ML18152A116

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to Supplement 1 of GL 87-02 Re SQUG Resolution of Unresolved Safety Issue A-46.Commits to Use of SQUG Methodology & Commitments Set Forth in Gip,Including Clarifications,Interpretations & Exceptions Noted in SSER-2
ML18152A116
Person / Time
Site: Surry, North Anna  Dominion icon.png
Issue date: 09/18/1992
From: Beck G
VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.)
To:
NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
REF-GTECI-A-46, REF-GTECI-SC, TASK-A-46, TASK-OR 92-384, GL-87-02, GL-87-2, NUDOCS 9209280219
Download: ML18152A116 (44)
v • d • e


Text

e VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23261 September 18, 1992 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Serial No.92-384 Attention: Document Control Desk NES:TWH/ETS R1 Washington, D. C. 20555 Docket Nos. 50-280 50-281 50-338 50-339 License Nos. DPR-32 DPR-37 NPF-4 NPF-7 Gentlemen:

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 NORTH ANNA POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENT 1 OF GENERIC LETTER 87-02 SQUG RESOLUTION OF UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUE A-46 On February 19, 1987, the NRG issued Generic Letter 87-02, "Verification of Seismic Adequacy of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment in Operating Reactors, Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A-46." This Generic Letter encouraged utilities to participate in a

  • generic program to resolve the seismic verification issues associated with USI A-46.

As a result, the Seismic Qualification Utility Group ("SQUG") developed the "Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP) for Seismic Verification of Nuclear Plant Equipment."

On May 22, 1992, the NRG Staff issued Generic Letter 87-02, Supplement 1, which constituted the NRG Staff's review of the GIP. The generic letter supplement included Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report Number 2 (SSER-2) on Revision 2, of the GIP.

In a letter to SQUG enclosing SSER-2, the NRG requested that SQUG member utilities provide a schedule within 120 days, for implementing the GIP. This letter resp*onds to the Staff's request.

GIP Commitments As a member of SQUG, Virginia Electric and Power Company commits to use the SQUG methodology and commitments set forth in the GIP in their entirety. The SQUG methodology and commitments include the clarification's, interpretations, and exceptions identified in SSER-2 as clarified by the August 21, 1992, SQUG letter responding to SSER-2. Although we have identified no planned exceptions, we note that the GIP, as evaluated by the Staff, permits licensees to deviate from the SQUG

  • commitments .embodied in the Commitment sections, provided the Staff is notified of 9209280219 920918 PDR ADOCK 05000280 P - - '"'vu PDR

e e substantial deviations before implementation. Any need for substantial deviation identified during the implementation process will be submitted to the NRC for approval.

GIP Guidance Virginia Electric and Power Company will generally conform to the GIP implementation guidance, which comprises suggested methods for implementing the applicable commitments. Virginia Electric and Power Company will notify the NRC as soon as practicable, but no later than the final USI A-46 summary report, of significant or programmatic deviations from the guidance portions of the GIP, if any. Justifications for such deviations, as well as for other minor deviations, will be retained at the corporate office for NRC review.

In-Structure Response Spectra North Anna Power Station, which is a Category 1 plant as indicated in Table A of SSER-2, is not required to provide the criteria and procedures for development of the in-structure response spectra.

Surry Power Station which is a Category 3 (Housner) plant as indicated in Table A of SSER-2, is required to submit the criteria and procedures for development of the in-structure response spectra. This information is provided in Attachment 1.

Per the Generic Letter, if the Staff does not respond by accepting, questioning, or rejecting the criteria and procedures for developing in-structure response spectra within sixty days, the Staff is assumed to have accepted our spectra, and we may proceed with implementation. If a rejection or questions are received from the Staff, we will provide additional information as soon as possible to the Staff to resolve the issue.

Schedule In our response to the NRG on GL 87-02 dated October 7, 1988, Serial No.88-514, Virginia Electric and Power Company requested the integration of USI A-46 with those of other related seismic issues (e.g., Eastern United States Seismicity, Seismic Margins, and Individual Plant Examination of External Events) to minimize program redundancy. Given the magnitude of the effort required to achieve resolution of USIA-46, final implementation must be carefully integrated with outage schedules and the seismic IPEEE response. Completion of the IPEEE activity will be affected by the USI A-46 program implementation start date. The USI A-46 program will be integrated with seismic IPEEE program, forming a single cost effective program, and minimizing unnecessary duplication of examination and review efforts.

