ML19256F501

Assessment of Seismic Design Requirements for Containment Structure in Response to CA Div of Mines & Geology

ML19256F501
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	12/06/1979
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML19256F497	List: ML19256F496 ML19256F501
References
NUDOCS 7912190269
Download: ML19256F501 (54)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:: ASSESSMENT OF THE SEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR UNIT 1 RESPONSE TO CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY I. BACKGROUND In a letter dated April 13, 1979, to Mr. H. Denton of NRC, Mr. J. F. Davis of California Division of Mines and Geology (CCMG) stated that since 1975 a significant amount of geotechnical data has become available regarding the Sierra Foothills Fault System which prompted CDMG to undertake a routine review of the seismic design criteria for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Plant. Several questions were raised by CDMG concerning the free field ground response spectrum for the plant which is significantly different from the spectrum as recommended in NRC's Regulatory Guide 1.60. A subsequent letter dated July 5,1979, to Mr. H. Denton, Ms. P.C. Grew and Mr. J. F. Davis of CCMG acknowledged that conversations with Mr. K. Herring of NRC revealed some answers to their questions concerning the grcund motion. They also stated that Mr. Herring did not find the difference between the design spectra and the RG 1.60 was a serious safety issue and that modern analyses using current design spectra, current damping values, and other new procedures would show that the original design was adequate. They further acknowledged that the design acceleration of 0.25 g is an appropriate one and the current soil-structure interaction analysis probably would yield design specifications for both the containment structure and the equipment comparable to those used in the original design. However, they feel that NRC should under-1621 305 ZC7 7912196

take a standard soil-structure interaction study to confirm those conclusions reached by Mr. Herring and CDMG. The NRC does not feel that such an undertaking is warranted at this time. This conclusion stems from the following assessment based on the staff's experiences and engineering judgement. II. CURRENT SEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS The basic seismic design requirements for nuclear power plants have undergone many changes over the past 30 years. The chronological evolvements of the basic seismic design practice is summarized in the attached Table 1. The currently acceptable seismic design requirements are generally delineated in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A and Part 100, Appendix A, and NRC's Regulatory Guides and Standard Review Plan. These criteria deal with the entire seismic analysis / design chain from the definition of the seismic hazard at a site through the analysis, design, and construction / fabrication of safety related structures, systems, equipment and components. Briefly, these criteria can be summarized as follows: The seismic hazard in terms of the earthquake induced ground motions at the site is first determined on the basis of historical and geological evidence. It is defined in terms of two earthquake levels; namely, the Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) which is that which could be reasonably excected to affect the plant site during the operating life of the plant, and the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) which is based upon the evaluation of the maximum earthquake potenti31 for the site. The earthquake hazard is generally defined in terms of magnitude or intensity. (1) The magnitude is indicative of the energy release associated ( )The magnitude of an earthquake is commonly @ fined in terms of the Richter Scale and the intensity of an earthquake is commonly defined in terms of the Modified Mercalli Scale. 2 1621 306

with the earthquake at the source, while the interisity is indicative of the local damage associated with the earthquake. Present day requirements for determining the SSE can be found in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100. Inittherequiredregionalgeologicalandseismologica5 investigations are indicated. When k.10wn earthquake generators such as capable faults are identified, the regulations require that the Safe Shutdown Earthquake be determined assuming reoccurrence of the most severe earthquake that can be determined considering both historic and geologic history. When earthquakes cannot be correlated with faults or tectonic structures the Safe Shutdown Earth-quake is determined assuming that the largest historic earthquake in the same tectonic province could reoccur at the site. A tectonic province is a large geographic region of similar geologic structure. Although these regulations became effective in December 1973 they were to a large part based on the practice prior to that date. During that time safe shutdown earthquake (or " design earth-quake") design ground motion values were adopted based upon geological and seismological recommendations of the U. S. Geological Survey and the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, and engineering recommendations from prominent earthquakes engineers such as Dr. Nathan Newmark and Dr. John Blume. For the same earthquake magnitude, the detailed nature of the ground shaking is quite different from one earthquake to another. There are substantial varia-tions in such parameters associated with the ground motion as peak acceleration, peak velocity, peak displacement, duration, nature and energy content at various frequencias. Due to these uncertainties, the ground motion at a. site is defined by a smoothed, free-field response spectrum with a shape intended to have amplifi-cation factors for a given peak acceleration corresponding to a mean plus one standard deviation confidence level. 3 1621 307

