ML17334B156
| ML17334B156 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 10/06/1987 |
| From: | Alexich M INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG |
| To: | Murley T NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17334B157 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0554, RTR-NUREG-0612, RTR-NUREG-554, RTR-NUREG-612 AEP:NRC:0514W, AEP:NRC:514W, NUDOCS 8710140073 | |
| Download: ML17334B156 (19) | |
Text
REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR: 8710140073 DOC. DATE: 87/10/06 NOTARIZED:
NO DOCKET ¹ FACIL:50-315 Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Power Planti Unit 1>
Indiana Rc 05000315 50-316 Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Power Planti Unit 2.
Indiana Sc 05000316 AUTH. NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION ALEXICHIM. P.
REC IP. NAME REC IP IENT AFFILIATION MURLEYIT. E.
Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)
SUBJECT:
Forwards, per 870410 util ltr, final seismic analysis reptB "Crane Seismic Repti Cask Handling Cranei 150 Ton Capacitgi Existing Bridge S/N 10038B New Trolley S/N 12124B" Zc info re plant design response spectra 5 FSAR damping values.
sg.~
DISTRIBUTION CODE:
AOOID COPIES RECEIVED: LTR LI ENCL I
SIZE:
TITLE:
OR Submittal:
General Distribution NOTES:
RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD3-3 LA WIGGINGTONI D COP IES LTTR ENCL 1
0 1
1 REC IP IENT ID CODE/NAME PD3-3 PD COPIES LTTR ENCL 5.
5 INTERNAL: ARM/DAF/LFMB NRR/DEST/CEB NRR/DEST/RSB NRR/PMAS/'ILRB EG 61 EXTERNAL:
EG8(G BRUSKEI S NRC PDR 1
0 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 NRR/DEST/ADS NRR/DEST/MTB NRR/DOEA/TSB OGC/HDS1 RES/DE/EIB LPDR NSIC 1
1 1
1 1
1 0
1 1
1 1
1 1
TOTAL NUMBER OF COP IES REQUIRED:
LTTR 21 ENCL 18
Indiana Michigan Power Company P.O. Box 16631 Columbus, OH 43216 AEP'NRC:0514W Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2
Docket No. 50-315 and 50-316 License Nos.
DPR-58 and DPR-74 AUXILIARY'UILDING'CRANEMODI'FICATION FINAL SEISMIC ANALYSIS REPORT U.ST Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn:
Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.
20555 Attn:
T.
E. Murley October 6, 1987=
Dear Dr. Murley:
Ref:
Our Letter AEP:NRC:0514T, dated April 10, 1987.
As noted in the above-referenced letter, this submittal transmits the final seismic analysis report entitled "Crane Seismic Report, Cask Handling Crane, 150 Ton Capacity, Existing Bridge S/N10038; New Trolley S/N12124," dated August 21, 1987, performed by Whiting Corporation.
This analysis is for the modified auxiliary building crane with a new trolley built to meet the single-failure-proof requirements of NUREG-0554.
The design-rated load (DRL) of the qmodified crane is 150 tons, and the maximum critical load (MCL) of the modified crane is 55 tons during and after a plant design-basis earthquake (DBE).
Attachment 1 contains the information on plant design response spectra and the damping values as stated in our FSAR.
The building response spectra at the elevation where the crane is located are presented in Appendix A of the Whiting seismic report.
Attachment 2 is the final seismic analysis report prepared by Whiting Corporation.
We believe that with the modifications noted above, the crane meets the single-failure-proof requirements of NUREG-0554 and that operational restrictions on the crane to meet the requirements of NUREG-0612 and T/S Section 3.9.7 will no longer be required.
We are in the process of preparing a T/S change request to Section 3.9.7 and will be submitting it to the NRC shortly.
8710140073 871006 PDR ADOCK 05000315 P
)oo
b
~+
Dr. T.
E. Murley AEP:NRC:0514W A check in the amount of $150.00 was transmitted with the above-referenced submittal.
This document has been prepared following Corporate procedures which incorporate a reasonable set of controls to insure its accuracy and completeness prior to signature by the undersigned.
Sincerely, M.
exich Vice President cm cc:
John E. Dolan W.
G. Smith, Jr.
- Bridgman-w/attachments R.
C. Callen G. Bruchmann G. Charnoff NRC Resident Inspector
- Bridgman-w/attachments A. B. Davis - Region III-w/attachments
ATTACHMENT NO.
1 TO AEP:NRC:0514W
'I
2.5 ENGINEERING SEISMOLOGY The site lies in a region which has experienced very little earthquake activity.
No major earthquakes have had epicenters closer than about 400 miles to the plant site.
