ML13333B851

Summary of 821110 Meeting W/Util,Bechtel,Teledyne & Woodward Clyde Re SEP Topic III-6, Seismic Design Considerations

ML13333B851
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	01/12/1983
From:	Paulson W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TASK-03-06, TASK-3-6, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8301180399
Download: ML13333B851 (48)

Text

January 12, 1983 Docket No. 50-206 LICENSEE:

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY FACILITY:

SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 1

SUMMARY

OF NOVEIBER 10, 1982 MEETING, SEP TOPIC 111-6, "SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS" On November 10, 1982, members of the NRC staff met with representatives of Southern California Edison Company and their consultants. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the seismic evaluation criteria being used by the licensee for active mechanical equipment operability, anchor movement pipe stress, and primary plus secondary load combination (Systematic Evaluation Program Topic 111-6).

Enclosure I is a list of attendees. Enclosure 2 is a copy of the viewgraphs used during the presentation.

The licensee discussed the operability of active iechanical components needed for safe shutdown. The licensee stated that stress calculations will be perfornied for vertical pumps and extended vlve operators to demonstrate acceptable stress levels. With regard to-horizontal pumps and valve bodies, the licensee stated that stress analyses are not required because (1) ANSI B16.5 code requirements ensure that the valve body is stronger than the pipe, and (2) horizontal pump shafts and internals are not subject to significant seismic loads and therefore no analysis of these is necessary to demonstrate operability.

The licensee discussed the approach used to calculate piping stresses due to sleismic anchor movement and pipe support s lismic loads.

The licensee's position is that the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) is an acceptable method to combine seismic inertia and seismic anchor movement stresses. The NRC staff's position that absolute sum should be used to

/

combine these stresses. The licensee also discussed the effect of the (0) occurrence of a smaller earthquake than the SSE on the seismic response of the faciliti,-This issue was raised by the MRC staff because of a concern that a smaller earthquake may result in higher seismic response of the plant in some frequency ranges because of decreases in damping and an increase in soil stiffness at lower g levels. The licensee discussed the results of studies of the ventilation, fuel, and control/administration buildings considering the following two soil stiffness parameters:

CASE 1. Backfill native or 95 percent compacted San Mateo sand, CASE 2. Backfill as characterized in the licensee's August 12, 1982 report.

8301180399 830112 PDR ADOCK 05000206 PDR SURNAME.

DATE NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL R ECOR D COPY USGPO: 1981-335-960

2 -

January 12, 1983 The licensee indicated that the envelope of the instructure response spectra due to Cases 1 and 2 was used for the reevaluation and it envelopes the instructure response spectra due to smaller earthquakes.

During the meeting, the NRC staff provided draft cppies of NRC contractors' concerns. These concerns were subsequently transmitted to the licensee by letter dated November 26, 1982.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the NRC staff provided the following comments on the licensee's presentations.

1. Uncertainty in soils structure interaction - Appears acceptable contingent on the receipt of adequate responses on soil property and backfill conditions at the site.

2. Effects of ground motion amplitude on seismic response - Based on information provided it appears that there is reasonable as assurance that the responses from earthquakes smaller than the SSE would not result in detrimental responses.

3.

Adequacy of reactor coolant analysis - The NRC staff indicated that this issue was still open because of uncertainties in modeling, soil properties, etc.

4. Anchor motion - No decision was reached on this topic. The NRC staff indicated that they would get back to the licensee on this issue.

5. Mechanical equipment - The discussion presented by the licensee looks reasonable. The NRC staff indicated that the licensee should provide the rationale as presented at the meeting in a formal submittal and also provide information that demonstrates that the valve body deformations and strengths are acceptable or show that the existing valve body configuration is equivalent to that of the current ASME code.

6. Vent stack - The NRC staff reiterated that the licensee should show that there is no unacceptable results if the vent stack fails. The licensee indicated that an analysis of the vent stack is not in their program.

The NRC positions were subsequently forwarded to the licensee by letter dated November 26, 1982.

DL R#5 DL: 0 O FFICE)

SURNAME) au s Son:c DCrut je d cE TL OR...

1. 5 DL. 0........... {

DATE I

.8.3.

NRC FORM 318 (10-80PNRCWbiV24e OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGPO: 1981-335-960

3 -

January 12, 1983 In a related matter, the licensee indicated that the effort being expended on the seismic reevaluation was impacting the completion of the Systematic Evaluation Program topics. The licensee also indicated that the work force that is making seilsmic modifications is being cut back because of the uncertainty in the resolution of the seismic issues.