Virginia Electric and Power Company informed the NRC in the October 7, 1988 letter that the seismic verification plant walkdowns requi~ed by the GIP would be completed by the second refueling outage after receipt of the final SER supplement and resolution of open issues. The actual plant walkdowns cannot be started until the qualified seismic capability engineers are trained at a SQUG approved walkdown course. This training has been conducted by SQUG since June of 1992. Two training sessions have been scheduled for the remainder of 1992. A fourth session is expected to be completed in early 1993. Our seismic capability engineers are

. currently. scheduled for the walkdown training, which will support the planned

e e walkdown schedule. The plant walkdowns for USI A-46 and seismic IPEEE programs at Surry and North Anna are expected to be completed by the following dates, based on the current outage schedule indicated below:

End of Second Refueling Power Station Outage after Issuance of SSER-2 Surry Unit 1 Cycle 13 (November 2, 1995)

Surry Unit 2 Cycle 13 (May 31, 1996)

North Anna Unit 1 Cycle 1O (December 15, 1994)

North Anna Unit 2 Cycle 10 (June 13, 1995)

For Surry Power Station Unit 2, it should be noted that May 31, 1996, is the end date of the third refueling outage after receipt of GL 87-02 Supplement 1. In 1993, the North Anna Unit 1 Steam Generator replacement and refueling outage overlaps the Surry Unit 2 refueling outage. It is our intention to minimize contractor involvement and to perform the walkdowns and the evaluations with qualified company engineers. Due to our personnel limitations and the overlapping outages, walkdowns will not be performed during the Surry Unit 2 1993 refueling outage. Our walkdown effort will be focused on North Anna Unit 1 during the extended steam generator replacement and refueling outage.

For the seismic IPEEE program, the walkdown and evaluation results for both units of each station will be submitted as a summary report within six months after the end of the refueling outage in which the last unit's walkdowns for that station are completed.

For the USI A-46 program, walkdown and evaluation results will be submitted as a summary report within nine months after the end of the refueling outage in1which the last unit's walkdowns are completed. The submittal dates for seismic IPEEE and USI A-46 for both of Surry and North Anna Power Stations are based on the outage schedule stated above and are as follows:

Submittal Date Seismic IPEEE USI A-46 Surry Units 1 & 2 November 1996 February 1997 North Anna Units 1 & 2 December 1995 March 1996 Specific justification of the extension of the above submittal dates beyond the specified three-year completion date is as follows:

1. The existing plant refueling outage schedule controls the SQUG walkdown schedule.
2. To complete the SQUG walkdowns in accordance with the GIP guidelines, two refueling outages per unit are necessary. Our existing refueling outage schedule spans more than three years.
3. Although the integration of the USI A-46 and seismic IPEEE program eliminates substantial duplication of effort, it also increases the intensity of activities and lengthens the time for preparation of walkdown packages, actual SQUG walkdowns, and preparation of the summary reports to the N RC.

e e

4. It is our intention to minimize contractor involvement and to perform the walkdowns and evaluations with qualified company engineers. Using our own engineering staff will provide valuable design experience to the walkdowns, greater retained experience for future applications, and a higher degree of consistency in the walkdowns. However, this approach will cause deferment of walkdowns when the refueling outages of two units overlap. The 1993 North Anna Unit 1 steam generator replacement and refueling outage and the 1993 Surry Unit 2 refueling outage overlap. Due to unit specific outage schedules (i.e., containment availability and planned maintenance and modification activities) walkdowns will be performed at North Anna Unit 1 and deferred at Surry Unit 2.

Plant Specific Licensing Basis Virginia Electric and Power Company intends to change its licensing basis methodology for verifying the seismic adequacy of new and replacement, as well as existing, electrical and mechanical equipment before receipt of a final plant-specific SER resolving USI A-46. This change will be conducted under 10 CFR 50.59 and will be consistent with the guidance in Section 2.3.3 or Part I of the GIP, Revision 2, and with the clarifications, interpretations, and exceptions identified in* SSER-2 as clarified by the August 21, 1992, SQUG letter responding to SSER-2. Any commensurate changes to the UFSAR will be provided according to 10 CFR 50.71 (e).

Very truly yours,

~.-,

J  :

.'~,--:-----i-

)

W. L. Stewart

'-.)-J),A~.,

Senior Vice President-Nuclear Attachment

e e cc: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, N. W.

Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. M. W. Branch NRC Senior Resident Inspector Surry Power Station Mr. M. S. Lesser NRC Senior Resident Inspector North Anna Power Station Mr. W. H. Rasin NUMARC Suite 300 1776 Eye Street NW Washington, DC 2000699

e COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )

)

COUNTY OF HENRICO )

The foregoing document was acknowledged before me, in and for the County and Commonwealth aforesaid, today by W. L. Stewart who is Senior Vice President -

Nuclear, of Virginia Electric and Power Company. He is duly authorized to execute and file the foregoing document in behalf of that Company, and the statements in the document are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.

Acknowledged before me this /f{'JJI day of ~ J , , J , 19~.

My Commission Expires: tdltZj 3/ , 19.'.li. *

£-,Ihm<

Notaryublic (SEAL}

ATTACHMENT 1 SURRY POWER STATION PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA

PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA In-Structure Response Spectra Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2 This attachment provides the detailed information regarding the procedures and criteria for the development of in-structure seismic response spectra to be used for the resolution of USI A-46 for Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2.

Surry Power station's seismic design basis consists of Housner spectra on soil site, anchored to a peak ground acceleration (PGA) level of 0.15g.

