may use either a dynamic analysis or an equivalent static load method.

1 of 3

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 48 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) -

Reactor Internals and Reactor Vessel SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design / Licensing Basis 11.2.H - The use of constant vertical load factors as Direct integration time-history method was used.

vertical response loads for the seismic design of all Category I systems, components, equipment, and their supports in lieu of a vertical seismic system dynamic analysis is acceptable only if the structure is demonstrably rigid in the vertical direction. The criterion for rigidity is that the lowest frequency in the vertical direction be more than 33 Hz.

11.2.1 - Torsional Effects of Eccentric Masses. For Not applicable to reactor internals and reactor vessel.

Seismic Category I systems, if the torsional effect of an eccentric mass like a valve operator in a piping system is judged to be significant, the eccentric mass and its eccentricity should be included in the mathematical model. The criteria for significance will have to be determined case by case.

11.2.J - Category 1 Buried Piping System Not applicable to reactor internals and reactor vessel.

11.2.K.- Interaction of Other Piping with Category I Piping Not applicable to reactor internals and reactor vessel.

11.3 - To meet the requirements of GDCs 1 and 4, the Not applicable to the HE seismic evaluation of reactor internals and reactor vessel.

following guidelines, in addition to RG 1.20 "Comprehensive Vibration Assessment Program for Reactor Internals During Preoperational and initial Startup Testing", apply to the analysis solutions to predict vibration of reactor internals for prototype plants.

2 of 3

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 48 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) -

Reactor Internals and Reactor Vessel SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design / Licensing Basis 11.4 - For requirements of GDCs 1 and 4, the Not applicable to the HE seismic evaluation of reactor internals and reactor vessel.

preoperational vibration and stress test program for the internals of a prototype reactor, for existing reactors under consideration for power uprate, and for non-prototype reactors whose valid or conditional prototypes have experienced structural failures due to adverse flow effects in any plant (e.g., steam dryer cracking and valve failures) should conform to the requirements for a prototype test as specified in RG 1.20, 11.5.D.- The effects of flow upon the mass and flexibility The Reactor Equipment System Model (RESM) does not consider effects of flow upon properties of the system should be addressed. the mass and flexibility properties of the system.

11.7. For new applications, test specifications should be in Not applicable to the HE seismic evaluation of reactor internals and reactor vessel.

accordance with ASME OM-S/G-1990, "Standards and Guides For Operation of Nuclear Power Plants,"

Part 3, "Requirements for Preoperational and Initial Start-Up Vibration Testing of Nuclear Power Plant Piping Systems," and Part 7, "Requirements for Thermal Expansion Testing of Nuclear Power Plant Piping Systems."

3 of 3

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 49 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Steam Generator SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.A.(i).(4) - Consideration of maximum relative Relative seismic displacements between supports on the steam generator are not displacements among supports of Category I systems considered in the seismic analyses. It has been assumed that the separate support and components. locations are sufficiently rigid with respect to each other and no significant relative displacements would be present.

11.2.A.(ii).(1) through (3) - Equivalent Static Load Method Response spectrum method is used.

11.2 C - Basis for Selection of Frequencies. To avoid The fundamental frequencies of these members are not "selected" but are calculated resonance, the fundamental frequencies of based on their simulated mass and stiffness.

components and equipment selected preferably should be less than 1/2 or more than twice the dominant frequencies of the support structure. Use of equipment frequencies within this range is acceptable if the equipment is adequately designed for the applicable loads.

11.2.D.(ii) - Time History Method Response spectra method was used.

11.2.F - Analytical Procedures for Piping Systems. The Not applicable to the steam generators.

seismic analysis of Category I piping may use either a dynamic analysis or an equivalent static load method.

11.2.G - Multiply-Supported Equipment and Components The seismic analysis of the steam generator is performed using the (single point) with Distinct Inputs. Equipment and components in response spectrum method.

some cases are supported at several points by either a single structure or two separate structures. The motions of the primary structure or structures at each of the support points may be quite different.

1 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 49 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Steam Generator SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.H - Use of Constant Vertical Static Factors. The use Response spectrum analysis was performed to evaluate the vertical seismic of constant vertical load factors as vertical response response.

loads for the seismic design of all Category I systems, components, equipment, and their supports in lieu of a vertical seismic system dynamic analysis is acceptable only if the structure is demonstrably rigid in the vertical direction. The criterion for rigidity is that the lowest frequency in the vertical direction be more than 33 Hz.

11.2.1 - Torsional Effects of Eccentric Masses. For Seismic Not applicable to steam generators.

Category I systems, if the torsional effect of an eccentric mass like a valve operator in a piping system is judged to be significant, the eccentric mass and its eccentricity should be included in the mathematical model. The criteria for significance will have to be determined case by case.

11.2.J - Category 1 Buried Piping System Not applicable to steam generators.

11.2.K - Interaction of Other Piping with Category I Piping Not applicable to steam generators.

11.3 - To meet the requirements of GDCs 1 and 4, the Not applicable to the HE seismic evaluation of steam generators.

following guidelines, in addition to RG 1.20 "Comprehensive Vibration Assessment Program for Reactor Internals During Preoperational and initial Startup Testing", apply to the analysis solutions to predict vibration of reactor internals for prototype plants.

11.4 - For requirements of GDCs 1 and 4, the Not applicable to the HE seismic evaluation of steam generators.

preoperational vibration and stress test program for the internals of a prototype reactor, for existing 2 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 49 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Steam Generator SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis reactors under consideration for power uprate, and for non-prototype reactors whose valid or conditional prototypes have experienced structural failures due to adverse flow effects in any plant (e.g., steam dryer cracking and valve failures) should conform to the requirements for a prototype test as specified in RG 1.20.

11.6 - For requirements of GDC 1, as to the correlation of Not applicable to the HE seismic evaluation of steam generators.

tests and analyses of reactor internals, the applicant should address the following items to ensure the adequacy and sufficiency of the test and analysis results.

11.6.A - Comparison of the measured response frequencies with the analytically obtained natural frequencies of the reactor internals for validation of the mathematical models used in the analysis.

Comparison of the measured and predicted damping factors as a function of natural frequencies for validation of the damping assumed in the analysis.

11.6.B. Comparison of the analytically obtained mode shapes with the shape of measured motion for identification of the modal combination or verification of a specific mode.

11.6.C. - Comparison of the response amplitude time variation and the frequency content from test and analysis for verification of the postulated forcing function.

3 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 49 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Steam Generator SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.6.D. - Comparison of the measured amplitudes, frequencies, and time variations of loads with those predicted by test-analysis combination method for validation of the predicted forcing function.

11.6.E. - Comparison of the maximum responses from test and analysis for verification of stress levels.

11.6.F. - Comparison of the mathematical model for dynamic system analysis under operational flow transients and under combined LOCA and SSE loadings for similarities.

11.6.G. - Comparison of measurements and predictions of any adverse flow phenomena (e.g., flow-excited acoustic and/or structural resonances) for validation of the model(s) predicting the loading induced by the phenomena.

11.7 - For new applications, test specifications should be in Not applicable to the HE seismic evaluation of steam generators.

accordance with ASME OM-S/G-1990, "Standards and Guides For Operation of Nuclear Power Plants,"

Part 3, "Requirements for Preoperational and Initial Start-Up Vibration Testing of Nuclear Power Plant Piping Systems," and Part 7, "Requirements for Thermal Expansion Testing of Nuclear Power Plant Piping Systems."

4 of 4

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 50 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (non-RCS)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.1 - Relevant requirements of GDCs 1, 2, 4, 14, and 15 The seismic analysis for SSE - Hosgri is focused on the methods for dynamic analysis.

are met if vibration, thermal expansion, and dynamic This section is applicable with regards to thermal expansion and vibration during effects testing are conducted during startup functional startup. There is no issue with respect to the HE.

testing for specified high- and moderate-energy piping and their supports and restraints. The purposes of these tests are to confirm that the piping, components, restraints, and supports have been designed to withstand the dynamic loadings and operational transient conditions encountered during service as required by the code and to confirm that no unacceptable restraint of normal thermal motion occurs.

