ML19330B420

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Slide Presentation Entitled, GE Presentation Matl, from ACRS Getr Subcommittee 800616-17 Meeting
ML19330B420
Person / Time
Site: Vallecitos File:GEH Hitachi icon.png
Issue date: 06/17/1980
From:
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML19330B414 List:
References
NUDOCS 8008040010
Download: ML19330B420 (80)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:-- b J O (& ' 3

SUMMARY

OF ORIGINAL STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATIONS General Electric Test Reactor presentation to Advisory Cannittee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee Meeting June 16 & 17, 1980 ce w-e OI FIGAL F" i r, 3 g8-1, : .-m.,0+ ~,.,. F.DAC ENGINEERING CECISION ANALYSIS COMPANY, INC. { 480 CALIFORNIA AVE., SUITE 301 BURNITZSTR ASSE 34 PALO ALTO CALIF. 94306 6 FRANKFURT 70. W. GERMANY .8008040ofg

i v i .IE II ^.d4 ^ ^ ^ b^m" W % OFFICIAL SEAL t ? d> dd,.d ~o:,a h n w u w u. f t' VIF33h A C O,Mim;n e.cuwam sty . gL ht'kll-Cir

,,7,7; g, gi;; y',

'..-!g}ylk Q 'ffj p ag., w pg; CCt..r! s69 e, %* m ww w m .....m._,._

O ~ EDRO

SUMMARY

OF STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATIONS ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS e VIBRATORY GROUND MOTION e SURFACE RUPTURE OFFSET e POST-OFFSET VIBRATORY MOTION e PIPING AND EQUIPMENT RECENT INVESTIGATIONS e COM3INED VIBRATORY MOTICNS AND SURFACE RUPTURE OFFSET e VIBRATORY MOTIONS ON CALAVERAS FAULT e PIPING AND EQUIPMENT o CONSERVATISMS IN EVALUATIONS OF REACTOR BUILDING p7x s mm c .x ...s,s.,,,..., {7 - c. j t (I \\- ~~., s s s,, ~v^s

/Q U EDAC STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATIONS REACTOR BUILDING e LINEAR AND NONLINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSES e STATIC SURFACE RUPTURE OFFSET ANALYSES REACTOR BUILDING PIPING SYSTEMS AND COMPCNENTS e LINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSES FOR: PRIMARY PIPING OTHER SAFETY-RELATED PIPING REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL HEAT EXCHANGERS FUEL STORAGE TANKS THIRD FLOOR MISSILE IMPACT SYSTEM MISCELLANEOUS COMPONENTS e TESTING AND DYtaMIC ANALYSES FOR VALVES FUEL FLOODING SYSTEM e STATIC SURFACE RUPTURE OFFSET AND DYNAMIC ANALYSES, AND COMPONENT TESTING FOR: STORAGE TANKS SUPPLY LINES 7 d ic E ^; ~ _g vw u c. c_e,ry k u us / .g," %1.t W-L'k~L2:Cd 1 l

bh ) v HDAC i i Containment Shell i Pool I Third Floor '. :.. ' l 1 s = Canal

  • l.9 i

Second Floor .....h... ... p Y, l l-2 ~!& -irst Floor iu2-\\ tl .,....,, l

j tne_ ig 5

Rasement

  • y*. - e:.'

\\ .l.. g Foundation Mat FIGURE 3-5 REACTOR BUILDING VERTICAL SECTION [:lf~:: w e * ' *a x, c - .. # :s og V;;;< ;, .. E ah"' v,*1.r,-vg y s_ g+,- .j,,

1 A l G EDAC 1 ...s.

9 j

,:x, .y.. .o 6 ,. q;-h y.. .y E.h.S M B E E $:Y .,,.., 9.. s. 1 p. . f. 3 Basement First Floor i A y ~ '

  • sj W.