A soil-structure interaction analysis to develop in-structure seismic response spectra for Surry structures was performed in 1979. The detailed procedures and criteria used in that analysis are provided in Appendix A.

Since the in-structure spectra at 5% damping were not available for some buildings, a reanalysis was recently performed to generate

, these spectra~ The structures that were reanalyzed are as follows:

  • Service Building
  • Safeguards Building
  • Containment Spray Pump House The detailed procedures and criteria used in this recent analysis are provided in Appendix B.

It should be noted that the in-structure response spectra developed via the procedures and criteria described in Appendices A and Bare the plant licensing basis spectra, and are proposed to be used as "Conservative, Design" spectra for comparing seismic capacity to seismic demand at Surry Power Station. However, for performing anchorage evaluations, we additionally plan to follow the guidelines provided in the GIP and SSER-2.

The Design Basis Earthquake ground response spectra, as well as selected in-structure response spectra at key building locations for the resolution of USI A-46 are provided in Appendix C.

1 of 37

APPENDIX 1 A1 Methods and criteria used for Amplified Floor Response Spectra for Surry Units 1 and 2:

Amplified Response Spectra (ARS) including soil-structure interaction were developed for Surry in 1979. Soil-structure interaction in the development of ARS is briefly summarized here.

No specific examples of the structural models used in the analysis are provided here for brevity. The models used were three-dimensional multi-mass representations, with the total number of degrees of freedom included as more than sufficient to encompass all significant frequencies. The number of masses are governed by the locations at which amplified response spectra are required.

Eccentricity between the center of mass and center of stiffness at every level is included, except where insignificant. Members connecting the centers of mass have stiffness matrices representing the structure between the masses (see Figure 6).

Soil Properties:

The soil properties developed for use in the soil-structure interaction analysis are taken from geotechnical studies at the site for Units 1 & 2 in 1966 and 1969, and Units 3 & 4 in 1973.

Additional data was obtained in 1978 from studies relating to adjacent building construction. Subsurface profiles were developed from data compiled from each of these studies. Each layer has its own soil parameterso The public domain computer program SHAKE was used to calculate the shear modulus and damping for a particular layer based on the average shear strain induced in that layer by the earthquake. The effect of increasing and decreasing the low strain shear moduli (Gmax) by 50 percent was evaluated using SHAKE.

Two strong motion time-history accelerograms were used in the SHAKE-analyses for strain compatible soil properties (El Centro & Taft).

Each earthquake was normalized to the peak OBE and DBE at Surry.

These normalized input records were input into SHAKE. The average of the results was used in further analyses (REFUND/FRIDAY input).

Ground Response:

An artificial time history whose ground response was forced to fit the specified site spectrum (from the Surry 1 & 2 FSAR) was generated. The artificial motion was generated by matching the target or site spectrum for several percentage of critical damping at 100 oscillators distributed from 0.15 Hz to 50 Hz. Using SHAKE, response spectra were calculated for three soil profiles for Gmax, Gmax + 50%, and Gmax - 50% for various damping values (see Appendix C for ground spectra).

Method of Analysis:

Soil-structure interaction was evaluated using two methods: a one-step finite element method, and a three-step analytically based method (see Figures 1 through 5).

2 of 37

The one-step finite element solution is done using the PLAXLY computer program. PLAXLY is an isoparametric, plain-strain, finite element computer program used in seismic soil-structure analysis.

The equations of motion are solved in the frequency domain. A primary element in the PLAXLY solution is the consistent transmitting boundary which models the layered far-field. This boundary avoids the unrealistic approximations associated with modeling the more simplistic "free" or "roller" lateral boundary conditions.

The principal limitations of the PLAXLY program are:

(1) Geometry and material properties must be modeled in two dimensions.

(2) Properties of the layered far-field cannot change horizontally.

(3) Base rock is assumed to be infinitely stiff.

(4) Material properties are isotropic, linearly elastic.

Results of PLAXLY were compared to those of a similar public domain program, FLUSH (CDC, Version 2.2) for an ARS at an operating floor level. The results showed good comparison.

  • The three-step analytical solution is described as follows:

(1) Frequency-dependent stiffnesses of a rectangular footing founded at the surface of a layered medium are computed with the program REFUND. This program computes the dynamic stiffness functions of a rigid, massless, rectangular plate fixed to the surface of a viscoelastic, layered stratum. The subgrade stiffness matrix is evaluated for all six degrees of freedom for the desired range of frequencies.

Modification of the specified surface motion to account for structure embedment is applied using the EMBED program. EMBED applies correction factors to the frequency-dependent stiffnesses determined in the REFUND program. Theses correction factors are described in the reference "The Spring Method for Embedded Foundations,"

by Kausel, Whitman, Morray, & Elsabee, Nuclear Engineering and Design 48(1978), pages 377-392.

( 2) Kinematic interaction using the KINACT program is used to modify the purely translational input time history specified at the surface to both a translational and rotational time history at the base of a rigid, massless foundation. This modified motion is derived from wave propagation theory and parametric studies of finite element solutions and is discussed in the above referenced article by Kausel et al. KINACT slightly underestimates the translational part of the motion but significantly overstates the rocking part.