There has been some minor earthquake activity closer to the site;
- however, no snocks within 50 miles of the site have been large enough to cause significant structural damage.
A complete report of site seismology is included in Appendix A to the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report.
=
2.5. 1 SEISMICITY The epicentral locations of all reported earthquakes with Modified Mercalli Intensities of V or greater in the region surrounding the site are shown on Figure 2.5-1, Epicentral Location Map.
The closest Intensity IV shock is also shown.
Only three recorded earthquakes with epicentral intensities of V or greater have occurred within approximately 100 miles of the plant site.
These were of relatively low intensity, barely strong enough to cause even slight structural damage.
The two largest earthquakes in the vicinity of the site had maximum intensities of VI.
The first occurred near Fort Dearborn (Chicago) Illinois, about 70 miles from the site, in 1804.
The second occurred in south-central Michigan about 75 miles from the site, in 1947.
An Intensity V earthquake occurred near Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1947.
A weak earthquake with a maximum intensity of IV occurred in 1938 on the south shore of Lake Michigan about 30 miles from the site.
This earthquake did no damage but was, felt over a relatively large area.
A possible earthquake occurred in 1883 near Kalamazoo, Michigan about 50 miles northeast of the site.
The maximum intensity for this event is listed as VI since there is a record of some minor damage in Kalamazoo.
However, information is available which indicates that the damage may have been caused by an explosion and not an earthquake.
- 2. 5-1
- July, 1982
It is likely that most of the minor earthquake activity in the Michigan Basin is related to readjustments along zones of weakness in the bedrock, probably caused by gla"ial rebound.
This same mechanism probably caused the minor earthquakes reported in northern Ohio, Lake Erie and western New York State.
The 1947 earthquake in south-central Michigan may be related to a possible northwest trending fault located 50 miles northeast of Benton Harbor.
Other seismic activity is related to fault systems bordering the Michigan Basin such as the Findlay Arch System in western Ohio.
Some of the larger shocks from this area have been felt in southern Michigan.
In summary, it may be stated that the seismicity of the region is low.
Although no major earthquake has originated closer than about 400 miles to the plant site, several damaging shocks have occurred close enough to be of significance.
A list of the closest significant earthquakes in the region is presented in Table 2.5-1, Earthquakes with Epicenters located within 200 miles of Plant Site.
While several of these shocks were possibly felt in the vicinity of the site, no damaging effect would have been experienced fran them.
In the event of a recurrence of an historical earthquake, no damage would be experi:enced at the site by reasonably well-designed structures.
2.5 ~ 2 A SEISMIC DESIGN Foundation Materials The site is underlain by a simple sequence of formations consisting of a surface stratum of dune sand underlain by dense beach
- sands, a stiff clay stratum and, glacial tillresting on shale-bedrock.
Major plant structures are supported on mat foundations installed on the overlying compact
- sand, recompacted sand, or stiff clay deposits.
I
- 2. 5-2
- July, 1982
Available data from past earthquakes indicate that ccmpact glacial tilland canpetent bedrock perform well under dynamic loading.
Dynamic laboratory testing on samples of the canpact beach sand and the upper lake bed deposits of shelty clay indicates that these materials would experience no significant loss in strength during any ~tential earthquake.
ratin Basis Earth ake On the basis of the seismic history of the area, it appears extremely likely that the site will not experience any significant earthquake motion during the life of the plant.
Based on the history of previous earthquake activity in the area, it is estimated that the maximum ground motion to which the site may be subject during its life would be due to a shock similar to the 1947 south-central Michigan earth-quake.
It is estimated that the magnitude of this shock was no greater than about 4h on the Riahter Scale.
This earthquake possibly may be related to a postulated. fault structure trending northwest-southeast through southwest Michigan.
The closest approach of this postulated structure to the site is about 50 miles to the northeast.
It is estimated that the ground acceleragiok at the site due to a magnitude 44 earthquake at a distance of 50 miles would be barely perceptible at the site.
The largest earthquake in the region occurred near Lima, Ohio, in 1937.
It has an epicentral Intensity of VII to VIII and was felt over an area of about 150,000 square miles.
The magnitude of this earthquake has been estimated at about 54.
This earthquake was related to local faulting associated with the Findlay Arch.
The closest approach of the Findlay Arch or any related structure to the site is about 130 miles.
An earthquake of magnitude 54 at an epicentral distance of 130 miles would be barely perceptible at the site.