Pool N As s Pool s / N s i s s f s, L. _3 s s [ E f Canal .. v..- l y/) r / y r Y 1 Second Floor Third FlooI i FIGURE 3-6 REACTOR BUILDING FLOOR PLANS 1 f;-ny %6+iW Nt c - ccmca:;;n@ ) OFFICIAL SEAL ..'a % h' v j.jy vby/ ,,.'v v :*:. ;<&,; Q 3 9 Ai A ?.' C. C ;n l,, : y 4 V O l} ~.~ ' WWJ%< - m

l l l . 2.'. c.. .4.. - g .s. E ..aj. ,. ?.? e dndamaged Safety-Related Area of Reactor Building (Concrete Core Structure) I i' '-s s .,. r-t.- Canal _ Pool l y < ;c... y p / ,;g. ' h s s....~ - rw L i 3 1 8 .i s lw~.....t... - wn... l l FIGURE 3-7 REACTOR BUILDING SAFETY-RELATED AREA =- w-a-w n.....c o. . s,,,, d 4% } g,\\ \\ f- ' is ..s ) ,. e r. t~^" ' " - 9 w*e % s.. g, s gj y

O EDAC ~ 1 BASES FOR STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATIONS e 0.8g EFFECTIVE GROUND ACCELERATION AND RG 1.60 RESPONSE SPECTRUM SHAPE e 1 METER SURFACE RUPTURE OFFSET e 1 METER OFFSET FOLLOWED BY 0.8g SEISMIC EVENT LC A ^ ^ ^ ^AA

,$ w+WN R%C - C?A*fSM;A t

,n e nse um PG.' .. f/ '( t XB M37 '- l r s,. nf. rv - n w -. *si w s%m%w s 4,. ..a 1

OO EDAC VIBRATORY GROUND MOTION ANALYSES LINEAR ELASTIC ANALYSES e LUMPED MASS f0 DEL e DYNAMIC RESPONSE e PARAMETRIC ANALYSES e FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA e STRESSES IN CONCRETE e CONCLUSION: Structure Is Adequate NONLINEAR ANALYSES e SLIDING e UPLIFT e CONCRETE DUCTILITY e STABILITY e CONCLUSION: Linear Elastic Analyses Are Conservati ve PIPING AND EQUIPMENT e LINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSES e CONSERVATIVE STATIC ANALYSES e MODIFICATIONS WHEN REQUIRED i D V Y iE E N ??? M ,1 .m ,y .) )-

Lc.-_

h. , ~,:.y .,.s

(~/'r \\_ ) 00NO g NE Containment Elev. 659 ft 7 in. 5 NW C'* SE 648 ft 7 in. ) n @ E 637 ft 7 in. + n 4su3 O U6 626 ft 7 in. Polar C ane g E B Floor 3 611 ft 7 in. g -- a@ g 600 ft 8 in. g @b Floor 2 589 ft 9 in. o g 578 ft 9 in. 79 o@ E Floor 1 R 567 ft 9 in. g g. ,g is i7 E I.2l 560 ft 3 in. gg d I9@g g I Top of Basement Slab 552 ft 9 i_n. Bottom of Foundation

  • E.

t 546 ft 3 in. z (vertical) g y 5.2, y (NE) t o m ass.a. x (SE) g Beam Element i Rigid Link l G of entire structure (Not to Scale) FIGURE 2-5 MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR THE LINEAR ELASTIC DYNAMIC ANALYSES =:.= - - OFFICIAL SEAL 7mq . '"'Wa O CAemino yy;p' 1:omW (ucac - circman (' .-;-:>Q, w1:1-m-Mc t'.o cc:.n,.,gre y n s =:1 } ~+s+-w+%w wux yi

O HDAC SmFACE RUPTW E OFFSET ANALYSES s PHYSICAL CASES o SELECTED CASE FOR ANALYSIS (Extreme Bound) o CONCLUSION: Structure, Related Piping and Equipment are Adequate s, s ,\\ J k t

O EDAC u. ....u. . U-.. ,s m- / r t.: t. v- ,. -n: .l. . l - ..... l ~xn-a ,tm r .i.. - a a n. I i ~ ._ A. .- Q. O ~ ~.... s.:. - - ~ m n 1 G- .L'~~L '

g l

l. ............. _l .l. .......l,. .m- - v. .,..%m .4 ]. N : ,a 1 4 a

a.,
a. a(, i

} FIGURE 3-2 GROUND SURFACE RUPTURE OFFSET CASES et :: -- A OFFICIAL EAL k jL^lg.k. un-a=. u.m m \\ y. n i.h, w @m;A C Cby ~; = 3 ( ' T.hqk/ e p_ wee ccJo w%-w y c.4 e w.n g) l we i,.. m. e i ~ -r-- ~ ~ ' ~ ' '