3 of 37

e

( 3) The program FRIDAY is then used to perform a dynamic analysis of the structural lumped mass/stick model supported on the frequency-dependent springs from step (1) for the modified seismic input from step (2). The equations of motion are solved in the frequency domain, and the response time histories are determined. (Results obtained by using FRIDAY were compared with the public domain program STARDYNE for seismic response of a fixed base, multi-mass, cantilever model.)

Results:

REFUND/FRIDAY vs PLAXLY:

The containment structure was analyzed using the two methods for purposes of comparison using strain compatible soil parameters from the SHAKE program. Results of the comparison showed that at the mat level, both methods are very close. With increasing elevation, the REFUND/FRIDAY results become more conservative than the PLAXLY results due to the conservative assumption made about the rotational part of the input in the kinematic i.nteraction step.

Variation of Soil Parameters:

ARS were generated for a range of soil shear moduli and damping ratios. Although the analysis is sensitive to extreme variations in input parameters, the amplified response analysis is relatively insensitive to variations of modulus and damping in the mid-range values.

Amplified Response Sprectra:

Amplified Response Spectra for different buildings were calculated using the three-step (REFUND/FRIDAY) method for the FSAR Design Basis Earthquake. Sample Spectra for representative building floors are provided in Appendix c.

4 of 37

. N y (t) y (t) [K] nxn ti M ~(t)

. \!;: I f +~

[K] nxn

_l~

U'1 0 FREQUENCY KINEMATIC INTERACTION

-+,

w DEPENDENT INTERACTION ANALYSIS

...... STIFFNESS REFUND

  • KINACT FRIDAY FIGURE I THE THREE STEP SOLUTION SURRY POWER STATION - UNI TS 1 ANO 2

l T e.

y BOUSSINESO H*eUlt

..------~---_,,.._ _.,.,x y

CERRUTI FIGURE 2 THE BOUSSINESQ AND CERRUTI PROBLEMS SURRY POWER S"i"ATION-UNITS 1 AND 2 6 of 37

I CENTRA':._f COLUMN ,

I FIGURE 3 IDEALIZATION OF THE BASIC 'REFUND' SOLUTION FOR CONCENTRATED LOADS SURRY POWER STATION-UNITS 1 AND 2 FIGURE 4

'REFUND' COORDINATE SYSTEM SURRY POWER STATION-UNITS 1 AND 2 7 of 37

y(t) e e

u (t )* TRANSLATIONAL ACCELERATION AT FIGURE &

BASE Of RIGID, MASSLESS FOUNDATION II KINEMATIC INTERACTION 4>>(U:ftOTATIONAL ACCELf:RATION IURRY POWER IITATION - UIUU I AND I

I .

. e

.M~ (0.0,66.0,0.0)

I

,I I

I

- - - STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS CONNECT ING CENTERS I

OF STIFFNESS, CS I

- - - - - GENERALIZED DYNAMIC MEMBER CONNECTING CENTERS OF MASS, M I

I I

cs

' '3.00:.UI

__cs.,.*....,.,_l_",,M2)-l*2.l?y I

I z FIGURE 6 GENERALIZED DYNAMIC MODEL OF A CATEGORY I STRUCTURE SURRY POWER STATION-UNITS 1 AND 2 9 of 37

e APPENDIX B Procedures and Criteria for Generation of Recent In-Structure Response Spectra Surry Power station units 1 & 2 For the following Surry Power Station buildings, 5% damped in-structure response spectra were recently developed by EQE. The intent of the methodology fallowed for these analyses was to develop "conservative, design" in-structure response spectra in accordance with the definition in the GIP. These buildings are:

  • Service Building
  • Emergency Diesel Generator Enclosure
  • Safeguards Building
  • Containment Spray Pump House The description of the methodology is as follows:

Description of Seismic Input:

Seismic time-history inputs were used as the free-field motions in the analyses of the above structures at Surry Power Station. Three artificial time-histories were developed such that their spectra at 5% damping closely matched the corresponding SSE Licensing Basis (Housner) horizontal (PGA of 0.15g) and vertical (PGA of O.lOg) spectra for Surry. A very close fit was reached to ensure that no lack of energy occurs at any frequency of interest. These three time-histories were statistically independent. The time step of the artificial time-histories was o. 01 second, with a total duration of 20 seconds.

Dynamic Modeling:

The soil and structural modeling are discussed below:

Soil Modeling: The low strain soil properties were taken from the information reported in Section 2.4 of the Surry UFSAR (Rev. 1, 6/83). The shear wave velocity profile was also confirmed using the blow count in the boring logs reported in the above mentioned UFSAR section. To obtain the strain compatible soil properties, the shear modulus vs. shear strain and material damping vs. shear strain curves developed by J.