11.2.A.(i).(4) - Consideration of maximum relative Mechanical equipment anchorage locations (except piping and raceway system displacements among supports of Category I systems supports) do not span a structural separation joint, or are in close proximity to an and components. adjacent structure. The equipment support points are close so that the relative displacements between the support anchorages are small and negligible. Therefore, the support relative displacements are not considered in the dynamic analysis of mechanical equipment and components.

11.2.A.(ii).(2) - The design and simplified analysis account See response above.

for the relative motion between all points of support.

11.2.B - Determination of Number of Earthquake Cycles. Not applicable to seismic analysis of equipment and components.

The number of earthquake cycles during one seismic event, the maximum number of cycles for which applicable systems and components are designed, and the criteria and the applicant's procedures to establish these parameters are reviewed by the staff in accordance with the guidance of SRP Section 3.7.3.

11.2.F - Analytical Procedure for Piping Systems Not applicable to seismic qualification of equipment and components.

1 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 50 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (non-RCS)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.G - Multiply-Supported Equipment and Components Seismic evaluation of equipment and components use single supported location input.

With Distinct Inputs.

11.2.H - The use of constant vertical load factors as Seismic evaluations use vertical required response spectra instead of static vertical load vertical response loads for the seismic design of all factors.

Category I systems, components, equipment, and their supports in lieu of a vertical seismic system dynamic analysis is acceptable only if the structure is demonstrably rigid in the vertical direction. The criterion for rigidity is that the lowest frequency in the vertical direction be more than 33 Hz.

11.2.1 - Torsional Effects of Eccentric Masses. For Seismic Not applicable to seismic qualification of equipment and components.

Category I systems, if the torsional effect of an eccentric mass like a valve operator in a piping system is judged to be significant, the eccentric mass and its eccentricity should be included in the mathematical model. The criteria for significance will have to be determined case by case.

11.2.J - Category 1 Buried Piping System Not applicable to seismic qualification of equipment and components.

11.2.K - Interaction of Other Piping with Category I Piping Not applicable to seismic qualification of equipment and components.

2 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 50 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (non-RCS)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.L - Criteria Used for Damping - RG 1.61, "Damping For Westinghouse qualified RCS (i.e., reactor pressure vessel, steam generators and Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants" pressurizer), a damping value of 4 % was used rather than 3 % as shown in RG 1.61 provides acceptable values which may be used. The (SSER-7, Section 3.9.3.2) (WCAP-7921-AR, May 1974).

methods for analysis of damping should be consistent with those described in SRP Section 3.7.2 A damping value of 5 % was used for Westinghouse qualified electrical equipment.

For PG&E qualified equipment, a damping value of 4 % was used for HE rather than 3 % as shown in RG 1.61 for SSE (DCM T-10, Table 4.3-1). SSER 18, Section 3.4.1.1 indicates that NRC has acknowledged that the damping values shown in Table 3.7 of FSARU have been used for the HE reanalysis.

For the integrated head assembly (IHA), a damping value of 6.85% per RG 1.61, Revision 1, was used and has been approved by the NRC in License Amendments 208(DPR-80) and 210 (DPR-82).

For Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM), a damping value of 5% was used and has been approved by the NRC in License Amendments 207(DPR-80) and 209 (DPR-82).

11.3 - To meet the requirements of GDCs 1 and 4, the Not applicable to seismic qualification of equipment and components.

following guidelines, in addition to RG 1.20 "Comprehensive Vibration Assessment Program for Reactor Internals During Preoperational and initial Startup Testing", apply to the analysis solutions to predict vibration of reactor internals for prototype plants.

3 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 50 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (non-RCS)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.4 - For requirements of GDCs 1 and 4, the Not applicable to seismic qualification of equipment and components.

preoperational vibration and stress test program for the internals of a prototype reactor, for existing reactors under consideration for power uprate, and for non-prototype reactors whose valid or conditional prototypes have experienced structural failures due to adverse flow effects in any plant (e.g., steam dryer cracking and valve failures) should conform to the requirements for a prototype test as specified in RG 1.20, 11.6 - For requirements of GDC 1, as to the correlation of Not applicable to seismic qualification of mechanical equipment and components.

tests and analyses of reactor internals, the applicant should address the following items to ensure the adequacy and sufficiency of the test and analysis results.

11.6.A - Comparison of the measured response frequencies with the analytically obtained natural frequencies of the reactor internals for validation of the mathematical models used in the analysis.

Comparison of the measured and predicted damping factors as a function of natural frequencies for validation of the damping assumed in the analysis.

11.6.B. Comparison of the analytically obtained mode shapes with the shape of measured motion for identification of the modal combination or verification of a specific mode.

4 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 50 SRP 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of SSCs - Mechanical Equipment (non-RCS)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.6.C. - Comparison of the response amplitude time variation and the frequency content from test and analysis for verification of the postulated forcing function.

11.6.D. - Comparison of the measured amplitudes, frequencies, and time variations of loads with those predicted by test-analysis combination method for validation of the predicted forcing function.

11.6.E. - Comparison of the maximum responses from test and analysis for verification of stress levels.

11.6.F. - Comparison of the mathematical model for dynamic system analysis under operational flow transients and under combined LOCA and SSE loadings for similarities.

11.6.G. - Comparison of measurements and predictions of any adverse flow phenomena (e.g., flow-excited acoustic and/or structural resonances) for validation of the model(s) predicting the loading induced by the phenomena.

i 11.7. For new applications, test specifications should be in Not applicable to seismic qualification of equipment and components.

accordance with ASME OM-S/G-1990, "Standards and Guides For Operation of Nuclear Power Plants,"

Part 3, "Requirements for Preoperational and Initial Start-Up Vibration Testing of Nuclear Power Plant Piping Systems," and Part 7, "Requirements for Thermal Expansion Testing of Nuclear Power Plant Piping Systems."

5 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 51 SRP 3.9.3 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Components and Component Supports and Core Support Structures - Pipe Supports, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.1 - Loading Combinations, System DCPP is designed, except for the RVHVS and RVLIS, to the USAS B31.1 Code and Operating, Transients, and Stress Limits not the ASME section III code.

Pipe support loads and stresses are evaluated for normal, upset, emergency and faulted conditions. Since the USAS B31.1 Code only addresses criteria for normal and upset condition limits, PG&E supplemented the requirements of the USAS B31.1 Code to address emergency and faulted conditions with criteria consistent with the philosophy of the ASME Code,Section III for emergency and faulted conditions.

RVHVS and RVLIS piping system supports, for the replacement reactor vessel closure head/integrated head assembly, are designed in accordance with the ASME Code, 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda,Section III, Subsection NF and Appendix F.

11.2.A - Design and Installation of Pressure This section is not applicable to pipe support design, except for loads due to Relief Devices. Where more than one pressure relief devices.

valve is installed on the same pipe run, the sequence of valve openings to be assumed in analyzing for the stress at any piping location should be that sequence which is estimated to induce the maximum instantaneous value of stress at that location.

11.2.B - Design and Installation of Pressure The stresses due to the applicable loads from pressure relief devices have been Relief Devices. Stresses should be evaluated for compliance with the stress limits addressed in item 11.1 above.

evaluated, and applicable stress limits should be satisfied for all components of the pipe run and connecting systems and the pressure relief valve station, including 1 of 3

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 51 SRP 3.9.3 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Components and Component Supports and Core Support Structures - Pipe Supports, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis supports and all connecting welds between these components.