Original signed by Walter A. Paulson, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch #5 Division of Licensing

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/enclosures:

See next page DL

1. 5D OFFICE SURNAME WPaulson:cc DCr field DATE _

NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGPO: 1981-335960

4 -

January 12, 1983 cc Charles R. Kocher, Assistant General Counsel James Beoletto, Esquire Southern California Edison Company Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 David R. Pigott Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 600.Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 Harry B. Stoehr San Diego Gas & Electric Company

P. 0. Box 1831 San Diego, California 92112 Resident Inspector/San Onofre NPS c/o U. S. NRC P. 0. Box 4329 San Clemente, California 92672 Mayor City of San Clemente' San Clemente, California 92672 Chairman Board of Supervisors County of San Diego San Diego, California 92101 California Department of Health ATTN:

Chief, Environmental Radiation Control Unit Radiological Health Section 714 P Street, Room 498 Sacramento, California 95814 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Office ATTN:

Regional Radiation Representative 215 Freemont Street San Francisco, California 94111 Robert H. Engelken, Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region V 1450 Maria Lane Walnut Creek, California 94596

ENCLOSURE 1 LIST OF ATTENDEES Meeting with Southern California Edison November 10, 1982 NAME AFFI1IATION W. Paulson NRC R. Krieger SCE D. Crutchfield NRC K. Baskin SCE P. Koss Bechtel F. Miraglia NRC W. Russell NRC E. McKenna NRC P.Y. Chen NRC S.N. Hou-NRC K. Herring NRC L. Shipley Bechtel G. Wang Bechtel R. Ellis Bechtel D. Landers Teledyne Eng.

J. Barneich Woodward Clyde Consultants R. McNeill Consultant to SCE C. Knarr SCE G. Gartland SCE T. Selcuk Atalik Bechtel J. Pearring NRC T. Cheng NRC

AGENDA SCE/NRC SAN ONOFRE UNIT1 MEETING SEISMIC REEVALUATION PROGRAM NOVEMBER 10, 1982 SEISMIC EVALUATION CRITERIA

• Active Mechanical Equipment Operability

• Anchor Movement Pipe Stress

• Primary Plus Secondary Load Combination AFFECTS OF GROUND MOTION AMPLITUDE ON SEISMIC

RESPONSE

STATUS OF SEP

SE SHUT SYSTPES OPRABILITY ACTIVE MCHANICL CMfO NTS CRITERIA 0

STRESSES WILL I MINTAINEI WITHIN YIELD, PER FUTOTE D, PAGE 10 O HRC GUIELISES METHS 0

STRESS CALtATI0S WILL B PERFP-ED FOR ERTICAL PIPPS AD EENU VALE PERATRS TO IDONSTRATE ACCEPTAILE STRESS LEvELS 0

HORIZ TL PUPS AN VALVE BODIES MO NOT REQUIRE STRESS ANYSIS BECAUSE o

ASI B16.5 COT REQUIREMENTS EIRE VALVE BOY IS STRONR TW PIFE, TREFORE, PER AN. SECTION NC3521> NO STRESS ANALYSIS OF THW VAL 10Y IS REQUIRED o

HI7ONTAL PIPP SHAFTS & INTERNALS ARE NOT SRECT TO SIWIFICANT SEISMIC LOADS AND TfREFORE NO ALY SIS OF THESE IS REQUIRED TO TMONSTRATE PERABILIT.

PREIWMCU EQJIRMN/SKUJ.

2.rETMw ER MC-3334.2 F1 E 2fRN t

COMPARISON OF SONGS 1 HORIZONTAL PUMPS WITH ANALYSIS OF SIMILAR PUMPS IS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE:

DESIGN OF PUMP CASING AND INTERNALS HAS NOT CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE SONGS 1 PUMPS WERE MANUFACTURED SEISMIC LOADS HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE MINIMAL EFFECT ON STRESSES OF PUMP SHAFT FOR HORIZONTAL PUMPS SHAFT AND IMPELLER DEFLECTION OF HORI ZONTAL PUMPS DUE TO SEISMIC LOADS IS MUCH LESS THAN ALLOWABLES

SC(PE (F AL.YSIS F(R B16.5 V.ES FIGRE -1

PIPING STRESSES DUE TO SEISMIC ANCHOR MOVEMENT SAMs ARE LIMITED BY BUILDING DIS PLACEMENTSAND THEREFORE, ARE SEC ONDARY STRESSES.