I. Sun, R. Golesorkhi, and H.B. Seed and I. M. Idriss were used. Industry standard code SHAKE was used to perform dynamic analyses of the soil profile to generate the strain compatible soil properties. To account for the uncertainties in the soil properties, in accordance with the recommendations Bhargava/Appendlx B 09/15/92 2:59pm 10 of 37

e in the SRP, three low strain soil properties were considered for each seismic input: Best estimate, lower bound (lower bound shear modulus equal to half the best estimate shear modulus), and upper bound (upper bound shear modulus equal to twice the best estimate shear modulus). Thus, three strain compatible soil profiles were developed consistent with soil strains induced by the Housner input.

Structural Modeling: The structures were modeled as three-dimensional "stick" models with lumped masses and with six degrees of freedom per nodal point. The models of the structures were developed such that their dynamic behavior was properly captured. Eccentricities were explicitly considered at each modeled elevation to account for the effects of torsion and rocking. The damping values specified in the Surry UFSAR were used as the structural damping for all the structural models. Thus, 5% damping value for concrete structures and 2.5% damping for bolted steel framed structures were used. For the cases where different portions of the structures were assigned different damping, composite modal damping ratios were generated using the stiffness weighted approach (ASCE Standard 4-86).

Description of SSI Analyses Soil-structure interaction effects were considered for all dynamic analyses of the Surry Power station structures. For each structure the proper foundation embedment was considered, and frequency dependent impedance and scattering functions were calculated for each strain compatible soil case.

Additionally, the deconvolved time-histories at the foundation .

levels were verified according to the recommendation in the SRP such that their response spectra (envelope of three soil cases) are not less than sixty percent of the surface spectra. The building models were used together with the proper impedance and scattering functions and, for each strain compatible soil case, the three orthogonal time-histories were applied individually. Those time-histories were again applied at grade elevation in the free-field.

The in-structure response spectra generated for the three soil cases were enveloped and then broadened by fifteen percent.

Modal Properties of Structural Models The fixed-base modal properties of the Service Building, the Emergency Diesel Generator enclosure, the Safeguards Building and the Containment Spray Pump House are given in the tables below:

Bhargava/Appendlx B 09/15/92 2:59pm 11 of 37

e Service Building Structure Frequency Participation Factors (Hz) EW NS Vert Concrete 17.22 0.16 19.40 -0.12 22.62 20.20 0.11 0.00 48.48 -0.21 0.23 20.90 Steel 1.17 o.oo 6.47 o.oo 2.02 13.20 -0.37 0.00 8.49 o.oo -0.01 11. 00 Emergency Diesel Generator Enclosure Structure Frequency Participation Factors (Hz) EW NS Vert Concrete 24.84 11. 70 6.31 0.00 24.84 -6.31 11. 70. o.oo 46.91 o.oo 0.00 13.30 Safeguards Building Structure Frequency Participation Factors (Hz) Tangential Radial Vert Concrete 21.51 0.21 -4.39 0.82 34.09 -4.37 -0.09 0.42 41.43 2.91 1.25 0.20 43.86 -1.04 3.12 0.06 67.05 -0.90 -0.82 -4.50

  • Containment Spray Pump House Structure Frequency Participation Factors (Hz) EW NS Vert Concrete 10.82 1.22 -2.53 0.07 21.04 -o .-30 -4.10 0.82 21.58 -3.72 -0.12 1.25 29.94 1.94 -1.44 -0.50 36.94 2.89 2.01 2.00 46.79 0.34 0.81 -3.39 Bhargava/Appendlx B 09/15/92 2:59pm 12 of 37

,, e APPENDIX C GROUND AND IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA SURRY POWER STATION UNITS 1 & 2 The following ground and selected in-structure "conservative design" spectra are enclosed:

Figure No. Structure Floor Dam12ing Direction Procedure Elevation LCriteria 1 Ground - Various Horizontal Housner, Surry UFSAR 2 Containment 71 1 5% Horizontal Appendix (External) A 1

3 Containment 92 5% Horizontal Appendix

. (External) A 4 Containment 71 1 5% Hor1zontal Appendix (Internal) A 5 Containment 96 1 5% Horizontal Appendix (Internal) A 6 Auxiliary 45 1 5% E-W Appendix Building A 7 Auxiliary 45 1 5% N-S Appendix Building A 8 Auxiliary 66 1 5% E-W Appendix Building A 9 Auxiliary 66' 5% N-S Appendix Building A 10 Service 27 1 5% E-W Appendix Building B 11 Service 27 1 5% N-S Appendix Building B 12 Service 58 1 -6 11 5% E-W Appendix Building B 13 Service 58 1 -6 11 5% N-S Appendix Building B 14 Emergency 26 1 -6 11 5% E-W Appendix Diesel B Generator Enclosure Bhargava/Appendix C 09/16/92 4:23pm 13 of 37