1I.2.C - Design and Installation of Pressure The subjects are related to piping and not pipe supports. See SRP 3.9.3 "Piping Relief Devices. In meeting the stress limit non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)."

requirements, the contribution from the reaction force and the moments resulting from that force should include the effects of a Dynamic Load Factor (DLF) or should use the maximum instantaneous values of forces and moments for that location as determined by the dynamic hydraulic /

structural system analysis. This requirement should be satisfied in demonstrating satisfaction of all design limits at all locations of the pipe run and the pressure relief valve for Class 1, 2, and 3 piping. A DLF of 2.0 may be used in lieu of a dynamic analysis to determine the DLF.

11.3.A - Component supports of active pumps DCPP design/licensing basis does not specify support deformation limits.

and valves should be considered in context with the other features of the functionality All supports active in a seismic load case, (i.e., rigid supports and snubbers) are assurance and seismic qualification generally modeled using the default rigid stiffness in the piping stress analysis program as presented in SRP Section 3.10. computer program. Pipe supports are designed to have a natural frequency in the If the component support deformation can restrained direction of over 20 Hz, unless the support stiffness is included in the be expected to affect the operability piping analysis.

requirements of the supported component, then deformation limits should also be specified. Such deformation limits should be compatible with the operability 2 of 3

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 51 SRP 3.9.3 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Components and Component Supports and Core Support Structures - Pipe Supports, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis requirements of the supported components.

These deformation limits should be incorporated into the functionality assurance and seismic qualification program. In establishing allowable equipment deformations, the possible movements of the support base structures must be taken into account.

3 of 3

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 52 SRP 3.9.3 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Components and Component Supports, and Core Support Structures. - Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.1 - Loading Combinations, System Operating DCPP piping, except for the RVHVS and RVLIS, is qualified to ANSI B31.1 Code Transients, and Stress Limits. The design and not ASME Code.

and service loading combinations and associated stress limits should be in The USAS B31.1 Code only addresses criteria for normal and upset condition limits.

accordance with ASME Code Section III PG&E supplemented the requirements of the USAS B31.1 Code to address Class 1, 2, and 3 component requirements. emergency and faulted conditions with criteria consistent with the philosophy of the ASME Code,Section III for emergency and faulted conditions [Letter from J. D.

Shiffer (PG&E) to G. W. Knighton (NRC), dated June 13, 1985, PG&E Letter DCL-85-212 and response to Allegation or Concern Number 1698 in SSER 33].

RVHVS and RVLIS piping system supports for the replacement reactor vessel closure head/integrated head assembly are designed in accordance with the ASME Code, 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda,Section III, Subsection NF and Appendix F.

11.3.A - Component supports of active pumps The subjects are related to pipe supports and not piping. See SRP 3.9.3 "Pipe and valves Supports (non-RCS)."

11.3.B (i) - Criteria for Snubber functionality - The subjects are related to pipe supports and not piping. See SRP 3.9.3 "Pipe Structural Analysis and Systems Supports (non-RCS)."

Evaluation.

11.3.B (ii)- Criteria for Snubber functionality - The subjects are related to pipe supports and not piping. See SRP 3.9.3 "Pipe Characterization of Mechanical properties. Supports (non-RCS)."

11.3.B (iii) - Criteria for Snubber functionality - The subjects are related to pipe supports and not piping. See SRP 3.9.3 "Pipe Design Specifications. Supports (non-RCS)."

11.3.B (iv) - Criteria for Snubber functionality - The subjects are related to pipe supports and not piping. See SRP 3.9.3 "Pipe Use of additional Snubbers. Supports (non-RCS)."

1 of 1

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 53 SRP 3.9.3 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Components and Component Supports, and Core Support Structures. - Piping, Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.1 - Loading Combinations, System Operating DCPP piping, except for the RVHVS and RVLIS, is qualified to ANSI B31.1 Code Transients, and Stress Limits. The design and not ASME Code. The load combinations for the Normal, Upset, and Faulted and service loading combinations and conditions are specified in piping qualification calculations. DCPP criteria associated stress limits should be in combines the LOCA loading with Hosgri loading. The adequacy of the reactor accordance with ASME Code Section III coolant piping to withstand LOCA loading in combination with Hosgri is documented Class 1, 2, and 3 component requirements. in the DCPP CAP (reference SAP Notification 50404966).

11.2 - Design and Installation of Pressure Relief There are no pressure relief devices on the RCL piping. The pressure relief Devices. The applicant should use design devices for the RCS are via relief and safety valves attached to lines off the criteria for pressure relief installations pressurizer. Therefore it is not applicable to RCL piping.

specified in Appendix 0, ASME Code,Section III, Division 1, "Rules for the Design of Safety Valve Installations."

11.3 - Component Supports. Component There are no pipe supports on the RCL piping. The primary equipment supports supports should meet stress limits for all are addressed by a separate SRP comparison table.

loading combinations found in ASME Code Section III Class 1, 2, and 3 component requirements, RG 1.124, RG 1.130, and Subsection NF of the ASME Code.

1 of 1

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 54 SRP 3.9.3 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Components and Component Supports and Core Support Structures - Mechanical Equipment (Non-RCS)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.1. Loading Combinations, System Operating The HE has been identified as Service Level D (faulted plant condition) (DCM T-10, Transients, and Stress Limits. The design and service Section 3.2.2).

loading combinations, including system operating transients, and the associated design and service In accordance with Table 1 of SRP 3.9.3, Appendix A, the SSE loading combinations, stress limits considered for each component and its system operating transients, and stress limits are listed in the following; supports should be sufficiently defined to provide the basis for design of Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Plant Event System Service Service components and component supports, and core Operating Loading Stress Limit support structures for all conditions. Condition Condition DBPB or Faulted Sustained D The acceptability of the combination of design and MS/FWBP Loads +

service loadings (including system operating + SSE DBPB or transients), applicable to the design of Class 1, 2, and MS/FWPB

+ SSE 3 components and component supports, and core support structures, and of the designation of the LOCA + Faulted Sustained D appropriate design or service stress limit for each SSE Loads +

LOCA +

loading combination, is judged by comparison with SSE positions stated in Appendix A, and with appropriate standards acceptable to the staff, developed by Where:

professional societies and standards organizations. DBPB - Design Basis Pipe Breaks MS/FWBP - Main Steam and Feedwater Pipe Breaks The Hosgri Earthquake (Service Stress Limit D) loading combination for PG&E supplied equipment (Table 4.3-2);

HE+Pn+D+N+O, Where:

HE = Hosgri Earthquake Pn= Pressure, Normal D = Dead weight N = Nozzle 0 = Ooeratina 1 of 2

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 54 SRP 3.9.3 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Components and Component Supports and Core Support Structures - Mechanical Equipment (Non-RCS)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis The HE loading combination for Westinghouse supplied equipment (DCM T-1 0, Table 4.4-1);

Deadweight + Pressure +/- Hosgri + Nozzle/Piping Loads + Operating Loads PG&E is in the process of performing evaluations for the combination of HE seismic loads with LOCA for RCS loop piping and certain primary equipment to address a nonconforming condition (reference DCPP CAP SAP Notifications 50403189 and 50403377).

11.2.A Thru 11.2.C - Design and Installation of Pressure Not applicable to the HE seismic equipment qualification.

Relief Devices.

11.3.A. Component supports of active pumps and valves The component support deformation and possible movements of the support base should be considered in context with the other structures are not applicable to the seismic qualification of DCPP ASME code Class 1, features of the functionality assurance and seismic 2, and 3 component supports.

qualification program as presented in SRP Section 3.10. If the component support deformation can be expected to affect the operability requirements of the supported component, then deformation limits should also be specified. Such deformation limits should be compatible with the operability requirements of the supported components. These deformation limits should be incorporated into the functionality assurance and seismic qualification program. In establishing allowable equipment deformations, the possible movements of the support base structures must be taken into account.

11.3.B Component supports criteria for snubber' Not applicable to seismic equipment qualification.

functionality assurance.

2 of 2

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 55 SRP 3.9.3 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Components and Component Supports, and Core Support Structures - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Fuel Assembly SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2. - Design and Installation of Pressure Relief Devices. Not applicable to the fuel assembly.