s In evaluating the seismic risk to a plant for a given level of the ground motion, a detailed engineering evaluation is conducted considering three direc-tional ground motions, foundation / structure interaction, structural response, piping system response, equipment response and component response. The uncer-tainties in the various steps of the overall analysis and design lead to con-servative assumptions being made in each step regarding such parameters as load combinations, material properties, allowable stresses and damping. For the two levels of earthquake, the design and analysis parameters are specified such that, in general, structures, systems and components are designed to remain in essentially the elastic range, well below yield, for the CBE, and near or some-what above the linear range and yield, yet substantially below their ultimate capability, for the SSE such that the capability to shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition is ensured. It has been our experience in evaluating some of the older seismic designs that while the geological and tectonic analyses have not changed radically there have been larger changes in the way we characterize the ground motion associated with an earthquake of a given magnitude or intensity. This is due to the avail-ability of more data, and greater in death systematic analysis of strong motion records. Present, practice would usually result in stronger assumed motion than previously stipulated for earlier plants. However, in evaluating these design motions all the engineering assumptions must be taken into account. Certain design assumptions associated with these earlier plants were more con-servative so that the differences between these and present day plants are less than the seismological analysis above would indicate. III. ORIGINAL SITE CONDITIONS AND SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA USED AT RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR POWER PLANT The terrain at the site is open, rolling, grass-covered hills with the maximum difference in elevation of approximately 200 feet. The soils can be 4 1621 308

categorized as dense-to-very-dense sandy silts, clays and very dense sand with some gravel. The groundwater was found at approximately 143 feet below the existing ground surface. All structures, and all systems, equipment, and components related to power plant ssfety are required to be designed against earthquakes. Two earthquake levels; namely, the Design Base Earthquake (DBE) and the Operating Base Earth-quake (CBE), were considered in the design analysis. The DBE for this plans has a peak ground acceleration of 0.25 g horizontal and 0.17 g vertical, while the CBE has a peak ground acceleration of 0.13 g horizontal and 0.09 g vertical. The ground response spectra are shown in attached figures. These spectra were developed based on Housner's composite set of earthquake spectra. The time history from the Taft 1952 record adjusted to the CBE and DBE acceleration levels was used as basic input to develop design response spectra for equipment at various levels within the structure. It was also der.cnstrated that the floor spectra derived in this manner were conservative with respect to those calculated using an artificial time history which was derived using the required site free field response spectra. The response spectra are broadened in their range of peak responses to account for variation; in earthquake frequency content and calculated frequencies of the structures. Camping values utilized in the dynamic analyses are snown in Table II. When systems or equipment cannot be placed into a specified category, a con-servative value of 0.5 percent was used for CBE loading conditions and 1.0 percent for DBE. The response spectra seismic analysis method was used as the basis for the dynamic analysis of all Class 1 structures. The mathematical models devr. loped were in accordance with Bechtel Corporation Tcpic Report BC-TOP-4, Seismic 5 1621 309

P Analysis of Structures and Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants. A lumped mass model was developed using tributary sections for the analysis of the containment building. Stiffness coefficients were determined assuming beam behavior of the structure. The soil-structure interaction affecting the building was taken into account by coupling the structural model with the foundation medium. IV. ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT Mousner's spectra show that the ratio of spectral acceleration to peak ground acceleration are approximately one-half those specified for horizontal ground motion in the NRC's Regulatory Guide 1.60 assuming equal damping values in both cases. This appears to indicate that the original design is less conservative than the current practice. However, this may not be indicative that the original design would pose any safety problems because many con-servatisms were introduced in the various stages of the seismic design process. These conservatisms are briefly itemized as follows: A. Conservatisms Associated With the Selection of the Design Event. a. OBE and OBE The determination of the DBE and OBE were initially selected very conservatively based on the geological and seismological evidence as understood at that time. NRC staff is undertaking an independent reassessment of the ground motion for the site in light of the new information associated with the Foothill Fault System. b. Wide Band Ground Response Spectra The ground response spectra used as input were smoothed, and broad banded. The soectra for a real earthquake are jagged in nature, producing 1[ssresponseincertainareasofthespectrathaninadjacentareas. 6 1621 310

Enveloping Synthetic Time Histories c. In the development of seismic responses for the design of structures, systems, equipment and components, synthetic earthquake time histories are developed having response spectra that essentially evelop the ground design spectra. For r Rancho Seco, the use of the Taft earthquake record was,shown to be conservative with respect to ttle use of an artificial time history. B. Conservatism Associated With the Methodologies for Seismic Analysis and Design a. Conservatisms for Structures, System and Components 1. Dynamic Analysis Elastic analyses were performed using conservatively low damping values and time-history or response spectrum analysis methods. For example, class 1 piping damping values of 0.5 percent of critical damping were used in the 08E analysis while the current criteria as specified in R.G. 1.61 that damping values of 2 for small piping and 3 percent for large piping are acceptable. 2. Soil-Structure Interaction Both field and theoretical evidence show that the maximum acceleration often decreases with depth in soil deposits.' This in turn will tend to reduce seismic responses. Recent studies performed for Beaver Valley, Surry and Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant sites demonstrate this reduction of the maximum acceleration at depth. Some of the comparisons are shown in Figs. 5 through 12 where floor spectra based on site specific spectra, and structure and equipment damping values are compared to those based upon Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61 criteria. These rescits illustrate adequate agreement. 3. Loading Combinations loading combinations consider other loadings (e.g., dead weight, live loads, pressure loads, etc.) in addition to the seismic loading. Seismic loading is only a part of total loading. 7 lb2l 3ll