SECONDARY STRESSES ARE ONLY EVALUATED TO ENSURE AGAINST FATIGUE FAILURE.

SAM STRESSES WILL NOT CAUSE A FATIGUE FAILURE DUE TO THEIR LOW NUMBER OF CYCLES.

PIPE STRESSES DUE TO SEISMIC ANCHOR MOVEMENTS Equation 10 in the ASME code represents a method of limiting loads on piping to provide a conservative fatigue life SE iMc

< SA EQ10 z

where SA = f (1.25Sc + 0.25Sh)

STRESS RANGE REDUCTION FACTORS Number of Equivalent Full temperature cycles f

'N 7000 and less 1.0 7000 to 14000 0.9 14000 to 22000 0.8 22000 to 45000 0.7 45000 to 100,000 0.6 100,000 and over 0.5

Z'.4 LE i

9003W FIL 141 MISM FAT6W CIWS FOR CAIM LOW ALLOY, AOM IOIC" TtnM(

VIIELS FOR *4TAL T(mP(RATUnfS N~OT EXCEEWDec 7001 T jCaftk Tsbaitd Vom mvi a Fwmf Ou Aiwsb Iu~paaU3w I hm Iw Cm

wA

,SMS13 FAICUE CURVE FOR CARDON, LO VLOY AS)Q pt4 g

FOR METAL TEMPERATUnES MO0T Excarages

?W.

I X

0A arag 0MS

• la x#0h Number of cycles, N U?3W assan UaaTe S.-Iseone, eneaoneartate so-e so6e to

PIPING STRESSES DUE TO SEISMIC ANCHOR MOVEMENTS The following table uses the fatigue curve shown in Figure 1 to calculate the usage factors for a representative range of SSE SAM stresses.

TABLE 1. SSE SAM STRESS USAGE FACTORS SSE SAM USEABLE FATIGUE STRESS EXPECTED*

ALLOWABLE USAGE LIFE FOR OTHER (PSI)

CYCLES CYCLES FACT OR STRESS CONDITIONS 20,000 10 70,000

.000143

.99985.

40,000 10 8,000

.00125

.99875 60,000 10 2,000

.005

.99500

• Per SRP 3.7-3 II Acceptance Criteria Item 2 Note:

The allowable stress per code case N-318 for 10 cycles is 83,400 psi

PIPING STRESSES DUE TO SEISMIC ANCHOR MOVEMENTS The Following Table Uses the Fatigue Curve Shown in Figure 1 to Calculate the Usage Factors for a Representative Range of Pressure, Thermal, and SSE SAM Stresses.

FIGURE 3 - HISTOGRAM OF LOAD CASE LU DC SSE SAM (NOT TO SCALE) 20,000 10 SEC TIME (SEC)

TABLE 2 OPERATING + SEE SAM STRESS USAGE FACTORS Operating SAM Expected Allow-Cumula-Usable Fatigue Stress Stress Sa No.

able Usage tive Usage Life for Other (Psi)

(Psi)

(Psi)

Cycles Cycles Factor Factor Stress Conditions 20,000 20,000 40,000 1

8,000

.000125

.000253

.99975 20,000 20,000 9

70,000

.000128 20,000 40,000 60,000 1

2,000

.0005

.00163

.99837 40,000 40,000 9

8,000

.00113 20,000 60,000 80,000 1

850

.00118

.00568

.99432 60,000 60,000 9

2,000

.0045

PIPING STRESSES DU 1T SEISMIC ANCHOR MOVEMENTS WORST CASE SSE SAM WITH OPERATING STRESSES HAS A USEAGE FACTOR OF

.00568

• 99.4 Percent Of Useful Fatigue Life Is Still Available For Other Loading Conditions CONCERN IS NOT THE STRESSES IN THE PIPE FOR SSE SAM REAL CONCERN IS THE PIPE SUPPORTS LOADING CONSIDERS THE SSE SAM

• Song 1 Pipe Support Criteria Requires That SSE SAM Loading Be Part Of The Pipe Support Design Basis

PIPE SUPPORT S1ISI LOADv SRSS METHOD IS AN ACCEPTABLE METHOD TO COMBINE SEISMIC INERTIA AND SEISMIC ANCHOR MOVEMENT DUE TO THE FOLLOWING:

• The Dynamic Response Time Function is Rapidly Varying;

• Duration of the Strong Motion Portion of the Function is Short;

• Function Consists of a Few Distinct High Peaks Which Are Random With Respect to Time;

• Response is Calculated on a Linear Elastic Basis; and

• Time-Phase Relationship Among Func tions to be Combined is Random.