The applicant should use design criteria for pressure relief installations specified in Appendix 0, ASME Code,Section III, Division 1, "Rules for the Design of Safety Valve Installations." In addition, the following criteria are applicable:

11.3.A. - Component supports of active pumps and valves Not applicable to the fuel assembly.

should be considered in context with the other features of the functionality assurance and seismic qualification program as presented in SRP Section 3.10. If the component support deformation can be expected to affect the operability requirements of the supported component, then deformation limits should also be specified. Such deformation limits should be compatible with the operability requirements of the supported components. These deformation limits should be incorporated into the functionality assurance and seismic qualification program. In establishing allowable equipment deformations, the possible movements of the support base structures must be taken into account.

11.3.B. - Criteria for snubber functionality assurance Not applicable to the fuel assembly.

1 of 1

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 56 SRP 3.9.3 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Components and Component Supports, and Core Support Structures - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - NSSS Primary Equipment Supports (PES)

SRP Acceptable Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.1 Loading Combinations, System Operating Transients, The load combinations for the Normal, Upset, and Faulted conditions are specified in and Stress Limits - The design and service loading FSARU Table 5.2-8, "Loading Combinations and Acceptance Criteria For Primary combinations, including system operating transients, Equipment Supports."

and the associated design and service stress limits considered for each component and its supports DCPP design basis does not include the HE seismic event in the primary faulted should be sufficiently defined to provide the basis for loading. The primary faulted load combination is the SRSS combination of DDE design of Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components and seismic and LOCA. The HE is treated as a separate faulted load combination and is component supports, and core support structures for not combined with LOCA.

all conditions.

PG&E is in the process of performing evaluations for the combination of HE seismic The acceptability of the combination of design and loads with LOCA for RCS loop piping and certain primary equipment to address a service loadings (including system operating nonconforming condition (reference DCPP CAP SAP Notifications 50403189 and transients), applicable to the design of Class 1, 2, and 50403377).

3 components and component supports, and core support structures, and of the designation of the DCPP was designed to 1969 AISC Specification.

appropriate design or service stress limit for each loading combination, is judged by comparison with positions stated in Appendix A, and with appropriate standards acceptable to the staff, developed by professional societies and standards organizations.

11.2 Design and Installation of Pressure Relief Devices - Pressure relief devices are not part of the NSSS component supports.

The applicant should use design criteria for pressure relief installations specified in Appendix 0, ASME Code,Section III, Division 1, "Rules for the Design of Safety Valve Installations."

1 of 2

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 56 SRP 3.9.3 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Components and Component Supports, and Core Support Structures - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - NSSS Primary Equipment Supports (PES)

SRP Acceptable Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3. Component Supports - Component supports should The DCPP NSSS primary equipment supports were designed to and meet the criteria meet stress limits for all loading combinations found in of the AISC Code, Parts 1 and 2, 1969 Edition.

ASME Code Section III Class 1, 2, and 3 component requirements, RG 1.124, RG 1.130, and Subsection NF of the ASME Code.

2 of 2

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 57 SRP 3.9.3 ASME Code Class 1, 2 and 3 Components and Component Supports, and Core Support Structures - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Pressurizer SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2. - Design and Installation of Pressure Relief Devices. Not applicable to the Pressurizer.

11.3. - Component Supports. Refer to SRP 3.9.3 for NSSS PES.

1 of 1

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 58 SRP 3.9.3 ASME Code Class 1, 2 and 3 Components and Component Supports, and Core Support Structures - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.1 - The design and service loading combinations, See responses below to Appendix A criteria.

including system operating transients, and the associated design and service stress limits considered for each component and its supports should be sufficiently defined to provide the basis for design of Code Class 1, 2, 3, components and component supports, and core support structures for all conditions.

The acceptability of the combination of design and service loadings, applicable to the design of Class 1, 2, and 3 components and components supports, and core support structures, and of the designation of the appropriate design or service stress limit for each loading combination, is judged by comparison with positions stated in Appendix A, and with appropriate standards acceptable to the staff, developed by professional societies and standards organizations.

(The criteria is evaluated in separate rows below)

The design criteria of internal parts of components such as valve discs, seats, and pump shafting should comply with applicable Code or Code Case criteria.

In those instances where no Code criteria exist, the design criteria are acceptable if they ensure the structural integrity of the part such that no safety-related functions are impaired.

i 11.2 - Criteria is for design and installation of pressure Not applicable to RCP seismic analysis.

relieve devices.

1 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 58 SRP 3.9.3 ASME Code Class 1, 2 and 3 Components and Component Supports, and Core Support Structures - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3 - Criteria are for components supports designs. Not applicable to RCP seismic analysis.

IL.3.A - Criteria are for components supports. Not applicable to RCP seismic analysis.

11.3.B.(i) through (iv): Criteria is for snubber functionality Not applicable to RCP seismic analysis.

assurance.

Appendix A Section 4A: Code Class 1, 2, and 3 The RCP seismic analysis evaluates for the design loads defined in the RCP design components and components supports, and core specification such that the appropriate subsections of the Code are satisfied. The support structures, shall be designed to satisfy the design specification defines the DDE only and not the HE. An analysis has been appropriate subsections of the Code as required in performed that has shown that the 4% damped HE is bounded by the 2% damped 10 CFR 50.55a, including limitations on pressure, DDE.

and including the criteria of this appendix.

Fatigue evaluations are not applicable to the RCP HE seismic analysis because the HE Design loadings shall be established in the design event is considered a faulted condition, which does not require a fatigue evaluation.

specification. The design limits of the appropriate subsection of the Code shall not be exceeded for the design loadings specified.

Fatigue evaluations are required by the Code for all Class 1 components. Fatigue evaluations should also be completed for all Code Class 2 and 3 components and components supports, and core support structures that are subject to thermal cyclic effects of dynamic cyclic effects.

To avoid fatigue failure during the life of the plant, unisolable sections of the piping connected to the reactor coolant system that are subject to stresses from temperature stratification or temperature oscillations as well as other typical piping stresses, 2 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 58 SRP 3.9.3 ASME Code Class 1, 2 and 3 Components and Component Supports, and Core Support Structures - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis should be identified and designed to withstand combined stresses caused by various loads and the worst temporal and spatial distributions of temperature to be encountered in service.

Appendix A Section 4B: The identification of The RCP AOR evaluated the 4% HE faulted conditions against the Level D limits and individual loads and the appropriate combination of does not evaluate the HE plus LOCA faulted condition against the Level D limits. The these loads (i.e., sustained loads, loads due to RCP AOR evaluated the HE faulted condition by comparing the RCP responses for the system operating transients (SOT), OBE, SSE, HE to the 2% DDE responses. From the comparison, it was concluded that the 2%

LOCA, DBPB, MS/FWPB and their dynamic effects) DDE bounded the HE responses. The DDE was evaluated for the 2% DDE faulted should be in accordance with Section "1.3" [4C]. The condition and the 4% DDE plus LOCA faulted condition. For the 4% DDE plus LOCA appropriate method for combining of these loads condition, the 4% DDE responses were combined with the LOCA responses using the should be in accordance with NUREG-0484, SRSS method, which is consistent with NUREG-0484.

"Methodology for Combining Dynamic Loads."

Appendix A Section 4C(i): Code Class 1, 2, and 3 HE is considered a faulted condition earthquake event, which would not be included in components, component supports, and core support Level A criteria.

structures shall meet a service limit not greater than Level A when subjected to sustained loads resulting from normal plant/system operation.

Appendix A Section 4C(ii): Code Class 1, 2, and 3 HE is considered a faulted condition earthquake event, which would not be included in components, component supports, and core support Level B criteria.

structures shall meet a service limit not greater than Level B when subjected to the appropriate combination of loadings resulting from (1) sustained loads, (2) specified plant/system operating transients (SOT), (3) the OBE.