b. Effect of Inelastic Behavior Seismic inertial loads are reduced as a function of the amount of inelastic action in comparison with those calculated elastically. This phenomenon can be considered by the use of the ductility factor which is defined as the ratio of displacement level in the nonlinear range to the displacement associated with the yield point for an elastic / perfect plastic resistance vs. displacement function. A ductility of 1.3 would have the effect of reducing the elastically calculated response spectra by approximately 20 percent. c. Additional Conservatisms for Electrical and Mechanical Equipment 1. Peak Widening of Floor Response Spectra The floor response spectra were developed for the design of these components located at different locations in the structure, the peaks in the individual floor response spectra were broadened in order to predict conservative equipment responses. 2. Use of Maximum Response Spectra for Multiple Supported Systems Where the system has multiple supports, the maximum response were applied to all support points so that conservative seismic loads are gen-ersted for design purposes. 3. System Redundancy Even identically designed redundant systems may not always experience similar seismic excitation due to different mounting locations, with different structural filtering effects. Thus a single loss of redundancy may not mean a loss of function for the system. This provides additional assurance that a plant will safely withstand a seismic event. 8 )b$\\

C. Conservatisms in the Structural and Mechanical Resistance a. AllowaDie Stress Limits In enginenring design, an allowable stress is specified for the design. Margins exist between allowable stresses and ultimate strength. b. 28-Day Concrete Strength Design was based upon the 28-day design strength of concrete. Concrete continues to gain strength with increasing time beyond 28 days. c. Static Strength vs. Dynamic Resistance Design strengths were based upon static load tests. Since dynamic loads contain a limited amount of energy and are applied at a faster rate, the margin between stress limits and failure for dynamic loads is greater than that for static loads when elastically calculated peak response are compared to the allowable stress limits. d. Ductility to Failure In deformation to failure, the inelastic behavior provides for energy absorption not normally counted on in design. e. Redistribution of Loads Major structures and components can tolerate much deformation to allow for redistribution of loads, i.e., the loads carried by over stressed structural members can be transferred to other structural members. f. Standards Size Structural Members and Pipes The design of the structural elements is such that their capacities usually exceed the requirements called for by the analyses. Much of the actual structural design is controlled by the availability of standard structural members such as beams and piping sections, so that larger sizes than are needed are often used. 9 \\{}\\

g. Minor Attachments Absorb Energy Nonstructural elements which are not considered to carry any loads in design, do absorb energy through inelastic behavior or collapse during a seismic event. These conservatisms are difficult to quantify; the only figure can be found in the FSAR is that the maximum concrete stress in the containment is 2320 psi while the design concrete strength is 5000 psi. However, the extent of the structural and mechanical conservatisms for plants designed using current stand-ards has been estimated by Newmark and Cornell.( ) A median safety factor has been estimated ranging from 4 to 8. For Rancho Seco, it is recognized that the factor of safety would be somewhat less. However, the' e still would be an adequate safety margin against failure. V. CONCLUSICNS Based on the assessment of the data presented in Rancho Seco's FSAR, the assumption that the Foothill Fault System would not change the design earthquake levels, and the assessment of the conservatisms built into the seismic design process, we feel that there is reasonable assurance that the seismic design of Rancho Seco is adequate and no reanalysis is warranted at this time. However, it is recognized that the overall seismic safety margin is scmewhat less compared to those designed against the current criteria. (2)"On the Seismic Reliability of Nuclear Power Plants," C. A. Cornell and N. M. Newmark, May 1978. 10 1621 3l4

TABLE 1 CFRONOLOGY OF BASIC SEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO 1360 0 UNIFCRM BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS S STATIC SEISMIC COEFFICIENT APPLIED TO STRUCTURES 1960 - 1964 0 GROUND MOTION DESCRISED BY HOUSNER'S AVERAGED GROUND RESPONSE SPECTRA 4 SINGLE CEGREE OF FREECCM SYSTEMS WERE USED FOR THE EVALUATION OF SEISMIC RESPCNSES 9 HCRIZCNTAL AND VERTICAL EARTHQUAKE RESPONSES WERE NOT CCMSINED 1965 - 1967 9 GROUND MOTION DESCRISED BY HOUSNER'S AVERAGE 3 GROUND RESPONSE SPECTRA (IN SCME CASES HOUSNER MADE REVISIONS FRCM THE PREVICUS SPECTRA) e MULTI-M00AL TKO DIMENSIONAL MODELS WERE USED FOR THE EVALUATION OF SEISMIC RESPONSES. THE RESPONSE SPECTRUM APPROACH WAS USED MOST OFTEN. TIME HISTCRY WAS USED OCCASICNALLY I DAMPING VALUES WERE TAKEN AS 0.5% FOR PIPING, 1% - 25% FOR STEEL STRUCTURES, 4% - 7h% FOR CONCRETE STRUCTURES. O COMPLIANCE (FLEXI3ILITY) FUNCTIONS FOR PLANT FOUNDATION MEDIUM WERE CONSIDERED i e SUM OF THE ABSOLUTE VALUE OF THE RESPONSES TO THE LARGEST HORIZONTAL AND TFE VERTICAL EARTHQUAKE WAS ACCEPTED FOR RESPCNSE DETER:11 NATION 1621 315

