ML19263C387
| ML19263C387 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Black Fox |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1979 |
| From: | Gallo J ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Purdom P, Shon F, Wolfe S DREXEL UNIV., PHILADELPHIA, PA, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19263C386 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902220052 | |
| Download: ML19263C387 (2) | |
Text
...
llk 2 October 1979 CRITERIA FOR COMBINATIONS OF EARTHQUAKE AND/OR OTHER TRANSIENT RESPONSES N. M.
NEWMARK R.
P.
KENNEDY Preamble.
The intent of the methods proposed for combinations of transient, dynamic responses is to achieve a non-exceedance probability of approximately 84 percent for the peak combined response of the system, component, or element considered.
This goal is achieved by compliance with any one of the following criteria, or any alternative method that meets the intent st ated above, provided that the intensity of loads or accelcra-tions for each input are conservatively represented (apprc::i-mately at the level of the S4th percentile, or the mean plus one standard deviation, of the expected input intensity).
1.
Criterion.
Dynamic or transient responses of structures, components and equipment arising from combinations of dynamic loading or motions may be combined by SRSS provided that each of the dynamic inputs or responses has characteristics similar to those of earthquake ground motions, and that the individual component inputs can be considered to be relatively uncor-related; i.e.,
the individual dynamic inputs or responses considered are either from independent events or have random peak phasing.
This similarity involves a limited number of peaks of force or acceleration (not more than 5 e: ceeding 75 percent of the maximum, or not more than 10 exceedia? 60 percent of the maximum), with approximately zero mean and a total duration of strong motion (i.e., exceeding 50 percent of the maximum) of 10 seconds or less.
Explanation.
Since earthquake motions in various directions produce responses which are combined conservatively by the use of SRSS, the das-criptions of dynamic or transient inputs are based on those applicable to earthquake motions.
The coefficient of cor-relation for those is less than 0.4, and the pattern of peaks is based on Table 2 of Circular 672 of the USGS describ-ing earthquake ground motions for use in the design of the Alaska Oil Pipeline.
The probability distribution for the responses to earthquake motions is based on the concepts under-lying U.
S.
NRC Regulatory Guide 1.60, where the standard deviation is 30 to 40 percent of the median value.
1 790 222oof qt
.. i i
It has been pcoved some decades ago hat modal responses to earthquake motions may be conservatively combined by SRSS methods with he same degree of conservatism as that of the motions.
If.' each of such responses is considered to be at the level of mean plus one standard deviation, the SRSS value is also ac this level.
For the same reasons, responses from the three component directions of earthquake motions may also be conser vatively combined by SRSS methods.
2.
Criterion.
When response time-histories are available for all multiple dynamic loadinus being combined, SRSS methods may be used for peak combined response when CDF calculations, using appropri-ate assumptions on the range of possible time lags between the response time-histories, show the following criteria ar'. met:
There is estimated to be less than approximately a a.
50% conditional probability tgat the actual peak combined response from these conservatively de-fined loadings exceeds approximately the SRSS calculated peak response, and b.
There is estimated to be less than approximately a 15% conditional probability that the actual peak combined response exceeds approximately 1.2 times the SRSS calculated peak response.
2
APPLICATION OF THE NEWMARK-KENNEDY CRITERIA TO THE BLACK FOX STATION R.
P.
KENNEDY As a result of the presentation and discussion of these criteria at the ACRS Subcommittee on Fluid Hydraulic Dynamic Effects in November, 1978, I have reviewed the basis of the criteria further and I believe a minor change to the preamble r,hould be made.
Specifically, if one were to postulate a case where the indivi-dual responses have very little variance on peak amplitude (i.e.,
an amplitude coefficient of variation less than about 0.2), the criteria as stated may not assure that the approximate SRSS com-bined response exceeds tne 84th percentile non-exceedance probabil-ity even when the individual responses being combined are at least at this non-exceedance probability.
I believe it to be unlikely that real transient response data will actually have such a low coefficient of variation, so that from a practical etandpoint a change in the criteria is probably unnecessary.
Nevertheless, for application of the criteria to the design of the Black Fox Station, I recommend the last sentence of the preamble to the criteria be revised to read:
"This goal is achieved by compliance with any one of the following criteria, or any alternative method that meets the intent stated above, provided that the intensity of loads or accelerations for each input are conservatively represented (approximately at the level of the G4th per-centile, or at 1.2 times the median Javel, whichever is greater). "
(underscoring indicates change of language)*
Throughout this testimony, when individual inputs are discussed as being at the 84th percentile, it is meant the inputs are at the 84th percentile or at 1.2 times the median level, whichever is greater.
Application of the Newmark-Kennedy Criteria to the Black Fox Station Page 2 This change will conservatively guard against the possible but unlikely case where there is very low variance in the individual amplitudes so that even under this highly uhlikely condition, the criteria, as applied to the Black Fox Station, provide reasonable confidence that the SRSS combined response exceeds the 84th per-centile when each individual response is at this percentile.
I believe this recommendation is probably more conservative than recessary.