3 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 58 SRP 3.9.3 ASME Code Class 1,42 and 3 Components and Component Supports, and Core Support Structures - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis Appendix A Section 4C(iii): Code Class 1, 2, and 3 HE is considered a faulted condition earthquake event, which would not be included in components, component supports, and core support Level C criteria.

structures shall meet a service limit not greater than Level C when subjected to the appropriate combination of loadings resulting from (1) sustained loads; (2) the DBPB. The DBPB includes loads from the postulated pipe break, itself, and also any associated system transients or dynamic effects resulting from the postulated pipe break.

Appendix A Section 4C(iv): Code Class 1, 2, and 3 The RCP AOR does not evaluate the HE plus LOCA faulted condition against the Level components, component supports, and core support D limits, which is required if the HE is considered the SSE. The RCP AOR only structures shall meet a service limit not greater than evaluated the HE faulted condition, which was done by comparing the RCP responses Level D when subjected to the appropriate to the 2% DDE faulted condition responses. From the comparison, it was concluded combination of loadings resulting from (1) sustained that the 2% DDE bounded the HE responses. The DDE was evaluated for the 2% DDE loads, (2) either the DBPB, MS/FWPB, or LOCA, and faulted condition and the 4% DDE plus LOCA faulted condition.

(3) and SSE. The DBPB, MS/FWPB, and LOCA include loads from the postulated pipe breaks, themselves, and also any associated system transients or dynamic effects resulting from the postulated pipe break.

Appendix A Section 5B: Criteria is for operability and Not applicable to RCP seismic analysis.

functional capability of snubbers.

Appendix A Section 5C: Criteria is for operability and Not applicable to RCP seismic analysis.

functional capability of Class 1, 2, and 3 piping components.

Appendix A Section 6 A & B Not applicable to RCP seismic analysis.

4 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 58 SRP 3.9.3 ASME Code Class 1, 2 and 3 Components and Component Supports, and Core Support Structures - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesigniLicensing Basis Appendix A Section 7A(i): The design options HE is not discussed or defined in the DCPP RCP design specification.

provided by the code and related design criteria specified in the code required design specification should be summarized in sufficient detail in the safety analysis report to permit comparison with this appendix.

Appendix A Section 7(ii) through (iv) Not applicable to RCP seismic analysis.

5 of 5

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 59 SRP 3.9.3 ASME Code Class 1, 2 and 3 Components and Component Supports, and Core Support Structures - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Reactor Vessel SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.3. Component Supports - Component supports should Refer to SRP 3.9.3 for NSSS PES functional area for details.

meet stress limits for all loading combinations found in ASME Code Section III Class 1, 2, and 3 component requirements, RG 1.124, RG 1.130, and Subsection NF of the ASME Code.

1 of 1

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 60 SRP 3.9.3 ASME Code Class 1, 2 and 3 Components and Component Supports, and Core Support Structures - Mechanical Equipment (Westinghouse) - Steam Generator SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2. Design and Installation of Pressure Relief Devices. Not applicable to steam generators.

The applicant should use design criteria for pressure relief installations specified in Appendix 0, ASME Code,Section III, Division 1, "Rules for the Design of Safety Valve Installations."

1 of 1

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 61 SRP 3. 10 Seismic and Dynamic Qualification of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.1.- Meet the requirements and recommendations Requalification of the equipment for HE was performed according to the guidance in IEEE of ANSI/IEEE 344-1987 Standard 344-1975. New electrical equipment and instruments requiring seismic qualification are qualified to comply with IEEE Standard 344-1987.

11.1 .A.xiii - Selection of damping values for For Westinghouse qualified RCS (i.e., reactor pressure vessel, steam generators and equipment to be qualified should be made in pressurizer), a damping value of 4 % was used rather than 3 % as shown in the RG 1.61 accordance with RG 1.61 and ANSI/IEEE Std (SSER-7, Section 3.9.3.2) (WCAP-7921-AR, May 1974). The value of 4 % was justified in 344-1987. Higher damping values may be used actual plant tests by Westinghouse and was accepted by the NRC (DCM T-10, if justified by documented test data with proper Section 3.4.5).

identification of the source and mechanism.

A damping value of 5 % was used for Westinghouse qualified electrical equipment.

For PG&E qualified equipment, a damping value of 4 % was used for HE rather than 3 % as shown in RG 1.61 for SSE (DCM T-10, Table 4.3-1). SSER 18, Section 3.4.1.1 indicates that NRC has acknowledged that the damping values shown in Table 3.7 of the FSARU have been used for the HE reanalysis.

For the IHA, a damping value of 6.85 % per RG 1.61, Rev. 1, was used and has been approved by the NRC in License Amendments 208 (DPR-80) and 210 (DPR-82).

For CRDM, a damping value of 5% was used and has been approved by the NRC in License Amendments 207(DPR-80) and 209 (DPR-82).

11.1 .A.xiv.(2).(c) - An analysis is performed to Analysis of the impact from a high-energy accident (i.e., LOCA) is not a design specification determine the pressure differential and the requirement, nor is an evaluation for seismic plus LOCA loading.

impact energy on the valve disc during a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) and to verify the design adequacy of the disc.

I1.1.A.xiv.(2).(d) - An analysis is performed to This analysis is typically developed as part of a dynamic (i.e., rotor/shaft dynamics) determine the forcing functions of the axial and evaluation of the pump. LOCA and seismic are two independent evaluations. Seismic radial loads imposed on a pump rotor because analysis does not include specifically identified LOCA loading.

of a LOCA, such that combined LOCA and vibratory effects on the shaft and rotor 1 of 3

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 61 SRP 3. 10 Seismic and Dynamic Qualification of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP DesignlLicensing Basis assembly can be evaluated.

11.1 .B.ii - The analytical results should include the The required input motion to the mounting location of equipment are based on the ground required input motion to the mounted response spectra associated with the HE and the building seismic models, acceleration equipment as obtained and characterized in the response spectra have been developed for the various elevations and locations within those manner stated on subsection II.1.A.iii above buildings housing Design Class I and certain Design Class II systems and components.

and combined stresses of the support structures should be in accordance with the The acceleration response spectra serve as inputs for the seismic qualification of criteria specified in SRP 3.9.3. mechanical, electrical, I&C, and HVAC equipment.

The HE (Service Stress Limit D) loading combination for PG&E supplied equipment (DCM T-10, Table 4.3-2).

HE+Pn+D+N+O, Where:

HE = Hosgri Earthquake Pn= Pressure, Normal D = Dead weight N = Nozzle 0 = Operating The HE loading combination for Westinghouse supplied equipment (DCM T-10, Table 4.4-1);

Deadweight + Pressure +/- Hosgri + Nozzle/Piping Loads + Operating Loads PG&E is in the process of performing evaluations for the combination of HE seismic loads with LOCA for RCS loop piping and certain primary equipment to address a nonconforming condition (reference DCPP CAP SAP Notifications 50403189 and 50403377).

11.1. C -Verification of Seismic and Dynamic Based on 10 CFR 50.49 provisions in paragraphs (k) and (I), DCPP is required only to Qualification. The seismic and dynamic upgrade the qualification level of replacement equipment installed after the effective date of qualification testing performed in accordance the rule (February 22, 1983).

with ANSI/IEEE Std 344-1987, as endorsed by 2 of 3

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 61 SRP 3. 10 Seismic and Dynamic Qualification of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis RG 1.100, Revision 2, as part of an overall Qualification of equipment installed prior to February 22, 1983, need only be to the level qualification program should be performed in specified by IEEE 323-1971 supplemented by the Category II positions in NUREG-0588.

the sequence indicated in Section 6 of IEEE Std 323-1974 (endorsed with exceptions by RG New (i.e., nonreplacement) equipment installed after February 22, 1983, must be qualified to 1.89). the level of IEEE 323-1974 and NUREG-0588 Category I.

Generally, the industrial practice for the seismic qualification of equipment complies with the test sequence indicated in the Section 6 of IEEE Standard 323-1974.