. 1967 - 1971 e GROUND MOTION DESCRIBED BY HOUSNER'S AVERAGED GROUND RESPONSE SPECTRA MODIFIED, ESPECIALLY IN SHORT PERICOS, USING NEWMARK CRITERIA (KNOWNASMODIFIEDtjEWMARKSPECTRA, 1967 - 1369) e S0IL STRUCTURE INTERACTION EFFECTS WERE CONSIDERED USING DISCRETE SOIL SPRINGS AND IN SOME CASES ASSUMING MATERIAL DAMPING e FLOCR RESPCNSE SPECTRA GENERATED AND USED IN THE EVALUATION OF EQUIPMENT AND PIPING 1971 - 1973 s MODAL DAMPING VALUES FOR THE SOIL / STRUCTURE SYSTEM TO REPRESENT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM SOTH MATERIAL AND RADIATION DAMPING LIMITED TO 10% OF CRITICAL 1973 - 1977 4 REG. GUIDES 1.60 AND 1.61 WERE INTRODUCED TO DEFINE GROUND RESPCNSE SPECTRA, AND DA" PING VALUES (FCR STRUCTURES, PIPING, EQUIPMENT AND CCMPONENTS), RESPECTIVELY 0 DAMPING FOR SMALL AND LARGE PIPING WAS RAISED TO 2% AND 3%, RESPECTIVELY 9 SOIL DAMPING DETEPMINATIONS WERE REQUIRED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE NONLINEAR STRESS - STRAIN RELATIONSHIPS FOR THE FOUNDATION MEDIUM 8 FINITE ELEMENT PROCEDURES WERE REQUIRED IN THE CALCULATION OF SOIL / STRUCTURE INTERACTION FOR DEEPLY EMBEDDED STRUCTURES

8 THREE CC:*PONENTS OF EARTHQUAKE MOTION WERE REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED BY TAKING THE SRSS OF THE i:ESPONSES TO EACH CCMPONENT (REG. GUIDE 1.92) 8 FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA GENERATED PER REG. GUIDE 1.122. AFTER 1977 i I LAYERED S0ILS ACCOUNTED FOR IN AN ELASTIC KALF SPACE SOIL / STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSES e THE LIMIT OF 105 0F CRITICAL DAMPING ON MODAL DAMPING VALUES IN SOIL / STRUCTURE INTERACTICN ANALYSES WAS REMOVED 4 EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION PER REG. GUIDE 1.100 0 COMPARISON OF ELASTIC HALF-SPACE AND FINITE ELEMENT SOIL / STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSES RESUL S T e e

TABLE 2 Apoendix 53 I Percen: Critical Da= ping I I l Type and Condi: ion Percen: age of .stress,.evel of Strue:ure Cri:1calDa= ping! a l 1. Lev, well bel:v i a. V1:al piping, sys-0.5 proper:icnal 11:1:,i te=s or equip =en: l s:: esses belev 1/4 ! b. Welded s: rue: ural 0.5 :o 1.0 I yield poin: s: eel, reinforced cr pres: essed :en-cre:e, no ::a: king, no join: slip 2. Working s::ess, no a. 71:al piping, sys-0.5 :o 1.0 l10 more than at:u: 1/' a s :: equipmen: yield pein: b. Welded s: rue: ural 2 s: eel, pres:ressed concre:e, we'l rein-for:ed ::ncre:e (only sligh: cracking) c. Reinf:r:ed concre:e 3 to 5 w1:h censiderable cracking d. 3ol:ed and/or rive:ed 5 to 7 {10 steel 3. A: or jus: belev a. Vi:al piping, O.5 :o 2.0

• l10 yield pein:

sys:ers, or equip =an: b. We'ded s::::: ural 5 s: eel, pres:ressed

en::e:e (vi:heu:

.:: ple:e 1:ss in pres:ress)

. ? es:ressed ::n::e:e 7

vi:h no pres:ress lef: d. Reinfer:ed :encre:e 7 :: 10 e. Bol:ed and/or rive:ed 10 :: 15 i steel i 4 '*ari e s a. Rocking of en: ire 5 (03I), 9 (03E) i l struc:ure i i b. Transla: ice of en: ire 30*iO3I and 03I) j stru::ure i. s_ Damping for Class 1 piping was taken to be 0.5% A damping value of 20 per:ent was used in the analysis and consideration was made of limiting this to 10 percent for the structural response of the containrer:. i621 318

6 i, d g.,,,.. . i. g SECHTEL CCRPCR ATICN f-"T. 6 ii. L88 A89H** ,,.-- i . i

l. '