HDAC ~ Leve'l .4-i.'t L. J seg a sw{: 16

we c

e .-+-+s.. 17 sti m .='. u, m sw g M .J - :.t i 5 m '415 513 5 ] so<:, h to n .l. .liozy L mj. ..t%l'571 hl ~ I4 iosk wl. .l. ' o l. ) '., to:, to:t is s., sc:o wi c1: Y mti T tors T o.tT. J' ' ir,s. "l.' tstt c 4 h *; en [ l2 Ibn in est L w's Il '}t-si ..,410 \\,. Str. ),1Go [. l411 \\, _,[' 10 'J'l 'l 0 W'J sky 9 .i 4 94 gg M S44 8 sov so,, 91 va y . m. .s lil s G a n .( ya '14 4 GQ C

>-lt N4 vzs l.

4 .c <Js m .I. i :a.t 3 .yn on.:t <ns :t to.z.T. ico4 T ion T vn Tsc20f.ne 6wi roof 2 vt m ns tout to.: tois ya io c, io.4;, o.,u u.;, .n FIGURE A-1 VERTICAL SECTION OF REACTOR BUILDING CORE '100EL - m.m. -m~.- f b,, 'h 'e 9 ,s p - D.g, s a ,s ..a =cg r ; s [s y k v ~.n <, u.e., m n. w ...s.+ ~.. .x<

g )) IEDAC

74 4
$

GJ' 43, 432 p fs ks: 33 416 / 4..

x 3+g f.3 343 741

-- [ 489 / k,A ~ /43 41' w/ /

, v n'

u; sn G.e . 'y 'Q ~ n, ~ n. a ~ 4:: &?. / s.s - 'g /s.* 4* sc un an si ni 3 ,o\\ .s. ..s M: 354 '\\ ,o 3, .n .g.g, 3,, ,. s v. f f n. / S <9 ? ( ? > a, :2 710 y:

- m

,' i e, I: B m t Level 5 Level 6 'p"

in p 2m. q t-

!j - 9 , sa ' See Figure A-1 for location of element levels l ; q M !? ' j e, (< >j .~m. FIGURE A-4 PODEL ELEMENTS LEVELS 5 AND 6

OV EDAC FINDINGS OF STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATIONS REACTOR BUILDING e SAFETY-RELATED CONCRETE CORE STRUCTURE WILL REMAIN INTACT REACTOR BUILDING SAFETY-RELATED PIPING SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS e RESTRAINTS ADDED TO PIPING SYSTEM e RPV LATERAL SUPPORT STRENGTHENED e RESTRAINTS ADDED TO HEAT EXCHANGERS e FUEL STORAGE TANKS REPLACED e MISSILE IMPACT SYSTEM INSTALLED e OTHER COMPONENTS WILL RESIST SEISMIC FCRCES FUEL FLOODING SYSTEM e COMPONENTS WILL RESIST SEISMIC FORCES OFFICI AL T' **b / w;m ecmc~29,p, ,,mer Nwc cAu%~ p 'Qg ,..,,[ .',,'I M r.: w~ c y.nemw ~-a

m

SUMMARY

OF RECENT STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATIONS General Electric Test Reactor presentation to Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards Subcomittee Meeting June 16 and 17, 1980 OFFICI AL SE AL e ',1 [.f..p "r;' A C. CASCUOF.O 132%=PJ2x-c wouk Q:y,._,;:~.7 rgg,.. g e,.www w - m s-;,yi EDAC ENGINEERING CECISICN ANALYSIS CCMPANY. INC. 480 CALIFCANIA AVE.. SulTE 301 SUANITZSTRASSE 24 PALO ALTO. GALIF. 94306 6 FAANKFURT TO W GE A* i ANY