11.3 - If the applicant proposes qualification by an The DCPP Seismic Category 1 equipment is seismically qualified by the following methods.

experience-based approach, the details of the experience database, including applicable

• Analysis implementation methods and procedures to

• Testing ensure structural integrity and functionality of o Combination of Testing and Analysis.

the in-scope mechanical and electrical equipment, must meet the functionality of The experience-based approach was not used for seismic equipment qualification at DCPP.

equipment for the defined load condition as presented in paragraphs 1 and 2 above.

11.6.A thru D Not Applicable.

3 of 3

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 62 SRP 3.12 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Piping Systems, Piping Components, and Supports - Pipe Supports, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL).

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.A Piping Analysis Methods The subjects are related to piping and not pipe supports. See SRP 3.12 "Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)."

11.2.B Piping Modelling Techniques The subjects are related to piping and not pipe supports. See SRP 3.12 "Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)."

11.2.C Piping Stress Analysis Criteria The subjects are related to piping and not pipe supports. See SRP 3.12 "Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)."

11.2.D.i. Applicable Codes. The design of DCPP is not a Section III Plant; it is designed, except for the RVHVS and RVLIS, to ASME Code,Section III, Class 1, 2, and 3, the requirements of USAS B31.1 Code.

piping supports should comply with the design criteria requirements of ASME PG&E supplemented the requirements of the USAS B31.1 Code to address Code,Section III, Subsection NF. emergency and faulted conditions with criteria consistent with the philosophy of the ASME Code,Section III, Subsection NF for emergency and faulted conditions.

RVHVS and RVLIS piping system supports for the Replacement Reactor Vessel Closure Head/Integrated Head Assembly are designed in accordance with the ASME Code, 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda,Section III, Subsection NF and Appendix F.

11.2.D.ii. Jurisdictional Boundaries. The Pipe supports at DCPP, except for the RVHVS and RVLIS systems, are designed to jurisdictional boundaries between pipe comply with the requirements of USAS B31.1 1967. USAS B31.1 divides pipe supports and interface attachment points support steel into two basic types:

should comply with ASME Code, Section Ill, Subsection NF. 1. "Supplementary Steel," which is to be designed in accordance with the standards of the AISC [1967 USAS B31.1, Paragraph 120.2.4]. (Per FSAR, Section 3.9.2.6, DCPP is committed to AISC, 7 th Edition for design of supplementary steel).

2. B31.1 Steel, which is designed in accordance with the criteria given in B31.1.

The RVHVS and RVLIS piping system supports for the Replacement Reactor Vessel Closure Head/Integrated Head Assembly are designed in accordance with 1 of 3

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 62 SRP 3.12 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Piping Systems, Piping Components, and Supports - Pipe Supports, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL).

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis the ASME Code, 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda,Section III, Subsection NF and Appendix F.

11.2.D.iii. - Loads and Load Combinations. DCPP is designed in general to the USAS B31.1 Code and not the ASME section III The criteria provided in SRP Section 3.9.3, code.

Subsection I1.1 are applicable.

Pipe support loads and stresses are evaluated for normal, upset, emergency and faulted conditions. Since the USAS B31.1 Code only addresses criteria for normal and upset condition limits, PG&E supplemented the requirements of the USAS B31.1 Code to address emergency and faulted conditions with criteria consistent with the philosophy of the ASME Code,Section III for emergency and faulted conditions.

RVHVS and RVLIS piping system supports for the Replacement Reactor Vessel Closure Head/Integrated Head Assembly are designed in accordance with the ASME Code, 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda,Section III, Subsection NF and Appendix F.

11.2.D.v. - Use of Energy Absorbers and Limit DCPP does not use Energy Absorbers and Limit Stops for PG&E Design Class I pipe Stops. The evaluation typically consists of supports.

iterative response spectra analyses of the piping and support system. The analyses will be reviewed on a case by case basis.

11.2.D.viii. - Seismic Self-Weight Excitation. The effect of the frame's self-weight excitation has only been considered for The acceptance criteria provided in SRP completely new PG&E Design Class I pipe support designs performed and issued Section 3.9.3, are applicable for loads after June 1, 1984.

caused by the seismic excitation of the pipe support.

11.2.D.ix. - Design of Supplementary Steel. DCPP in general is committed to AISC, 7 th Edition for design of "Supplementary The design of structural steel for use as Steel," which is to be designed in accordance with the standards of the AISC [1967 2 of 3

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 62 SRP 3.12 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Piping Systems, Piping Components, and Supports - Pipe Supports, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL).

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis pipe supports should comply with the USAS B31.1, Paragraph 120.2.4].

ASME Code,Section III, Subsection NF.

RVHVS and RVLIS piping system supports for the Replacement Reactor Vessel Closure Head/Integrated Head Assembly are designed in accordance with the ASME Code, 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda,Section III, Subsection NF and Appendix F.

-11.2.D.xii - Instrumentation Line Support DCPP is not a Section III Plant; it is designed to USAS B31.1 Code.

Criteria. The acceptance criteria provided in ASME Code,Section III, Subsection NF AEC General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Construction Permits (Published for are applicable. Public Comment), July 1967, form the design basis requirements for the original design of the instrument tubing and supports.

3 of 3

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 63 SRP 3.12 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Piping Systems, Piping Components, and Supports- Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis II. SRP Acceptance Criteria 11.2.A(i) Experimental Stress Analysis No experimental stress analysis method has been used for piping stress analyses Methods. If experimental stress analysis at DCPP.

methods are used in lieu of analytical methods for Seismic Category I ASME Code and non- Code piping system design, the applicant should provide sufficient information to show the validity of the design. It is recommended, prior to use of the experimental stress analysis methods, that details of the method as well as the scope and extent of its application, be submitted for approval. The experimental stress analysis methods provided in Appendix II to ASME Code,Section III, Division 1 are applicable.

11.2.A(ii) Modal. Response Spectrum Method. Methodologies used for piping analysis do not combine all three component The SRP acceptance criteria provided in responses by the SRSS at a modal level. In addition, the combination of modal SRP Section 3.9.2, Subsection 11.2 are responses is performed using the SRSS method. The effects of closely spaced applicable, modes are not considered with the SRSS method. Refer to "Piping non Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)" SRP 3.9.2, Subsection 11.2 for details.

II.A(iii) Response Spectra Method - Seismic analysis for HE has not used as an Independent Support Motion Independent Support Motion Method. This Method.

method may be used in lieu of the response spectra method when there is more than one supporting structure. The acceptance criteria provided in NUREG-1061, Volume 4 are applicable.

1 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 63 SRP 3.12 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Piping Systems, Piping Components, and Supports- Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.A(iv) Time History Method. The SRP The time history method has not been used for the HE.

acceptance criteria provided in SRP 3.7.2 Subsection 11.6 are applicable.

11.2.A(v) - Inelastic Analysis Method. If An Inelastic Analysis Method has not been used for analyzed piping at DCPP.

inelastic analysis methods are used for the piping design, the applicant will provide sufficient information to show the validity of the analysis. It is recommended, prior to use of the inelastic analysis method that details of the method, as well as the scope and extent of its application and acceptance criteria, be submitted for approval. The inelastic analysis methods provided in SRP Section 3.9.1, Subsection 11.4 are applicable.

11.2.A(vi) Small Bore Piping Method. The The simplified analysis of small bore piping (nominal pipe size of 2 inches or less)

SRP acceptance criteria provided in SRP applies peak acceleration of the applicable building response spectra envelope Section 3.9.2, Subsection 11.2(A) are (reference DCM M-40, Section 2.1).

applicable 11.2.A(viii) Category I Buried Piping , Conduits, See the response from SRP 3.7.3, Subsection 11.12, "Buried Piping, Conduits, and and Tunnels. The acceptance criteria Tunnels."

provided in SRP Section 3.7.3, Subsection 11.12 are applicable.

11.2.B(iv) Decoupling Criteria. The SRP has considered the ratio of mass for the decoupling criteria, whereas for piping acceptance criteria provided in SRP analysis, the ratio of moment of inertia is used.