$ACRAMENTC MUNICIPAL UTILITY CISTRICT .,,...s................s.....J....su.u..aJ p S = to T2 e $a ." 4 RANCHO SECO NUCLE AR STATICN - UNIT 1 C85PLAC1 VENT RESPCNSE (INCNESI 3 l d PERICO tSECJ CPERATING SASE EARTHCUAKE T = HCRICCNTAL ACCELf RAT CN AESPONSE ACCEL! A AT:CN RESPCNSE (3 's) S SPECTRUM PCR ECulPMENT a CRCUND EI.37A*!CN O'-0" 6 .i.. i, i i i.i 3-pr,g.,ec Sy: Reviewed By: Accrovec av: ..........7.. l. l g.' 6 lp,. , i. ...e 5X.4292.S.19 R ev..A JCB No. ......i,. ....i. i-... . i.. i. i 6292 y i i M, 4 i i i. r i i.. i. 20 i i... =Q i. p i. i i 4 . i? ..,.i... i ...i j . i.. t. i ..T i i i, O i a 4 4 a 1.0 a i . - -r-a .75 w _ - - i_. - a _.- i -3 i .e= r., x c + \\ I 50' x. f, s

• a _L

?__Q s' i -x x / ~ s .- /,. 7, A x s N. ( x x f. f -7 w x x 3 ,e x x t f-1 , * : r., C.- f x xx .~ ,s -~~ x xx 4r MA i,-- ,'3, \\\\w :!d Q .:o O' .01 .o: .03. :. .:6.:s.. .5 .3 1 3 5 I ?ER:CD (se:s) p[g ] i

1 T I y e i p' , c.Ti2 SECHTE L CCRPCR ATICN ... i. 6 _h { '. '. ', .. ",,,.. l:M- 'l. 'la. Los Ange'es i-- P-i. .d SACRA *.tENTo uuNICIP AL UTILITY CISTRICT 25 R ANCHC SECO NUCLE AR STATICN - tJNIT 1 S = to 7 d e i CISP'.ACEYENT RESPCNSE (INCNE51 S 4 pg alCC,$ECl CPER ATING BASE E ARTMCUA<! 7. VERTICA L ACCiL!R ATICN RESPCNSE A:.ELERA7CN RESPCNSE (g 's) S = a SPECT ALM ECR ECulPMENT i. CRCUND ZLZVA'rION O'-0" 4 P*es <ec sv: Rev.eme sy: Acorow.o av: .l. 'l l !.ll.l. i ,,,, e .i...

==* h i g f lf,,, e ',, , i, ,.i. i

i..

gg. i .i. ,i..... T* ........ i, ,..i6

CB NO.

gggg;,$,g q,,, . i 4 i 6292 i 4 ,. i, 6 6 6 e i . ~, i t i. a l l r-i .r e

• 8 f

9 g i i i 6 .e ,t .,i ,,i i 4 , i 2 g i 8 3 4 i # e i I ,0 i l l l l 4 ~ _ _ 4 _ _. L .75 .- ? 4- - -- -l T, ' ~ L.__.._ .~ .50 r-i l __a c .-P,,A l l i i i f ~ ~ ~ ~ x i g l 7 x ,7 .~ Nx I f x . s :=, :v ,f f i s x w.n.x sf \\~ . 9' 'X - I- .~ i -/... = n _ e =. 3' .01 .02 .03.0 ; .06.03.; .2 .2 .a .5 .3 1 2 3 5 t ?E2:00 (se:sl FIG 2 I

e .7 a ' 7_j__ L.J..p.L. * . _. 4 _l. W ..L. g. ._. J-SECMTEL CORPCR ATICN m--{* t*-{ r-~ - *.-- % ~ " W l---} t--j.- J .1 Los Ange.es J~ 1 i SACRAMENTO MUNic:P AL UTILITY Ca5TRICT I 1 to T2 5, .'ANCMC SECO NUCLE AR STA7tCN - UNsT 1 i = d S = CISPLACEMENT REs7CNSE (INCHE31 4-l a PE RICO :5ECJ CESIGN 3 ASE E ARTHCU AstE T = ACCEL! A ATICN RESPCNSE ($' 8) j~ MCR.tCNTAL ACC,EL E R ATICN RESPCNSE = r s,ECTRuu CR Ecui, VENT GROUh*D ZI.EVA ICN O'-0" Peecarec Sy: Rew.ewoo Sv: Acarowed Sv: ',,a'

H - - --

-i d. v) A6 p U i e. i h .C 9 90. l R ev. , SX 429* 5 41 ,,s:s2 o _a_ I 0 .A, = 7 o, i e i n __.---r .. s. j l i i i I i 1 i .a a i 31 v O i Q i i , i. 6 2 i g i i. o i e i n t i f. N 4 g -f 3 i / \\ t 1,gi A i f .\\ i 6 .T i i A \\- t c 1 i /*-~~ N i x. 7 X \\ i f

• ps f

X .N 6 i T f f T. T 6 \\ a .A A A i X \\ i i y f. p__ i .50 ,/ ~ ,x i N e i x x r (< / / A \\ A< e N h / i .C f N N \\ t' / X X.g ( / / f N \\ \\\\ 1,- ' /_ / -/ / N N T\\ i // / / N N N\\ 8 .'.f (( \\ \\

• ~:4~'02.2 w..,

.X N N a N N N .5 1 N . i ~~ wc-;1 a .c .{ O' .01 .02 .33 .0 a .06. 0 3. '. .2 .3 .5 3 1 2 3 5 ?~K 00 (secs) FIG. 3 300R ORIGINAL em