PIPE SUPPORT SEISMIC LOADS Sa U (t)

U t) ai I1

PIPE SUPPORT SEISMIC LOADS (Cont'd.)

R max (S1 RW Rmax R1(t) t R1a t2 II RRmax S2) max RN(t) t RN R max(SN) tN + 1 Ui (t)

Rmax R~N

+ 1 oo) U (t) - U (t) max [Ug(t) - Uj(t)

SRSS Rmax 2

+(max 2

max) 2 R1

---

+

2N

+ 1

EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA DUE TO SMALLER EARTHQUAKES

200 150 100 50 0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Peak Ground Surface Acceleration (gs)

VARIATION OF Km WITH PEAK GROUND SURFACE ACCELERATION

Occ O-..o v

E71

&/dXL /v..

.CCoc C..

o 77/c-a4.

TecF

/'Cs

/?o_'

t r

d

-v' of'--77

.7A~E cal a

,v

/F. F/

c/~Z'~

6CFL CC~,'

/A7 Arz~&'70 0'

avtTryckx

STRUCTURES NOT AFFECTED BY LOWER EARTHQUAKE REACTOR AUXILIARY BUILDING CIRCULATING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE NON-STRUCTURAL SLABS AND EQUIPMENT AT GRADE GROUND DESIGN SPECTRA TAKEN AS INSTRUCTURE SPECTRA

STRUCTURES AFFECTED BY BACKFILL CONDITIONS

• FUEL STORAGE BUILDING

• VENtILATION EQUIPMENT BUILDING

• TURBINE BUILDING

SOIL STIFFNESS PARAMETERS 1

BACKFILL NATIVE OR 95 PERCENT COMPACTED SAN MATEO SAND (CASE 1) 2, 1BACOFILL AS CHARACTERIZED IN "SOIL BACKFILL CONDITIONS, SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT 1, AUGUST 12, 1982" (CASE 2)

INSTRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA DUE TO CASES I AND 2 ARE INCLUDED IN DESIGN

• ~~~~ rr~4-.

J 77' A

S.

5' V

• ti A.

a 1

FUEL STORAGE BUILDING

.iI~

~

1~

1~.,4

~

dl

• 4:

'II 4

.44 IV 1,

"YA.

• 4 a

ft, i

~ Iir

~~

.~.

______________________________T

• I pip.

11 A'

I-Il

.~.

2.

VI

1vL AnA

/11 0

o.4'I

• -to i.

K-I.

I,.

6 I

I

• 1.*

Iq&I&

~

~

'JJ <~

I' It..

1;

'0.I

/.0 I0 VQ()

Ip 1 -1,IgJ('V (Ad, i

~

FL/FL 8U/LO//IG X~L 4~') Al-S DIR&cr/c4&1

~1

1 4 41,4k AT.

9 4

I,

-1, 0

Idi, e

___L B

ILON

• 1'1 1' 0

S CONTAINMENT SPHERE/REACTOR BUILDING 0

THE FINAL PROGRESS REPORT FOR THE SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT I AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM PROJECT SEISMIC SAFETY MARGINS RESEARCH PROGRAM JUNE 18, 1982 (DRAFT FOR COMMENTS)

METHODOLOGY SCE/BPC.

LLL ELASTIC HALFSPACE SOIL

• FOUNDATION/SUPERSTRUCTURE SPRINGS SUBSTRUCTURING INPUT MOTION APPLIED AT

• REDUCTION OF INPUT MOTION FOUNDATION LEVEL DUE TO EMBEDMENT COMPOSITE MODAL DAMPING

• SOIL DAMPING INTRODUCED

.THROUGH FOUNDATION IMPEDANCES

- VERTICAL 17%

HORIZONTAL 10%

RESULTS

",...SCEC/BECHTEL RESULTS ARE OBSERVED TO ENVELOP THOSE OF SMACS OVER ENTIRE FREQUENCY RANGE: IN THE AMPLIFIED FREQUENCY RANGE BY CONSIDER ABLE FACTORS."

"IF COMPARISON...,, TO PIPING MOMENTS, THIS MARGIN IS EXPECTED TO GROW BY A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR."

"A COMPARISON OF THE MEAN RESPONSE FOR CASES 1 AND 2 SHOWED MINIMAL DIFFERENCES,"

1.3P LL.'

C-6F OFFUV4,.)'k

4&'6l~. UrF ACCCL £94 TA~sv (~)

o'J______________

'K

~1 S

A.