Section 3.7.2, Subsection 11.3(b) are applicable.

2 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 63 SRP 3.12 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Piping Systems, Piping Components, and Supports- Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.C(ii) Design Transients. The acceptance Hosgri is a faulted condition. It is not evaluated for fatigue.

criteria provided in SRP Section 3.9.1, Subsection 11.1 are applicable.

11.2.C(iii) Loadings and Load Combinations. DCPP piping, except for the RVHVS and RVLIS, is qualified to USAS B31.1 Code The acceptance criteria provided in SRP and not the ASME section III Code.

Section 3.9.3, Subsection 11.1 are applicable. RVHVS and RVLIS piping systems for the Replacement Reactor Vessel Closure Head/Integrated Head Assembly are qualified to ASME B&PV Code Section III, Subsection NB/NC, 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda.

11.2.C(v) Combination of Modal Responses. The combination of modal responses is performed using the SRSS method.

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP However, the effects of closely spaced modes are not considered with the SRSS Section 3.9.2, Subsection 11.2(E) are method.

applicable 11.2.C(vii) Fatigue Evaluation for ASME Code Hosgri is a faulted condition. It is not evaluated for fatigue.

Class 1 Piping. The acceptance criteria in Section III of the ASME Code are applicable.

11.2.C(viii) Fatigue Evaluation of Code Class Fatigue evaluations are not applicable to faulted conditions for piping.

2 and 3 piping. The acceptance criteria in Section III of the ASME Code are applicable.

3 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 63 SRP 3.12 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Piping Systems, Piping Components, and Supports- Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.C(ix) Thermal Oscillations in Piping The thermal oscillations in the piping system are not related to the HE.

Connected to the RCS. The operating experience insights contained in NRC Bulletin (BL) 88-08 and supplements are applicable for the identification and evaluation of piping systems susceptible to thermal stratification, cycling, and striping.

11.2.C(x) Thermal Stratification. The The thermal stratification in the piping system is not related to the HE.

operating experience insights contained in NRC BL 79-13 and BL 88-11 are applicable for the identification and evaluation of long runs of horizontal piping susceptible to thermal stratification.

11.2.C(xii) Functional Capability. The NUREG-1367 was not used by DCPP.

acceptance criteria provided in NUREG-1367, "Functional Capability of Piping Systems," may be used to ensure piping functionality under level D loading conditions. Alternative criteria will be reviewed on a case by case basis.

11.2.C (xiii) Combination of Inertial and SAM SRP acceptance criteria requires that the result from an inertia analysis and relative Effects. The acceptance criteria provided movement of the structure analysis are combined using absolute sum method, in SRP Section 3.9.2, Subsection 11.2(G) whereas DCPP has used SRSS method to combine the inertia analysis and relative are applicable for enveloped support movement of the structure.

motion analysis. The acceptance criteria provided in NUREG-1061, Volume 4 are applicable for independent support motion analysis.

4 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 63 SRP 3.12 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Piping Systems, Piping Components, and Supports- Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.C (xiv) - OBE as a Design Load. Appendix Operating Basis Earthquake is not applicable to the Hosgri Faulted Condition S to 10 CFR Part 50, "Earthquake Earthquake.

Engineering Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," allows the use of operating basis earthquake ground motion. The criteria is provided in paragraph IV.(a)(2). The detail criterion for use of such an option was provided in NUREG-1503, "Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Certification of the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Design, Section 3.1.1.2."

11.2.C (xv) - Welded Attachments. Support DCPP did not use code cases from the referenced RG 1.84. However, welded members, connections, or attachments attachments were evaluated using methodologies based on the Welding Research welded to piping should be designed such Council Bulletin 107 and also stress limits from the 1971 edition of the ASME that their failure under unanticipated loads Section III code, Subsection 3222.2.

does not cause failure at the pipe pressure boundary. The applicant may use Code Cases for the design of the welded attachments. Acceptable Code Cases are listed in RG 1.84.

11.2.C (xvi) - Modal Damping for Composite The piping analysis does not consider the modal damping of composite structures.

Structures. The applicant should perform thermal expansion analyses for piping systems that operate at temperatures above or below the stress-free reference temperature. The stress-free reference temperature for a piping system is typically defined as a temperature of 70 Degree F.

The applicant should provide justification if 5 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 63 SRP 3.12 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Piping Systems, Piping Components, and Supports- Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis thermal expansion analyses are not performed. The justification will be reviewed on a case by case basis. or attachments welded to piping should be designed such that their failure under unanticipated loads does not cause failure at the pipe pressure boundary. The applicant may use Code Cases for the design of the welded attachments.

Acceptable Code Cases are listed in RG 1.84.

11.2.C (xviii) - Intersystem LOCA. The This criterion is not related to the HE.

acceptance criteria for the design of the piping system should be such that over pressurization of low-pressure piping systems due to RCPB isolation failure will not result in rupture of the low-pressure piping outside containment. The criteria provided in Staff Requirements Memoranda (SRM) dated June 26, 1990 in response to Commission Papers (SECY)-90-016 dated January 12, 1990 are applicable.

11.2.C (xix) - Effects of Environment on Fatigue Not applicable to RCL piping because the criterion is related to environmental Design. The guidance provided in fatigue and is not related to the HE.

Regulatory Guide 1.207 is applicable.

6 of 6

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 64 SRP 3.12 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Piping Systems, Piping Components, and Supports- Piping-Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis II. SRP Acceptance Criteria 11.2.A(i) Experimental Stress Analysis No test or experimental stress analysis was used for the RCL piping stress Methods. If experimental stress analysis analyses.

methods are used in lieu of analytical methods for Seismic Category I ASME Code and non- Code piping system design, the applicant should provide sufficient information to show the validity of the design. It is recommended, prior to use of the experimental stress analysis methods, that details of the method as well as the scope and extent of its application, be submitted for approval. The experimental stress analysis methods provided in Appendix II to ASME Code,Section III, Division 1 are applicable.

11.2.A(ii) Modal Response Spectrum Method. Methodologies used for piping analysis do not combine all three component The SRP acceptance criteria provided in responses by the SRSS at a modal level. In addition, the combination of -modal SRP Section 3.9.2, Subsection 11.2 are responses is performed using the SRSS method. The effects of closely spaced applicable, modes are not considered with the SRSS method. Refer to "Piping, Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL)" SRP 3.9.2, Subsection 11.2, for details.

1 of 8

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 64 SRP 3.12 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Piping Systems, Piping Components, and Supports- Piping-Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.A(iii) Response Spectrum Method - The RCL piping seismic analysis has not used a multiply-supported method but Independent Support Motion Method. rather an enveloped response spectrum method (enveloping spectra from various This method may be used in lieu of the structure elevations) is used.

response spectra method when there is more than one supporting structure. The acceptance criteria provided in NUREG-1061, Volume 4 are applicable.

11.2.A(iv) - Time History Method. The SRP The seismic analyses use modal response spectrum analyses.

acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, Subsection 11.6 are applicable.

11.2.A(v) Inelastic Analysis Method. If No inelastic analysis methods were used.

inelastic analysis methods are used for the piping design, the applicant will provide sufficient information to show the validity of the analysis. It is recommended, prior to use of the inelastic analysis method that details of the method, as well as the scope and extent of its application and acceptance criteria, be submitted for approval. The inelastic analysis methods provided in SRP Section 3.9.1, Subsection 11.4 are applicable.

2 of 8

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 64 SRP 3.12 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Piping Systems, Piping Components, and Supports- Piping-Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.A(vi) Small Bore Piping Method. The Small bore piping is not within the scope of the RCL piping analysis. It is addressed SRP acceptance criteria provided in SRP in "Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)" SRP 3.12, Sub-section 11.2.A (vi).