BECMTEL CORPOR ATICN

• l'l'.

l .. l [ '.l. [.. I. -f l I Los Angeies .. ' a.. , i u. a.........a.m. ". a....ae... na 6...... 2 SACR AMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY CISTRICT S4 to7 $a = RANCNC SECC NUCLE AR STATICN - UNIT 1 . ll 3, CIS7LACEMENT RESPCNSE (INCNES) ,..,.i PE 98CC iSEC.) l, Il CEsiCN SASE E ARTHCUAKE T

• 8 VERTICAL ACCELE RATICN RF.. CNSE S,

ACCIL!aATtCN RESPCNSE (g S) = ' i SPECTRUM PCR ECuiPMEP.T i GRCUND ELEVATICN O'-0" i

i.. i-

,,ecueo sv: Rev a sv: Acoro ee sy: 6 s qL 'l $$b (C,- i,,, i 6 a .., n..

si 4

i .t.., JC8 NC. O 6292 SX 6:9:462 g ** U . i l .i . i i

i....

e i-i, i.. i . i g a = to w = 6.....i+ i. O .. i.. . i. s [ i... . i g ... e.. .q .... i 9 ... 6. .6 J . i i i.. i i .M s Q e i... r. e 1 i. i i i 1.0 i i i l h .. i i .75 j ,m.-- l x l f A. T l 6 f N . i .i . T I A A.

1. F

/_ X i / \\ Y f* / \\ N. 1 / .\\ I 'N N /- / N N.

1. -['

f% \\ 'x r .i / 7

• c I /

/ x x x X Nx e/ e xx u j _. / __ X x % C ni .C:. 4 x n ___ _ we-x NN

2.u C NN i

x xx l 'wh o[h9) x. g. .g, 4., . p., 4e.r-a.. .c .a t 3 . i 1ly ? ER Z D (secs) FIG. t. UUq Un aliu. 1621 322

5 l g cec.,ius ,,.J sv<, >s s, w s < o,s.. .._af;s .m 8 ,,, s.v ~< ~ n +, x i o +- vs + w e?, a,,,,, e, < > n n ~n

• v

< m 3 ,w. i m.s mo ~ t g E',,4;7e# 's N/4f,W v1 db^t '- 'vX4Gy / ! MseA WE s s F r )s y V V V' ' M'*" N* C d ' rN Ny s s fixf a ' J ' 'r's V. fit' Y o*

• EfJ,%,'%2s]s'sn9'JJii Xl /WKC'.h.'s/,CX,7,M f K 4 X@%.'< 5,,

f h IEi T 'J[ MixdA@i'I'Plf6l 'lN'?M'N'Y@gv% 3$b.'$'<k%iSTM$k XMM.F , 4g'bf$. 2* a g r y j; gA,,[ g' C'>. s>gy; g *k, yL,Agg w, f c e 3 =, ^ >/,ss %, / s,?%o.. ,r 4. p > x + A. , s 5 _ = A, i - r. 5 - .n -o.'%.3 1 s -- -;e w.~i /2 o , s s.s,,,.,c,. r.,v.., a m.- ,a s xs#,,y#c y#- m x< v, e* =s vs e s v-w / 1/P MNX / x ' <Y r n _ ' // ':.^ N ' - Y d ~ sM C / t'f s r N l i >&,e ',, s.dM /' ;dh $9 vM 'n /t s p s's.J W r,!>&.,%s ' A *, .Ev-

• Ec /

. j / D c & s.,>' 'i! W,fe/ e y Es b y w # z;Mg+m yrv wet. g iiK 3i 'Ph & " ' M '5 4 @ M l'!' M " Wi,

M c 3 s ! @M y '.s '

Q('s'g>,^/'^,.\\% ' / s,v N 'st' # 8 y '3

• i s'f W

s a'i #.% ',<' X e . it //s,' i I "-DA 25 h '"- [ /f ; N' s s - h ' d,'N %f ', ff,' s9 a %_g,. s,=, g - i, ,..f,,, ~ s.;p, -, s 5 s.. s y , ~w,. s. _g, u ; g :- g., a t4 s - s 7 ,,.v s - Q' ' F{ 'e ' * / /,,%s 'O ',', $7 :, r,f.b, '# 'o' z ' *,., a ' - Y r 21 - m - - D'r'Y- , %@,, y's N 4'i Nj= 3 g g *I!i.'N$$te N[',:,4 a EU,' , Mob,4'QW K 4 "ts s,, G,vi'E, y 5i 'iR h M b ','(/i Oh E+l5 ' N d[N 5 'MCf$f yX'%u/ px q,s3 0,,% y, y< s,s. e- ~

s. /,s. xs c

-i v, ~, e=,y 2,.,3, -. c,,'s ,1 5 ,sa s i' '..,s ^ v x s-ps sA c( 'e;,e =,- <s ss< s r, - N ,= s,-== 3 .c w / x s

s h

k< ? ,v ' s s../.<. - ._g s ,, v v sn, ..s . a,.. s, s C 4. w. ,..s s. w cx.- .mo .m u. s ~ s .g