On a historical basis, it does not appear necessary to incorporate a seismic factor in the elastic design of the power plant.
However, in view of the nature of the facilityf the major structures are conservatively designed for a maximum
- 2. 5-3
- July, 1982
horizontal ground acceleration of 10 percent of gravity and a maximum vertical acceleration of 6.66 percent of gravity.
The seismic design requirements of the reactor containvent structure are given in Chapter 5 and the reauirenents for other structures and equipment are given in Sub-Chapter 2.9.
The dynamic analysis of ".he containment structure for seismic loading is in Append'x
= "o
.-.'.".e "r.ginal Safety Analysis Report.
Desi n Basis Earth ake The maximum potential earthquake for this site is considered to be a
recurrence of the largest recorded earthquake in a nearby region at the closest epicentral distance consistent with geologic structure.
A number of earthquakes in the region have not been related to known tectonics."
These shocks may have their origin in the crystalline Ir basement rock where the structure is canplex.
They may occur along zones of weakness, triggered by glacial rebound.
Historically, such shocks have been minor, with estimated magnitudes not exceeding 4b.
- However, an earthquake in 1943 with its epicenter in Lake Erie may have had a magnitude as great as 5.
The geology of Lake Erie is similar to that of southwest Michigan in that the bedrock is essen-tially a stable platform with little or no seismic history and no known faulting.
Shocks in the Lake Erie area are probably related to glacial rebound, as we believe the shocks to be in the area of the site.
Based on the foregoing, it, has been conservatively assumed that the maximum potential earthquake could be as'arge as Magnitude 5 and might occur relative to some yet unknown geologic structure in the bedrock near the site, perhaps triggered by glacial rebound.
Assum-ing such a shock might have a focal depth as shallow as 10 kilometers, it is estimated that the maximum ground acceleration at foundation level (within the lake or beach sand deposits) at the site would be about 15 percent of gravity.
However, additional margin has been provided for by designing the engineered safety features to be
'7
- 2. 5-4
- July, 1~82
operative under a maximum horizontal ground acceleration of 20 percent of gravity and maximum vertical acceleration of 13.33 percent of gravity.
The seismic design requ'rements of the containment are given in Chapter 5,
and the r~irement for other st uctures and equipment are given in Sub-Chapter 2.9.
Recanmended response spectra showing responses for typical percent of critical damping for the operating basis and the design basis earth-
- quakes, corresponding to horizontal ground accelerations of 10 and 20 percent of gravity, are presented on Figures 2.5-2 and 2.5-3.
These response spectra represent the maximum amplitudes of motion in struc-tures having a range of natural frequencies subjected to earthquake ground motion.
The use of the average (El-Centro) response spectra as presented in TID 7024, normalized to the recommended ground accelerations, was deaned appropriate for this site since the average spectra are based
, on site conditions consisting of a deep thickness of overburden soil qover bedrock.
The subsurface conditions at the Cook Plant site consists of soils which are comparable in canpactness to El-Centro and it was therefore felt that the normalized El-Centro spectra are appropriately conservative for this site.
Zn order to show that the response spectra generated, using four earthquakes, are as conservative as the spectra generated using a
synthetic earthquake, which falls above the site spectra, a ccmpari-son was made for the Auxiliary Building, between existing floor spectra and the spectra generated using the modified El-Centro Earthquake (N-S-components - 1934).
- 2. 5-5
- July, 1982
1 El-Centro earthquake was modified such that at all frequencies its response spectrum falls above the site response spectrum.
(See Figure 2.5-3a.)
Figures 2.5-3b thru 2.5-3e show this ccmparison for various elevations in the structure for an'BF..
C re - A represents the spectrum used in design and curve -
B represents the spectrum generated using the synthetic time history motion.
Since curve - A envelopes curve - B in all cases the response spectra used in design are conservative.
Figures 2.5-3f thru 2,.5-3j show this ccmparison for the DBE with 5%
structural damping.
Su lemental Data Subsequent to the detailed studies of the site and its surroundings described in the Appendix A, additional work was performed to confirm the validity of the seismic accelerations proposed as design bases for the plant.
An investigation was made of the logs of a series of gas and oil wells drilled in the site vicinity to depths of up to 2500 feet and the results were plotted.
Although fifteen logs were studied, eleven lay along a southwest-northeast axis about 35 miles long, roughly parallel to the lake shore and passing about two to three miles from the plant location.
The remaining five were located along an axis perpendicular to the first and intersecting it in the site vicinity.
The results of this study demonstrated that there is a canplete absence of geologic structure in the immediate site area which could be related to past or future seismic events.