e Figure No. structure Floor Dam~ing Direction Procedure Elevation lCriteria 15 Emergency 26 1 -6 11 5% N-S Appendix Diesel B Generator Enclosure 16 Safeguards 27 1 -6 11 5% Horizontal Appendix Building (Tangential) B 17 Safeguards 27 1 -6 11 5% Horizontal Appendix Building (Radial) B 18 Safeguards 42 1 -6 11 5% Horizontal Appendix Building (Tangential) B 19 Safeguards 42 I 6 11 5% Horizontal Appendix Building (Radial) B 20 Containment 26 1 -6 11 5% E-W Appendix Spray Pump B House 21 Containment 26 1 -6 11 5% N-S Appendix Spray Pump B House 22 Containment 52 1 -0 11 5% E-W Appendix Spray Pump B House 23 Containment 52 1 -0 11 5% N-S Appendix Spray Pump B House Bhargava/Appendlx C 09/16/92 4:23pm 14 of 37

e e DEC.I, 1969 0

ilt :

u 1111

~

u Cl) u '"'

  • !  ! 6'o iZ
  • i >

u 2

Ill

I a

C

      • ._.  !==:a= =

VELOCITY IN INCHES/SECOND RESPONSE SPECTRA DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE FROM: SURRY I ANO 2 FSAR, FIGURE 2.!5-!5 SURRY POWER STATION-UNITS 1 ANO 2 15 of 37

Uirginia Po*er Response Spectra Database a.5a1,__~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Suny Power Station Containment (External) - El. 71' S*l'RE-xan.-DBE sx-B Design Basis Earthquake - Horizontal direction 5%Damping i

8.48 ,

....................................................... /......................................................... ......................................................... .

i

.:: i I

l: II

, I In

. i . I a.3a *******************************************************!** ************************* ****************************t*********************************************************

C O'I 0

l i

"'r.

~ ... II I

II w 0

" 0 CIC If a.2a ...................................................... l........................................................ ........................................................ .

...r.

0 l

i.,.

a.1 Fz-equency, Hz Figure 2

Uirginia Power Response Spectra Database 0.60,r-~~~~~~~~~~~~--r-~~~~~~~~~~~~--,~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Surry Power Station Containment (External) - El. 92' S*/RE-X092-DBE 5Y.-B Design Basis Earthquake - Horizontal direction 5% Damping i

0.50

                                                                                                              • . ...................................................... '!I' ....................................................... ..

I 0.40 I

{

tll C

.... ...II 0

.)>

I

.....i Jo Q

-t, ...* 0,30

                                                                                                            • I l

w C)

.....i C)

G:

...II Jo

.)>

0 l 0.20 *************************************** ................ .1. ........................................................ .

B,HI I

I

....................................................... *********************************************************t*********************************************************

0.00,:---~~---'~~...L---'~-'----L-.l-J-Lt-~~~.l_~--L~_l_-L_j__l_.LlTb,~~~...L~-1~....L_l_l_i_L-l.J I

0. ~ 0 Frequency, Hz Figure 3

Uirginla Power Response Spectra Database

0. 6 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

Surry Power Station Containment (Internal) - El. 71' Design Basis Earthquake - Horizontal direction S*/RI-X071-DBE 5X-B 5%Damping 0.50 ....................................................... *rI........................................................ .

I 0.40 I

..................................................... .. ..... .................. *******************************t*********************************************************

C I-' ......

I) 00 ,.

0

-+,

w i:.

...a,a, 1,1 0.30 ...................................................... . I

....................................... *****"********t*********************************************************

"'-I 1,1 ff I

...i:.

1,1  :

l 1,11 0.2 ....................................................... .1. ........................................................ .

I I

a.u, ******************************************************* *********************************************************1*********************************************************

I Frequency, Hz Figure 4

Ulrglnla Power Response Spect~a Database 0.60~--------------,---------------:-----------,

Suny Power Station Sw/Rl-)(096-DBE 5Y.-B Containment (Internal) - EI. 96' Design Basis Earthquake - Horizontal dlirection 5% Damping 0.50 ................................................................ ************** *********************************1**********************************************************

I!

0.40 i

                      • i**********************************************************

T tn I.C ,.

C

.s.

0 I

0

.** 0.30 I

-+,

                                                                                                            • ......................................... **************-j-*********************************************************

I w 0

-..J 0

,a:

...Ill

." I 0

l 0.2 I

        • i**********************************************************

Ill I

I Ii 0.1

                                                                                                              • *********************************************************-i-*********************************************************

i Frequency, Hz Figure 5

Uirginia Power Response Spectra Database Suny Power Station Auxillary Building - EI. 45' Design Basis Earthquake - E-W direction 0.35 .......................................................................................................... 5% Damping

. . . . *t . .

5X-B 0.30

\

"'. 0.25

""~

l*********************************************************

C ~

N 0

0 0

111

s. i

-ii w

"'-I

...a, a,

I) 0.20 . .............................................................................................................ii" ........................................................

I) a:  !

111

...s. 0. J.5 I

.......................................... ************* .............. ********** ************ ................. *****t** ......................................... ****** ...... .