-t a >:,/s n.-

s .x, s xn ~,, s, ...;u,. a ~ s fg C_ r Vses, s '( s 'E 9 e,,W -WXs s vV s r '/v,' - /40"',. s ,gg l E.- 'M, 'm ssygnu.MN.n, s As n i ", o6~ g' s,, .n g s g FJ A >@'s'.V#,%^%','4 ,\\\\M',. XWA e,'-; ,f '9fNJs,v2, sIi'4' ','hMCW,W/N/MS2MMN, t'v'i 48.$sX53 N2 'd'4 2^ s 'N

6 g

s gSW $hh'l,!,' '5'N,~'f's&i ' 'bk,' ?,',); b,')(,$!/&." U ~ ~ ^. ex x in, s s.,s t m s, -.. < . N s.,, 4e.. 3 > < Q :.^W. !,,,m,,, ri,,i, ' p,,.:-NM,N o n %:. 3.... :', i 2 r v A,>ev ^ v s/ ' u<<sy a <^ '.V,..t,.. rn,. O 5 s $,L. /

v..

or,

5 "3 a s 2 a

s**~*=* s;;g : ; ; g VEL,0 CITY IN INCHES /SECOND ){QlQ q5 FIGURE 3-2 r L RESPONSE SPECTRA g j I id DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE FROM. SURRY t AND 2 PS A A, FIGUpE 2.5-3 SymRy p0wEp STa ICN-UNITS 1 aNC S 5 -e-C - ~ Cri. c. - _% FIG. 5 1621 223

I i. 2.0 e l l l l I i i l l I 1.9 i L i i i i l 1 l l i 1.6 l l l 6 e l l l 1.4 e l.2 p < 1.0 m. W y a W U o 0.9 l ~ l C.6 ^4

1. N /

• p "i 1

/ /- 1 Nh-dUl.Y i }v,I 0.0 0.00 0.!O 0.20 C.3 C 0.40 0.0 0 60 0.70 0.90 090

1. 0C

!.10 1.20 PERICD-SECONOS LEGEND FSAR E ARTHCUAKE 18/o 0 AMP!NG -= = = RE3ULATORY GUICE !.60 EARTHOUAKE 28/s OAMP!NG RE3ULATORY GU10E 1.60 EAR 7,40UAKE 3*/o OAMP!NG I i jL COMPARISON OF THE FS AR AND REGULATORY GUICE I.60 EARTHCUAKES-ARS AT MAT SURRY POWER STATICN-UNITS I ANO 2 \\ FIG. 6 i621 324

2.0 - i l I 1.8 t l l.6 I I l l i 1.4 l l t l l i i t i C l 1.2 ) i l 1 i i O_ j j l e < l.C l C /l .4 W / l / l ] d \\fA c*8 i t e' /.4, o I si J v "/ I l l l l I s s_. n ,] C.6 y. N 1 l' p i i e A .1 e V s j I i s

1. ~

.. / in ~ r~,. i IL ~ C4 7e ' g%.O-4 p-TN i qf. - ) N i j i f I I i i -} I l c. 0.0c c.:o c.20 0.3 c 0.4 c.sc C.s 0.70 c.sc c.sc 1.co

1. l c 1.20 PERICO - SECONOS LEGENO:

F3 AR EARTw;U AKE 1% OAMPlN3 {

---

RE3ULATORY Gul0E I.SC EARTHCUAKE 2% CAMPING

} - - - R E317 ATORY GulOE I.6C EARTHGU AKE 3% O AMPING i I 300R DMINAL COMPARISCN OF FSAR AND REGULATORY GUICE I.60 EARTHCUAKES-ARS AT CPERATING FLCOR SURRY PCWER STATION-UNIT 31 AND 2 1 ^ "3 7 1621 325

1 I I 20 i i l l i i 15 i i j i l l l l l i j 1.6 i I I l t i i i i I e I g 1.2 j 4 0 li a J ti _ l /), /h I N. a E^ !\\,./ %. w !i -4 ,I sj /h' ' ..h. i i, c~ l l LM [ /r-I ,k i l j ' Q '<V w _ /4 I ~ y 2 l i 1 I / ^ o.cc alc c.20 0.30 c4o cao c so 07o c.so aso 1.0c uo 1.20 PERICD-SECONCS Ji LEGEND FSAR EARTMOUAKE 1*'o 0AMPtNG i J

---

RE3ULATORY GUICE 1.60 EART5CUAKE 2*/o 3AMPING

- RE3ULATCRY GUICE 1.60 EARTHCUAKE 3*/o O AMPING 1 ] COMPARISON OF THE FSAR AND REGULATORY GUTCE 1.60 EARTHOUAKES-ARS AT SPRINGUNE I SURRY PCWER STATICN-UNITS 1 #C 2 s. n FIG. 8 1621 326

I -5 M , y y,,pe,i,,,y,,,, m. y m... e,i.,,,y,,,, m.. y n..,,.....gm i,,, y,,,,,.. ....mm,. =_

,n~<> cc u.