~ EDRO PRESENTATION OUTLINE RECENT STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATIONS Part 1. Earthquake on Postulated Verona F4 ult Part 2. Earthquake on Calaveras Fault Part 3. Piping and Equipment Part 4. Conservatisms in the Seismic Evaluations Part 5. Sumaary of Conclusions Focus: Concrete core structure and related piping and equipment ym ra%p ),. *%s OFFICIAL : t } 'i 'liRGiN: A C ~- + ' a.; - ;c. it 6"'- s /

.O' EDRO PRESENTATION PART 1 ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS TO DETERMINE THE EFFECTS OF COMBINED VIBRATORY MOTIONS AND SURFACE RUPTURE OFFSET 00E TO AN EARTHQUAKE ON THE POSTULATED VERONA FAULT l 2. *: - __ u dk OPPICIAL F cAI, {n+A, ;\\ V:w o. c. u;rrrna }e , ;(-;gp )f; Oreu Powc - cau r.es.A (* , g";f. 4.m caten t Mr.com:r e.;, !?., 3, :< n -m-exxmsw r

O ~ EDAC PRESENTATI0i1 OUTLINE o PRELIMINARY C0:NENTS o GROUT 1D MOTI0i1 CRITERIA e HYPOTHETICAL SURFACE RUPTURE OFFSET CRITERIA e LOAD COMSINATION CASES e COMPONENTS OF EARTHQUAKE VIBRATORY MOTI0f1S e ANALYTICAL t0 DEL e STRESS ANALYSES AND CHECK AGAINST CAPACITIES o CONCLUSIONS l l w - --w u.=== _: : : _:: f i OWicALUAL l /123, xpuye x ? t-& 'no g f,,a,3, ci h0'A'n % t 4CC'

A A f.l ij T

1 \\ y 1 l gs,p p s %- >., .>s' l

IlitlBlFilllll PRELIMINARY COMMENTS Probability of occurrence of surface rupture e offset (SRO) is so low that it should not be included in design bases. e Evaluations for combined load case of SR0 and vibratory motions have been performed in response to USNRC requests. e Assumed that postulated SR0 will tend to "lif t" (as well as shake) the structure. e Focus of the evaluations was on concrete core structure of Reactor Building. 1 P ^ 4',(, ' <.3~. 1 1

~ HDAC LOAD COMBINATION CASES a Two Main Parameters of Interest Vibratory Ground Motion Unsupported Length o Load Ccmbinations Based on Probabilistic Considerations o Load Ccmbinations Based on Physical Argument (Soil Pressure Analyses) l '^^' l - 2. OFFICIAL SEAL 1 O's<d \\f i 'OC!NIA C. CASQUE!.c0 i 0,'

floTAW P40C - CAUFCat lA N,3

' tar < m co u m y .III M ta. d9'.C W R 3,ID?1

6: ~ E 3AC GROUND MOTION CRITERIA e Effective Horizontal Ground Acceleration: 0.40g o Effective Vertical Ground Acceleration: 0.279 o Response spectrum shape: Regulatory Guide 1.60 HYPOTHETICAL SutFACE RUPTulE OFFSET CRITERIA o SR0 = 1.0m M.. d ,C.Sx UP!CT A1.' hog %ggyg, f ./, w.4 q. 1,;.? g - ..",~.__,,1, _3 I. S'? - y c: ;c,:. ~ , ( .,') 4 Ni' l l

hDAC REACTOR BUILDING m 77% +' .,m_-.. EOGE OF $l-ll:/WA!!5Yl;d,?.33 M 2' M U l d[e..g.:.

[, / SUPPORTING SOIL

'.7?hl3d

4:

%p'* 'a.: 'f. W * *. i' p .*. -4:g .n. .Sg[ g pime of cifset g ".Y.'!. ~ Y s8'g'.&- Q.'%:;f s..!.~.?' '.~@,9.*;a)'.Y.~.Q'..:.i..h*?'.?, 3 -,U..S,.:.C.:: ". - ~*h,.J. M'* - o. s g,.

  • Z
  • '.,09..,,.,I.S.;-7 -M
g.p.

n;; 3:r

s...