- 2. 5-6
~
July, I982
In addition, a large number of references were studied to determine the seismic characteristics of the region surrounding the site.
This included eastern Wisconsin, northern Illinois and Indiana, and northwestern Ohio as well as Mich'gan.
Further information relat'ng to the selection of seismic parameters can be found in the reports of the results of foundation investi-gations conducted at the size, Appendices E and G to the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report and to the Original Final Safety Analysis Report.
2.5.3 CONCLUS IONS It is anticipated that the site will not experience any significant earthquake motion during the life of the nuclear facility.
Historically, there is no basis for expected ground motion of more than a few percent of gravity.
However, as a conservative
- basis, an earthquake horizontal ground acceleration of 10 percent 'of gravity was adopted for plant design where applicable.
For safe shutdown of the reactor, and operability of engineered safety features a maximum horizontal ground acceleration of 20 percent of gravity was assumed.
This ground acceleration is in excess of that estimated on the basis of an occurrence of a shallow focus Magnitude 5 earthquake close to the site.
On the basis of the seismic history and the known tectonics of the area, the possibility of such an occurrence is extremely remote.
- 2. 5-7
- July, 1<82
TABLE 2.5-1 EARTH UAKES WITH EPICENTERS LOCATED WITHIN 200 MILES OF PLANT SITE (Intensity V or Greater)
Year Date Time
~inteneit Lohation (Remarks)
Distance N. Lat.
W. LoncL.
Prom Site Felt Area (miles)
(square miles) 1804 August 24 14:10 VI 1872 February 6
08:00 V
- Weonona, Michigan (three shocks lasting 30 seconds) 43.5 Fort
Dearborn,
Illinois (Chicago) 42.0 87.8 83.8 70 30,000 Local 1875 June 18 07: 43 VII Ohio most severe at Urbana and Sidney
- 40. 2
- 84. 0 40,000 1877 August 17 10:50 IV-V Southeastern Michigan, near Detroit 42.3 83.3 160 200 1882 February 9
14:00 V
Ohio felt at Swandors and Bodkins, near Anna
- 40. 5 84 165 1883 February 4
05:00 VI 1884 September 19 14:14 V
Indiana and Michigan, felt at Kalamazoo, Michigan (possibly invalid << see page 2.5-1) near Lima, Ohio
- 42. 3
,40. 7
- 85. 6
- 84. 1 50 155 8,000 125,000
TABLE 2.5-1 (cont'd.)
Year Date Time
~intentit Location (Remarks)
N. tat.
~W. Lon D1stdnce From Site (mi1 es)
Felt Area (square miles) 1909 May 26 1912 January 2
08:42 VII 10: 21 VI 1929 March 8
04:06 V
1930 September 30 14:40 VII 1931 September 20 17:05 VII Northern Illinois Northern Illinois near Bellefontaine, Ohio Ohio, strongest at Anna Ohio, felt at Anna, Sidney and Houston 42.5
- 41. 5
- 40. 4
- 40. 3
- 40. 2 89.0
- 88. 5
- 84. 2 84.3
- 84. 3 135 175 500, 000 40,000 5, 000 40,000 1937 March 2
09:48 VII Western Ohio, maximum intensity at Anna and Sidney
- 40. 7
- 84. 0 160 90, 000 March 3
03:50 V
Ohio, felt at Sidney,
- Anna, Jackson Center and Botkins
- 40. 50 84 4
C March 8 1947 May 6 August 9 1956 January 27 15:25 V
20: 47 VI 06:03 V
Milwaukee, Wisconsin South Centxal Michigan West Central Ohio 23:45 VII-VIII Western Ohio, near Anna
- 40. 6
- 84. 0 43 88 42.0 85.0
- 40. 50 84 90 165 150, 000 3, 000 50, 000 a) 1961 February 22 03:45 V
North Western Ohio, felt at Amsden and Arcadia
- 41. 2
- 83. 4 170
=
1 allA I t]
'lg
~ 1 Tl 0
G Z C
~ r 8
L3
[rl
~A I
I 1
'c A
II (0M
+g l
//
/'I I
~
~P,'h"h 1 j )
1 l
2A1-I:.-
I h I
)!,
I l
I
/
~
~.
\\,
~ ~
~
'." r V
'1 1
~
/
)
- ~';
~
~
~ ~
~
~
I-1 T
h 1
)
l
~
r
~
~
)1
~
~
. '. ~ ':,'. ~
)1
~
T
~ h)Ihh)T
~
[ 'l IO 9
8 l V Y
nX 4'l c1 5
LlZE!X 2
l CPO4 14
~ O Q )1 ab CT
) ~ Q o5 I
5 h
.1
~
~to Vi /)
V h h1Yr
/
~..