x = =,en.,<n;n =i7 w A _x x cna_ e n x e.m o a i r <~ > ,,.,~/ ~ _n ~ - ~~ ~X A inl N't'W ~~ ~ A 'A8 N 4'MW / / ' sv/ n n ~mnu ~~ n ~mm o n n ~m , 9</ / / 1/ /N A: N N'MW / / A ex /m xswex ANzestsw m >w %%dM64%S'MDM%%%22nD 4're:"y S( xq. g /\\

1. sA I if

.,!,#d_ 6,\\ ~ ~, A. \\ .. w s.s.- ,.3 a- .x a^ <~ ,A. A A A X i c 's \\' ,,g f, ../fa c ,.s <s. AW/' \\AM /sM ' i / /N / vN Y A 'sN h NNNN/'/ / A/ /1/N Nr N 'N'N'NN N < s (yf5 ' s i //fr If*/ // / ,g ..., 9V////V /X/A N A s<CW AXA ARN'MW / / v" /\\ A N 't'M' // //////M // pr 71 sh $.., 6*X4//////% hf'dQNW /M%XFk.%"6M / /N A N 3.., E..V/hNWNfSAA$h )RNk W h AdY 5[ ' N'. '$n6 ~\\ / x ';r-N' Y k I) f. I 4.',,, t _s., I [/ N N i .,~,, .8 ~ ~ *N A g,g

• ,.I.+

1 sWX Av

1. 1 /s

( m, un"('r t # v

• wA

/v d v 'N ( 'm , e n_ x scw // / /~ r /ue4 e x 1 n;a, oa<^ n x g, g N 6 m Nxd,w Nu A/ N.N 'A vdA,, /u / ~ N N ' A s N/ ^< /*., W N N's < SN W \\^ A A > N 't'99 .., 9v / / A A 'A. N N v<SV / / 'A 6m /l /N /K N XMhW /i A /\\ NW"6%Y'VN A N#2h WM /fN >66tMi&M A X4MMONWN M'9X SM hJJE84%D NJTN4CM MM64 \\\\- ( ' i \\ // i 'Nh'~'% fp i) 9.A,Os ,e bef'v\\ jM s x .=t:4ENCY (; Psi g FIGUR E 3-1 RESPONSE SPECTR A O.125 G DEE SEAVER V ALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 1 HMZ M L FREE EZi.Q FIG. 9 1621 327

1 2.0 l.S 1.6 i j 1.4 l O 1.2 J/ 2 2c: 1.C kJ Y C.3 CSi 7> f k A C4 f) 3 w j-- I C.0 C.0 C - C.:C C.2C C3C C.4C C*C C.60 C.7 C C. S C C9C 1.0C

1. r 0 1.2C PERfCO SECCNCS LEGENO FSAR EARThCUAxE 1*/o OAMP!NG 1

---

RE3ULATOMY GUIOE L6C EARWCUAME 2*' 0AMPtNG REGULATCRY GUiOE I.6C EARTHCUAME 3*/o 0 AMP'NG 300R ORl81K

.} COMPARISON OF FSAR AND REGULATORY GUIDE I.60 EARTHQUAKES-ARS AT M AT } BEAVER VALLEY PCw ER STA?t C N - UNIT f f FIG. 10 1621 328

2.50 2.25 2.00 f 1.75 3 c h y 1."C \\ 9 1 nn ? ^ JN D U '^h l y 1.C0 3 i [ j _.. oys u$ k. hM! .h /\\ g. N f c2,. C.0 0.00 C.!C C.2C C.30 C.40 C." C C.6 0 C.70 C.30 CSC !.0 0 1.10 1.2C PERICO SECONCS LEGEND FS AR EARTHCUAKE l*/, C AM8tNG

---

RE3ULATORY GUICE 16C EARTHCUAKE 28/, CAMP?NG RE31.1.ATCRY GUICE L60 C ARTr*CUAXE 3*/, CAMP!NG j

i I P00R DiU81NA_ ~ COMPARISON OF FS AR AN D REGULATORY GUID E 1.60 EARTHCU AKES-A R S AT OPERATING FLOOR sEAvEn vAu.Kr *CwER srA :Cn - UN!? I f l 101 329 FIG. 11

.E e i 5.C 4.5 4.C 3.5 i dr { 7 3.C 1- =9 4 2.3 g ".i ~ i W i 8 AC f t 4 T A L , ~. r ? \\ 7e s ig y k, l I i \\.A A A c. lJR I I i l C.C l C.CC C.1C C.20 C.3C C.40 C. C C.6 C C.7C C. !C C.9C 1.C C 1.10 1.20 I PERICO-S ECON CS l .L LEGENO i F5AA EARNCUAKE !*/o CAMP!NG --- -- R E ULATCRY GUICE 1.5C EARTHOUAKE 2*/o C AMP!NG REGULATCRY GulCE 1.GC EARTHCUAKE 3*/oCAMP!NG l l 300RORGINAl .l COMPARISON OF FSAR AND REGULATORY GUIDE I.SO - ARS AT SPRINGLINE BEAVER VALLEY PCWER STAT!CN-UNIT 1 l 1 9 T30 FIG. 12 ,.}}