Further studies &re being conducted to determine the amount by which each input response must exceed the median response to assure that the SRSS combined response exceeds the 84th percentile in these cases of low dispersion cn the peak amplitude.
I am confident the required amount will lie between 1.05 and 1.2 times the median response and my best estimate c C this amount is 1.1 times the median response level.
I am certain the value need not exceed 1.2 times the median response.
Thus, I recommend that this upper-bound limit of 1.2 times the median level be incorporated into the application of the criteria for Black Fox Station.
n) e ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE COUNSELORS AT LAW 9050 3 7t= ST A E E T. N. W.
SEVENf w FLOOe WAS Ht NGTON, D. C. 2003 6 T E LE PHO N E 202 833*9733 CMsCAGO OFroCC ONE FIRST NaftON AL PLAZA FOpf vaSECONO FLOOR February 5, 1979 c
.C Aco..LL.NO.S.O.0 3 TELEPHONE 3t2 788-7500 TELEX:2 f,2 8 0s Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Mr. Frederick J. Shon, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Paul W. Purdom, Director Environmental Studies Group Drexel University 32nd and Chestnut Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 Re:
In the Matter of the Application of
)
Public Service Company of Oklahoma,
)
Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. )
Docket No. STN 50-556 and
)
STN 50-557 Western Farmers Electric Cooperative
)
)
(Black For Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
Gentlemen:
On September 23, 1978, Applicants filed direct testimony in this proceeding under cover of a pleading entitled, " Notice of Filing Applicants' Direct Testimony and Identification of Exhibits."
On pages 3 and 4 of that pleading, Applicants noted that the NRC Staff's generic positior. on load combination methods was yot to be announced and, therefore, Applicants reserved the right to file additional direct and/or rebuttal testimony on the subject.
On or about September 29, 1978, the NRC Staff filed Mr. Varga's testimony and NUREG-0484 on the subject of load combination methodo-logy.
Thereafter, Mr. Varga, by letter dated October 31, 1978 (copies were furnished to the Service List), advised Applicants of the NRC Staff's position, and requested a commitment with respect to certain aspects of NUREG-0484 Applicants commenced a review and analysis of NUREG-0484
3 Sheldon J.
Wolfe, Esquire Mr. Frederick J.
Shon Dr. Paul W.
Purdom February 5, 1979 immediately upon its receipt in early October, 1978, and, among other things, employed independent consultants (Dr. Kennedy and Mr. Fuller) to assist in developing a position on the methodology issue.
This effort was diligently pursued and culminated with Applicants' letter of December 20, 1978 (copies were furnished to the Service List) in reply to Mr. Varga's letter of October 31.
In its letter, Applicants proposed a commitment of a somewhat dif-ferent nature than that suggested by the NRC Staff.
The matter subsequently discussed in a meeting among representatives of was the NRC Staff, Applicants and Intervenors in the offices of the NRC in Bethesda on January 23, 1979.
Based on Applicants' analysis of the load combination aue and the meeting with the NRC Staff, the following testimony is herewith submitted:
1.
Dr.
R. P.
Kennedy - testifying in support of the generic use of SRSS methodolo'Jy and the Newmark-Kennedy Criteria; 2.
Dr. Chittoor V.
Subramanian - testifying in support of the application of the Newmark-Kennedy Criteria to Mark III containment design; 3.
Mr. Edward D.
Fuller - testifying in support of the generic application of SRSS methodology; and 4.
Mr. Vaughn L. Conrad - testifying as to the nature of Applicants' commitment.
The foregoing testimony will be offered at the resumed hearing scheduled for February 23, 1979.
Sincerely, V
sb oseph Gallo One of the Attorneys for the Applicants.
JG:ds ccs:
Service List
BLACK ' FOX STATION SERVICE LIST XC:
L. Dow Davis, Esquire Joseph R. Farris3 Esquire William D. Paton, Esquire John R. Woodard, III, Esquire Colleen Woodhear, Esquire
- Green, Feldman, Hall & Woodard Counsel for NRC Staff 816 Enterprise Building U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 Washington, D. C.
20555 Andrew T. Dalton, Esquire
~
Mr. Cecil Thomas 1437 South Main Street, Suite 302 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119 Phillips Building 7920 Norfolk Avenue Mrs. Ilene H. Younghein Bethesda, Maryland 20014 3900 Cashion Place Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112 Mr. Jan A. Norris
~
Mr. Lawrence Burrell Environmental Projects Branch 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 1, Box 197 Phillips Building Fairview, Oklahoma 73737 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Mrs. Carrie Dickerson Citizens Action for Safe Energy, Inc.
Mr. William G. Hubacek P. O. Box 924 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Claremore, Oklahoma 74107 Office of Inspection and Enforcement Region IV 61.1 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76012 Mr. Gerald F. Diddle General Manager Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.
P. O. Box 754 Springfield, Missouri 65801 hr. Maynard Human General Manager Western Fanners Electric Cooperative P. O. Box 429 Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005 Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale One 1st National Plaza Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Mr. Joseph Gallo Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1050 17th Street N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036
~
M4 mer--
- MMMW a6J 5-hMI Air MMWMM[
hE 1WAM*