-..s-- r %'dy.UJ%, 'd.....Wv. <rJ.~a::4*a:N.%g.,r.T.*.'n.,E...s.'../.. D* l.'a.647..t#. '/ t 4

4. };.?.4 T.7..m.'B..T.
    • - A

. n.. mi.u.-./.',;rWR%.;.g . (4 e ;g: FIGURE 1 HYPOTHETICAL " UNSUPPORTED LENGTH," Lc . gym. 7. s~ -ze.z s.. s 4 N; / :- t-

  • g h

.a,g,,v g 2,-e4.e, _,2,

O HDAC O.6 a

i9 Ee

$ 0.4 Wc 5 Om COMBINED 0.2 LOADING CRITERION I I I 1 O 0 5 10 15 20 " UNSUPPORTED LENGTH /* FT. 1 FIGURE 2 COMDINATION OF LOAOINGS BASED l ON PROBABILISTIC CONSIDERATIONS (AFTER REF.3) 2 -.. OFFICIAL SEAL ) -i b (9.., q,[w nu,e. CAsom:r:0, D Dy# WI A C 7 . ew=w,, NQ.Q me : ceuw,- ,, k i ~ % dew d

O ~ EDAC 0.G 9 ACCELhRATION DUE TO g VERONA EVENT = 0.4 g G< c 0.4 t w .J w Q u<cz 3 Oe 0.2 o " INCIPIENT LOCAL YlELOING" AT EDGE OF SUPPORTING SOIL 0 I I I I O 5 10 15 20

    • UNSUPPCHTED LENGTH," FT.

FIGURE 3 RESULTS OF SOIL PRESSURE ANALYSES k Ak

== W ')[ic[CI AL F'?,(L l + M h.k V J G t! s _ _,......'j- 'k ^ C*- e "' Q 2;".Q%-}

  • e l

O g ~ k BUILDING w l V [l' e 13' o y Meil.4, ;L JL aL ww.49 iNV.7d46 tit 4 /l' 20KSF g / (a) INCIPIENT LOCAL YlELDING (ACCELERATION = 0.26g) V M Y AJL JL A A ' !Ja@,x p%one of Yielding (b) INTERMEDIATE CASE (0.26 < ACCELERATION 40.389) 9 k. V M[ Y f A JL ;L a d'rN din" 20KSF \\ > Zone of Yielding p / (c) UPPER LIMIT ON LOCAL YlELDING (ACCELERATION =0.38 ) 9 FIGURE 2. SOIL PRESSURE DISTRIBUTIONS (For Example Case of 13 ft Unsupported Length) OFFICIAL SEAL [, f 9; V10GN,'A C CASCUE::D um smo:- owwa, A t/#1 M C U !iY

  • /r cce.a. -:ges.:12 ?,1:01 m ; a mm. = mm

O ~ EDAC QULT l l l D 7 Y Y V 7 _____A RAPID LOADING AT Q < 20 ksf CAUSES LOCAL YlELDING OF FOUNDATION SOILS I l d OFFICIAL SEAL 1M l1ha =? [g W';'NIA C. CASOUEIRO gg r*CIAs"r Pt Suc. cat.lfo tti:A da!. :']: :L. ~:.11.2

. v. _

o

O EDAC ii i HULT ir 'ry v'ry ____.____A j A RAPID LOADING AT QULT = 20 ksf CAUSES LOCAL FAILURE OF FOUNDATION SOILS ,J5.7s OFFICI/iL CEftL -* ~ m y [.' .. M ' " :' C,.i C. C \\c 2 2:. a :p r .e :.. :, m, 2 e t;<, m

1 EDAC PARAMETERS FOR SELECTED ANALYSIS CASE e Ground Acceleration = 0.30g o Unsupported Length = 17 ft. o Conservative from Two Points of View Probabilistic Physical (Soil Defonnations) 1 =.21.2.e :::a iem \\ steg raA%fdEg;g t y