I) a, II, U) I I

0.J.0 I 0.05  :  :: :  : :r I I

Frequency, Hz Figure 6

Uirginia Power Response Spectra Database Surry Power Station Auxillary Building - El. 45' S*/AB-Z045-DBE 5X-B Design Basis Earthquake - N-S direction 0.35 ..................................................... . ................................................... 5% Damping I

i I

......................... .1......................................................... .

I N

bl C

......0 0.25 . . .. J i i

0 Ill I

-+i w ..."

a, a,

0.20 I

                                                                                      • ...................................................... **************=**********************************************************

""" Cl Cl a:

...Ill I Cl 0.1.5 ................................................................................................................ .i. ....................................................... .

Ill II, I,') I Il e 0.1.0 ********************* .............. **************** ........ ********* ******* ... ************** .................... J......................................................... .

I 0.05

. . rI I

Frequency, Hz Figure 7

Uirginla PoNer Response Spectra Database Suny Power Station Auxillary Building - El. 66' Design Basis Earthquake - E-W direction S*l'AB-)(866-DBE 5:X-B 5% Damping 8.35 ****************************************************** **********************************************************1**********************************************************

I

8. 30 1,1

. 0.25 I

l.

0 N ~

N ~

0

-t; ...',,,, 0.2a ..................................................... *********************************************'----tl:.'...'..

w 0  !

......i 0 G: i

. r

... I!

-II>

0

". J.5 M

". J. ******************************************************* *********************************************************r******************************************************** e I

a.a5 ******************************************************* *********************************************************-r*-********************************************************

"* ""l.----..L_--1_-1.._LLLJL.l.-J------1.--.J.._-L-...1........1.......1......L_~r----1----1..._....L..---1.--1--'-'-TI0 i

Frequency, Hz Figure 8

Utr9tnta Power Response Spectra DataLase Surry Power Station Auxiliary Building - El. 66' S*/AB-2066-DBE 5::t.:-B Design Basis Earthquake - N-S direction 0.35 ....................................................... .......... .

~

s;xi Damping Ii 0.30 *************************************"****************(************** ......................... ****************-!-*********************************************************

N 11'1 C

0 0.25  : ..

i L '

I I

w 11 r.

0

-t, ...* 0.20 .......................................... ........... i................. :................................-...... i1......................................................... .

w 0

0 I

...11

...Sa 0

0. J.:I ******************************************************* ..... .............................................. 11*********************************************************

t Iii

a. J. I
                                                                                                              • *********************************************************t*********************************************************

e I

I a.r.s ******************************************************* *********************************************************t*********************************************************

I Frequency, Hz Figure 9

X 10-l

3. "-
2. -

N

~ r-',. I'--,

2. 0 '

i::

0

  • r-l

µ ro 1-1 Lil..

l/ I',

['---,

I\

QJ 1. C ,-

.--l \

QJ r u r I-'

~ --

u

~

I - ..

--.J 0

1. 0 --.J N

.i=,, /

0

-t, J

w

..... 0. "

~

I

~ 0 CX)

'I-'

0. 0

/ ,r:,.

'N

\D 1

10 Frequency (Hz)

Notes:

Figure 10 Envelope of Three Soil Cases 15% Peak Broadening 5.0 % Spectral Damping Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level= 0.15g Virginia Power:Surry Service (EW) Bldg,USI A-46 Analysis,Housner Basis Elev. 27'-0", Translation in EW (x) Direction

V l

I

' I I .

2. -~

I  ! N i

r--

I I

2. ""

V

,r V ~

s::

0

  • .-1 clS

,..,,~

V I

"\

~

<LI l. -

~Lf'.I'-.

,y

.-i

'I' I "- .....

I

<LI N

u u Ir LI

-.J N

u, ,<C

1. A V ..

b 0 b

-+,

V V I I .....

w lr I

"'-I

o. "~

F

~ I I

C)

CD

~ I b

o. A I .

I i

ID N

no 1 Frequency (!lz}

e Notes: Figure 11 Envelope of Three Soil Cases 15% Peak Broadening 5.0 % Spectral Damping Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level= 0.15g Virginia Power:Surry Service (NS) Bldg,USI A-46 Analysis,Housner Basis Elev. 27'-0", Translation in NS (y) Direction

X 10 O I! I I

1. 2

! 1.

I I rn .

N I i I i I \ I j I j j

1. A V

I i IC 0

I I \

l i

I

  • .-f

.a) l1f o*-A II I

' I I

I

~

11) a, i

} i I ....

u u

0. V U1 I ....

~

N

°' o. ,. I \

0

-+,

w I )) I

\

r,.....,, ..... h i'-r,..._ 0

~ \D

o. 2 L,..,"

i I

i.-- I U1 I .......

v- V I

\D

o. :)

~

1...--

!  : I N 10 1 Frequency (Hz) e Notes: Figure 12 Envelope of Three Soil Cases 15% Peak Broadening 5.0 % Spectral Damping Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level= 0.15g Virginia Power:Surry Service (EW) Bldg,USI A-46 Analysis,Housner Basis Elev. 58'-6", Translation in EW (x) Direction

X 10 O o*.-

r I I

i I

N

o. -"

i I f \

r:::

0

.µ I

I

\ l C. ..I n,

.... I l QJ

'J  ;

QJ I'.)

u f \ j m

~

,< 0 N

""' I ..