~

4

• j***<**

~~*

,r

-~

ii ~iI~

A "p

~

~

-~

• ~t*

7 (Z)

/

• • ~

0 j

I

~.

N

.9 I

~

.*.,~

J*j p

~II.

~*,,l?*~y~

V

'~ **

P 4*!

T jR 5.00 Of OERA7W XGX -RAAI E-SPP015 "YE77CA

5 0 Ca~~~kCR~

\\.PRUaj -RS~t.SEM M-:

RE

1.000.0 AOI,?c r/c-4

S I-iLl.<>..

~

'1

~Z'~~*'.-~

~

SCE/BPC

.1

~

LLAIL 7

~J~)

1.6~

I

4.

0

-~..'-~

TGe ~

STCA/vl GEA/t~9ATOR 1PA~THE61T B NS D/RCCTI~/

I *-

TO PER A0IZ SL

CONTROL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

o 7' r

\\7

.33<3' Offa SI 1

0./

.o

/ot FREQUEWCY (H/)

SEISMIC LOAD COMBINATION TABLE.3 BUILDING FREQUENCIES VS.

PIPE FREQUENCIES Stress P,,oe 2bln"na',' /espoa o

P o

c Prc,.

Pro6/en 5ized 61dWi Frei _;/d';

Fre_

Alo x

Y 2

x Y

Z x

Y Z

A'-05 2,3, 4.. 6 2

27/

33 75//

//.

i s.34s p/al fr"A FW-06 2,3,4,6 2

6?/

3.22 2.16; g.3/8 9.963 c.e81 l1.5-363 3

r

-4.6 3

461 2

/

17

/2.136

6. 703 8.o53 MS-363 3

or W16_ 5__

'~/o" AC.05 3,6,8, Puiliar

/0.947 7.J3l 74xl4a C,- 2 3,

6 Co o, 4x3/a 6.69 7J[i6 7.102

,5, i~p/ erao A"x/av' 0

0 AneC-//-

- Fvu~da~ ~~/3.723

/9.655 7.out/

AC. /Z 8.752

/3.801 s8.65

~~~- Co,,y'S g

36

/3 70,

~

~

~

C6

/2389

?

7 5 95

~~/: 3../ C/3 bwla/,') 3.1 1-255

/7752 7.9 69 S/-5

-2 I

/ri torz a.rs SHET2 3F

3.

2, 4,5 8, P/ o,,fea'ei/Jla rur12l/S -~

4.- % 4.2 E 466 3.24"

.89 795 9.589 Cy/

lj "'- 3./3-43 r

m6

.6

'5?

6.n

-5151.

12,1,q 1//a /4'Y'7

/e7S/'7

/482 1/0.4'72 12.31?

SHEET 1

OF 3

SEISMIC LOAD COMBINATION TABLE 3 - BUILDING FREQUENCIES VS. PIPE FREQUENCIES Stress P eb 2bma

/espou Ion,,Ia/ IfeS,oose P,7e;oe Pro,/em 5zes 8udd4ty Fre ?//a Freq

/

Oif'_

o.

x Y

Z x

Y Z

X Y

Z

-5c6/d. g~all F o8.887

/0.532

/1.717

/JC19 2/

o 36/S4.4/29

/0.32/

6._877 4C.20 2,

2',2 f/t/

3_6 /.IS-,-

?oso_

___..870?

3 5.324

?.9/

/1. 6,/3

0771, 3...q

/.

/6.Is93 AC-22 7.601

16. E93 5

.2A

/

&'5j 3.54 Co..

. d /o/e e/e0 a Jns 3a vt

.S 4 ?

962

/2 6

/.9 Fuel i....~

I SHEET 2.02,-

OF3

.5.~?-2 117 lo,. o? 6ovreea, sA e

'Cr

SEISMIC LOAD COMBINATION TABLE 3 - BUILDING FREQUENCIES VS. PIPE FREQUENCIES StresPs

-g Am.inant RP Z"m</

P;aos ~ e /F;-q.

Prodem 5/zeJ gwk/;/ r Fre7

//_in Fret rio.

x z

x Y

Z X

Y Z

tev.05 6, 8 ch.5, 3,65 435 5.05 is.a3 9.q06

3.

HEE 3, O 33

/1W-51 41,8

,"o 3'

.9 343 6 5.2>63

/IW-52~~~~~: 3.' 43 4x/2y 1:: 624

>33 6.72 SHEET 3 OF 3