EDAC ~ COMPONENTS OF EARTHOUpxE VIBRATORY MOTIONS Case H1 (0.30) H2 (0.3a) Vertical (0.29) 1 _ 100% + + 40% + 40% 2 + 40% _ 100% + + 40% 3 + 40% + 40% + 100% r Examole: Case 1.1 HI=+0.39 H2=+0.129 V=+0.089 ~ :=.... g Q-05MCAL SEAL //{t ? / } w.j)9) W:*'M A O. CMOUEROub w Nwc - tg j, A t wi? cf,t '. i 13 "ll( ! Fr r;ra.,. v:, ":, Yl ?,1N1 e-W+m%%%% l I

O EDAC ANALYTICAL MODEL o 3-0 Finite Element o Used Previously in Phase 2 Analyses o Modified to Represent 17 ft. Unsupported Length i <o Inertia forces are conservative .,i OFFICIAL SEAL M$1. "D'N! A C. CATUEiRO ,Q.pff(g NOM Txc - cAu?CRTA j qY b l l I l l ,, - - - ~ - - -

O EDAC Contanament Shell Pool Third Floor . =.t .s.. Canal ..i..... - ..*/* Second F1our

g. f :;.'r'...,-

^ ,..t.,; , 1.*:.i. e '~ ?M'7.*- . J.* i,.*

l -

I'. First Floor

m..r.....
g. '

ww~... ,. c ",t.c. C. _* -ll, :g.~,. Basement .~,;. 2.'. ';R,1." -;;.~.,'ep...*G h Foundation Mat (Reprinted from Figuru 3 5 of Ruference 1) FIGURE 4 REACTOR BUILDING VERTICAL CROSS SECTION 'e R& , h, i p.. g c c.. FICI AL S " '. 7, ) t .f - s,a j, s i !.2.- ai v..u ;. .s n w. ', %M4M *p4- (' .gg..%.* ; ; i s i l

EDAC i l 'l< REGION OF d' SUPPORT . :.;..g.,7,.*:I. FIGURE S RhGION OF SUPPORT IN ANALYTICAL MODEL OFFICIAL SCAL h "A"eM C. cascemo tto:m tvva - cnura:xA, eLu ? c.cn.' '"?.~. %"*w h *w::w,,%wnww' JT 2, ITG ? w e .m ,.-___m..

fh / 'l V EDAC Levc:1 ,w, ? >l..wia sv.[ ica) Ib u 4 c 17 m c<s g io N_ i+. .M .f 4 m m s19 16 a-,e 15 u his su .i ).so, ( to n

l. ion l. io, I,n:l, ui ( su.,,.

)4 .t, .uil 3. w:, 105: l ie.y.,

.iuilc1
vn ;<.33 at:,

s o... ___-4 y i,,, i.. n y m:4 T i,. r, ceq ioi az cs w, 11 w< 4 1 mo j' l.u t i, vol w. 1. 10

m w

no u we 9 ci .M( aba G 4f. 8 9a n9 s6s,< 9f ns aoi y f. . ~.. sl us ( a g .-k .i

w. (

ccl 5 w

< f<

.l. %L( 94 743 4 . +-4 p >r co[d .l. wl a at 3 ,'gz1; mi w. : : io.z.i. ioon l ici+ r vn r wJ n: ) y 2 'A L 'Ju n 'rt'i tout tuo : to s::, tig tusy gs u wu t;.;> 't .a .r. FIGURE A-1 VERTICAL SECTION OF REACTOR BUILDING CORE F.00EL OFFICIAL SEAL ),..;:;e.,y,.. i. 3;.,$r,, Vf RGiN!A C. CA5 Q:'.^lh; r.cuaY PUCUO - MUMMA f - xd.'%y c,.t>a ma ccc.ur g;t 1 .y e n. .- e n. %c..',uh2MZ.A e.

] V' EDAC- .3: 2-3 3,, 4:* .". 4 p s-e.t / 3.'l 49, ,. 3,/ ./...

  • J' 333 l,/

/ l o: .1 fi., i '[';' [,{ !f*f:9[ n. y -- /%} U ~m 'i D' '. r/ .Q I lb i 3.. d L.__ k I i"! I 3:1, !' u.

5. I M.

3.: b: in N ) ~l. Y, A}[ I I p-g,,g .:) e f3.,# i '2 s$ T, 5 / au s:= \\ i s

  • 2 I

.s. 39 l 3*: i:i 422

  • i.