)
)h T Y h
Y Y J/
j W,
~
hj;,'l++
o.
0'o, ~.
I '
I I I. ]Ill'Ii-'"'I" h
L'- -.
! "~
2 C3 a4 Bp.i;
<<el:.O1 2 " '>
4 5 'e" 'e PRE'".lI.;;Cv: l CVC ~SISPCC:,
T t)
C ~
'T 1
~ ) ~ 'T 4 T
~
/T T0
~
~
~ ).)
TOAD)),~)/h "W ~
TJ )IT t/ >>"
ep Lo lop PPRIOO l4 SKCONOS Ioo eo eo 55 4o m
2o lo e, e
5 4
5 2
I.o o.e os o.5 o4 op a2 o.l JJe
.os ao4 o,o5
'I""IIAIl)"
~
I I I 'I-I1il'I;l'ITIiilI'I'ItlTI',l'!'I"K'."
" '" '"','",Ilia'i '""'!"'I:":.':.'
- "':.":""'lI'..I1'.".." "'l'llIAI."1
~
~C
~
~ '
~ I'"-".
SPI-.CTgA Aqg FOP.~;.
';-",IJa( hC.IZOHTAl GROUND I':.'-
ACCELEAATIOH OF "O;-=- ~CL:IT r,.'l.A"'ITY
',..i..:
hl-'I.~'-.
)h, 9'
T 1 /)
~
.1
0'II a
) C)
MA CA VI Itv
)0 g
25 0
P 0)
U fTI0 PERIOD IN SECONDS Io 8
6 5
4 3
2 l.o 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 O.I
.08
.06 004 0.03 002 L
0) rwd
~
~o
.> 0 0
~'
~
r
~ i ~ //
.rr ~
~
/
w r ~
~
'1 g
l
~ f o.
'..o 'oz oo3 aors.05.06
.oe 0~
oz a3 o4 05 as ae l.o -
z
~
3 4
5 0
8 In zo 30
~o '0 oo
.Cc 100 80 60 50 40 30 20 60 r:
r I
nrl I
Ill r.'. ~
I,'PECTRA ARE FOR A MAXIMUM HORIZONTAL GROUND;. i
'i >
= '.
'0.pe%'(,~ oo
~--+~-
~.- r'..- ~.'.<-,'. "-->"=-..'CCELERATION OF 10 PERCENT OF GRAVITY --<.".
/
, I
/ /
7:
r/
~
~
. ~
WW
~
y r
~ ~
~ //
~
6"
~ Q c-.. ',
~ tP~
~
r 4'
r
~
r
/
r 4
~
lO r
r+/
lO i Vg ass 3
~
X
/
p
~
~ f
~
x':".
/
n n
f r
I r
V O
/'
~IO
~
~
r
~
~
~
~
r '/
-/
1
),
q I+ g go
~
) ) l r
~
0.8,--
~
J r -- r
.:0 h,
</
L 4
='>>qr rr n
/ -
v
~ ~
~ il 0-05. "
~
r 0
~
r
~
0.4.
I gV
~I I
FREQUENCY IN CYCI.ES/SECOND a, r/r ~
~
~
~
JOB NO 421O DATE OCTOBER 2
1 2
DATE
>t SHEET OF
( LJ ENT AEP SERVICE CORPORATION PgPgECT D.C.
COOK OESiGH BY SGM CHECKED BY CB, CB O
IA M
rC D
e 8
Q 8
8 CL. a vC LA Cl O
CI
~r4
~I\\
yy
~
sA tel t4
~
~
~
spud 4 'uo~~tselu~
CI
- July, 1982 Figure 2.5-3a SITE SPECTRA V.ST MODIFIED EL CENTRO '$4 OPERATING BASIS EARTHQUAKE (Z% DAMPINC)
L'..
~i ~
~
I I a..
~
I 0
~
~
~ t
~\\
a'.\\
CQ
~ Q aa
( ~*" I CV L 1
~
~
t I~Y((
~$,
1$
~, ~
~f
~D 0
0 CL-o
\\
~
~ ~
o a
IA CI o
oo CV t4
~
~
I
$ )JUL 6 UOi]Dl0sD~
~
~
SITE SPECTRA VS. IlODIFIED EL Ci2<TRO '34 DESIGI< BASIS EARTHQUAIK
'g<
rune uv)
Figure 2; 5-3f
'uly, 1982