Section 3.9.2, Subsection 11.2(A) are applicable 11.2.A(vii) Nonseismic/Seismic Interaction (11/I). RCL piping is Category I piping and is evaluated for seismic. Nonseismic / Seismic The acceptance criteria provided in Interaction (11/I) is addressed in "Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)" SRP Section 3.9.2, Subsection 11.2.(K) are 3.9.2, Subsection 11.2.(K).

applicable.

11.2.A(viii) Category I Buried Piping , Conduits, There are no buried portions of the RCL piping.

and Tunnels. The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.3, Subsection 11.12 are applicable.

11.2.B(iv) Decoupling Criteria. The acceptance SRP has considered the ratio of mass for the decoupling criteria, whereas for piping criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, analysis, the ratio of moment of inertia is used.

Subsection 11.3(b) are applicable 11.2.C(ii) Design Transients. The acceptance Hosgri is a faulted condition. It is not evaluated for fatigue.

criteria provided in SRP Section 3.9.1, Subsection 11.1 are applicable.

3 of 8

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 64 SRP 3.12 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Piping Systems, Piping Components, and Supports- Piping-Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.C(iii) Loadings and Load Combinations. DCPP piping, except for the RVHVS and RVLIS, is qualified to USAS B31.1 Code The acceptance criteria provided in SRP and not the ASME section III code. RVHVS and RVLIS piping systems for the Section 3.9.3, Subsection 11.1 are Replacement Reactor Vessel Closure Head/Integrated Head Assembly are qualified applicable, to ASME B&PV Code Section III, Subsection NB/NC, 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda.

DCPP criteria combine the LOCA loading with Hosgri loading. The adequacy of the reactor coolant piping to withstand LOCA loading in combination with Hosgri is documented in the DCPP CAP (reference CAP SAP Notifications 50403189 and 50403377).

11.2.C(v) - Combination of Modal Responses. The combination of modal responses is performed using the SRSS method.

The acceptance criteria provided in SRP However, the effects of closely spaced modes are not considered with the SRSS Section 3.9.2, Subsection 11.2(E) are method.

applicable 11.2.C(vii) - Fatigue Evaluation for ASME Code Hosgri is a faulted condition. It is not evaluated for fatigue.

Class 1 Piping. The acceptance criteria in Section III of the ASME Code are applicable.

11.2.C(viii) - Fatigue Evaluation of Code Class Fatigue evaluations are not applicable to faulted conditions for piping.

2 and 3 piping. The acceptance criteria in Section III of the ASME Code are applicable.

4 of 8

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 64 SRP 3.12 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Piping Systems, Piping Components, and Supports- Piping-Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.C(ix) Thermal Oscillations in Piping The thermal oscillations in the piping system are not related to the HE.

Connected to the RCS. The operating experience insights contained in NRC Bulletin (BL) 88-08 and supplements are applicable for the identification and evaluation of piping systems susceptible to thermal stratification, cycling, and striping.

11.2.C(x) Thermal Stratification. The operating The thermal stratification in the piping system is not related to the HE.

experience insights contained in NRC BL 79-13 and BL 88-11 are applicable for the identification and evaluation of long runs of horizontal piping susceptible to thermal stratification.

11.2.C(xi) Safety Relief Valve Design, There are no pressure relief devices on the RCL piping. The pressure relief devices Installation, and Testing. The acceptance for the RCS are via relief and safety valves attached to lines off the pressurizer.

criteria provided in SRP Section 3.9.3, Therefore it is not applicable to RCL piping.

Subsection 11.2 are applicable.

11,2.C(xii) Functional Capability. The NUREG-1367 was not used by DCPP.

acceptance criteria provided in NUREG-1 367, "Functional Capability of Piping Systems," may be used to ensure piping functionality under level D loading conditions. Alternative criteria will be reviewed on a case by case basis.

5 of 8

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 64 SRP 3.12 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Piping Systems, Piping Components, and Supports- Piping-Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.C (xiii) Combination of Inertial and SAM SRP acceptance criteria requires that the result from an inertia analysis and relative Effects. The acceptance criteria provided movement of the structure analysis are combined using absolute sum method, in SRP Section 3.9.2, Subsection 11.2(G) whereas DCPP has used SRSS method to combine the inertia analysis and relative are applicable for enveloped support movement of the structure.

motion analysis. The acceptance criteria provided in NUREG-1 061, Volume 4 are applicable for independent support motion analysis.

11.2.C (xiv) OBE as a Design Load. Appendix Operating Basis Earthquake is not applicable to the Hosgri Faulted Condition S to 10 CFR Part 50, "Earthquake Earthquake.

Engineering Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," allows the use of operating basis earthquake ground motion. The criteria is provided in paragraph IV.(a)(2). The detail criterion for use of such an option was provided in NUREG-1503, "Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Certification of the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Design, Section 3.1.1.2."

11.2.C (xv) - Welded Attachments. Support RCL piping has no welded attachments on the piping.

members, connections, or attachments welded to piping should be designed such that their failure under unanticipated loads does not cause failure at the pipe pressure boundary. The applicant may use Code Cases for the design of the welded attachments. Acceptable Code Cases are listed in RG 1.84.

6 of 8

PG&E Letter DCL-1 1-124 Enclosure Attachment 64 SRP 3.12 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Piping Systems, Piping Components, and Supports- Piping-Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.C (xvi) - Modal Damping for Composite Modal damping for component structures is not used.

.Structures. The applicant should perform thermal expansion analyses for piping systems that operate at temperatures above or below the stress-free reference temperature. The stress-free reference temperature for a piping system is typically defined as a temperature of 70 Degree F.

The applicant should provide justification if thermal expansion analyses are not performed. The justification will be reviewed on a case by case basis. or attachments welded to piping should be designed such that their failure under unanticipated loads does not cause failure at the pipe pressure boundary. The applicant may use Code Cases for the design of the welded attachments.

Acceptable Code Cases are listed in RG 1.84.

7 of 8

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 64 SRP 3.12 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Piping Systems, Piping Components, and Supports- Piping-Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis 11.2.C (xviii) - Intersystem LOCA. The This criterion is not related to the HE.

acceptance criteria for the design of the piping system should be such that over pressurization of low-pressure piping systems due to RCPB isolation failure will not result in rupture of the low-pressure piping outside containment. The criteria provided in Staff Requirements Memoranda (SRM) dated June 26, 1990 in response to Commission Papers (SECY)-90-016 dated January 12, 1990 are applicable.

11.2.C (xix) - Effects of Environment on Fatigue This criterion is related to environmental fatigue and is not related to the HE.

Design. The guidance provided in Regulatory Guide 1.207 is applicable.

8 of 8

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 65 SRP 5.4 Reactor Coolant System Component & Subcomponent Design - Piping, non-Reactor Coolant Loop (non-RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis Specific SRP acceptance criteria, acceptable to The assessments are performed under the applicable SRP sections referenced in meet the relevant requirements of the NRC's this SRP. Refer to the referenced sections for details.

regulations identified in the SRP sections are provided in the specific SRP sections.

The acceptance criteria for this section of the SRP pertaining to the piping other than RCL such as main steam, feedwater, and aux feedwater piping refer back to sections of the SRP such as 3.9.2, 3.9.3, and 3.12. There were no specific requirements or acceptance criteria in this section, only references to other sections.

1 of 1

PG&E Letter DCL-11-124 Enclosure Attachment 66 SRP 5.4 Reactor Coolant System Component & Subcomponent Design - Piping, Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL)

SRP Acceptance Criteria DCPP Design/Licensing Basis Specific SRP acceptance criteria, acceptable to The assessments are performed under the applicable SRP sections referenced in meet the relevant requirements of the NRC's this SRP. Refer to the referenced sections for details.

regulations identified in the SRP sections are provided in the specific SRP sections.

The acceptance criteria for this section of the SRP pertaining to the RCL piping and supports refers back to sections of the SRP such as 3.9.1, 3.9.2, 3.9.3, etc. There were no specific requirements or acceptance criteria regarding seismic in this section, only references to other sections.

1 of 1