0 0

-Ii J i ~\ l.J Ul w

o. -

~

./ f V

.,..I-'

I ' '

0

\0 v- V .....

~

UI

o. A ~

V 1

I I I I .......

\0 l\l 10 Frequency (Hz) e Notes: Figure 13 Envelope of Three Soil Cases 15% Peak Broadening 5.0 % Spectral Damping Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level= 0.15g Virginia Power:Surry Service (NS) Bldg,USI A-46 Analysis,Housner Basis Elev. 58'-6", Translation in NS (y) Direction

X 10-l A

3. V r
2. ,J v- I'-
2. 0

_(

"' n IL,

~

0

  • .-l

.µ ro H /µ V ['-,

~,

r Q) 1. ,J

~

~ r" Q) u u v- I-'

(JI N

1. A V

V r-----..... r--

t--..

00 V 0

-+,. I/

w 0 * ..,

r I

~ 0

<X>

I-'

0 l/ ,b

\0 N

Frequency (Hz)

Notes: Figure 14 Envelope of Three Soil Cases 15% Peak Broadening 5.0 % Spectral Damping Accelerations in g's 1 ,SSE Level= 0.15g Virginia Power: Surry EDG (EW) Bld9 1 USI A-46 Analysis, Housner Basis Elev. 26'-6", Translation in EW (x) Direction

X 10-l ~

3.

en V

.,t"'

en C

z

2. .., ~

N t"""""-\..

V

2. 0 - J "' h O"
s e

C:

0 "M

µ ro V h 0.

0 N

l/u 'O i..i I-'

Q) 1. rt"

~

.--l Q) u v- ....

u

..m N

.:i::

1. 0 V -- ,b

..u, 0

l,O V

~- IJ N w

-..J .

0 * .., l

~ 0 (X) l/ ,b

\0 N

0. 0 1

10 Frequency (Hz)

Notes: Figure 15 Envelope of Three Soil Cases 15% Peak Broadening 5.0 % Spectral Damping Acceleration~ in g's 1 SSE Level= 0.15g Virginia Power: Surry EDG (NS) Bld9, USI A-46 Analysis, Housner Basis Elev. 26'-6", Translation in NS (y) Direction

X 10-l

3. "-
2. "

~

_r- i------.

~n N

__1-i:::

0

-rl

.µ

2. 0 . .....

. .l/ ..

"-1~

ro 1--1 l/l.J I\

QJ rl -

1. C r

QJ u r ,_.

u

,et:

I

. -- \

--- --- >--* ..w w

w

1. 0 -- -- -- -- ----~-----*-- - * - - - - --- -- _,_ --

w v -

0 0

j

-+,

w

'-I o. "

~

/ 0 0)

V N

u,

\D N

0. V 1

10 Frequency (Hz) e Notes: Figure 16 Envelope of Three Soil Cases 15% Peak Broadening 5.0 % Spectral Damping Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level= 0.15g Virginia Power: Surry SG (Tang) Bldg, USI A-46 Anal¥sis, Housner Basis Elev. 27'-6", Translation in Tang. (x) Direction

X 10-l

3. y
2. -

~

r----..

/ I'-,.

2. 0

_I ' L c::

0

  • ri V I'-

~

.µ IU l/lJ

~

Q) -

1. ..,

r-l Q) u u Ir f

\

....w

..i:

1. -

y V " .....

V 0

-t, w

I/

0. ..,

~

I

/ 0 0)

~

N l/1

\0

0. -1 V

N 10 Frequency (Hz) e Notes: Figure 17 Envelope of Three Soil Cases 15% Peak Broadening 5.0 % Spectral Damping Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level= 0.15g Virginia Power: Surry SG (Rad) Bld9, USI A-46 Analysis, Housner Basis Elev. 27'-6", Translation in Rad (y) Direction

X 10-l

3. -
2. C

~

I f ----- ~

_I h

2. 0 n
  • - -- ~

C:

0

  • rl

µ

->--~

1 i::

0

  • rl

.µ

<ti

0. -

v-

[J 1,-l/

--.J

....rt

'O

\

H ___)

QJ r-1 QJ /

u ,,-/ I-'

u

..x: 0. 2 ..

u, w

.....i

/J

/ \ N 0

0 I-'

-+i v' r\.-- O'I w Ir '--- 1--

.....i I/

o. 1- V J

V I \ ~

0. -i e

V '

10 Frequency (Hz)

Notes: Figure 23 Envelope of Three Soil Cases 15% Peak Broadening 5.0 % Spectral Damping Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level= 0.15g Virginia Power: Surry Cont.Spray (NS), USI A-46 Analysis,Housner Basis Elev. 52'-0", Translation in NS (y) Direction

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18152A116&oldid=2504554"