3,. ,3 \\ ~ r tr' 2.. w 2:. -~;3g, f Q&E = a,.<y3 Level 3 Level 4 ,, J. o .n 2 ,. f g 3 2!: ' 1. 9 2.n >Oi

- n u..nr f g3; See Figure A-1 for location of element levels h '~ D '-iG >y n

' I$ 0 V I FIGURE A-3 MODEL ELEMENTS LEVELS 3 AND 4

/# l L'g) EDAC STRESS ANALYSES AND CHECK AG AINST CAPACITIES e Capacity (initiation of cracking) = 6 e Only 2 elements with stress ratios over 0.83 (whichcorrespondstoSk) e No elements above first floor with stress ratios above 2.9kh o Highest stressed clonent above first floor (Element 735, Level 14, Figure 6) Stressratiobasedoncapacityof6h.=0.49 s (te.1sile streGG). Maximum stress = 2.9[c' m... m_, OFFICIAL SEAL . I5 VYN!?* C. CASQU3!RO j/ph3k,. v.;..;j Nc:W TUCUC - CAUf3T, .n, s <c.. : n. 's f *. ?:., r.y , /7 P ;e2

49%.s*%~A 4 av=m.cww
M.= >

-~. G ~ S l STRESS ANALYSES AND CHECK AGAINST CAPACITIES -continued-Highest stressed element between basement and first s floors (Elenent 749, Level 7, Figure 7) Stress ratio based on capacity of 6 % = 0.99 (tensile stress) StressratiobasedoncapacityofGk[=0.85 (shear stress). / Average stress ratio in elements surrounding highest e stressedelenent=2k'C Estimated average shear stress between basement and e fir:,t floors: Stress ratio based on capacity of 6h = 0.05. Maximumstress=0.3h[. l l t;

        • m l, egg OFFICIAL SEAL n y;.;g vm m n c camu,o.j

}1, s. sy Nci.v3 Ntu: - cn:rc a s:A .j v. w y larm e;.: +: ", T.*d ip - c_w, ^ O,wwNw%2q%%ved

f O EDAC i b 42. 33. p .g ue

u. (

0.4S N.4 A wa 5% s.. p. if / =>. P ; . j -r o g =' >,9 f. i.. i, _ 9 ..y< ...j .. 3 . x,,,.r p u.3 -y .,x a = .,2 m ~ m JeJ JJe i e FIGURE 6 PLAN - LEVEL 14 , Q'1-- h,g) V T ^t9 A e c ge m,c, y .,5 OFFICIAL SEAL f: '

,7 NOMT #v;cc Jciil/clu

./ a:.can ccw;rr "Y N 1*A. Cvfra LN _ ___ K 1931 l

~ HDAC 0.87 '( s. 0.30 = O.99 G O.04 G i og 0.06 n /"f/ / 1 ,J tu / I '")M E % "' e Y "\\ \\ I'Y !s S pile W [e~M'4\\e' M ...x*',.. n"',,,(( e ...v x ,\\, e l "v... e e m l.., s.s n, s3 FIGURE 7 PLAN - LEVEL 7 m-(x < [$II,I b2db i ['. -' -,;:,, y ;. s- \\n.=

O EDAC CONCLUSIONS e Recent analyses demonstrated that structure can withstand: 17 ft/0.30g load case Previous Phase 2 analyses demonstrated that e structure can withstand: 20 ft/0.09 load case 0 ft/0.80g load case Capacity curve demonstrates that concrete core e structure can withstand all reasonable load combinations. <$koh3 ^h~~~ N F,j)*} }

O EDAC 0.8Gs., N N N N N N 0.6 N CONSERVAT!VE CAPACITY CONTOUR z \\ 9n<e \\ d \\ g 0.4 \\ W. \\ Cz e oo 5 \\ 0.2 \\ \\ .\\\\ b 0 I I I 0 G 10 15 20 " UNSUPPORTED LENGTH /* FT. FIGURE 11 CAPACITY CONTOUR FOR COMBINED LOADING ~ '1 m ~ m._ o;> .. ;. 3

A F.DAC ,. :, ': ;*W f.);,..,, ,s , aho. r.%. ,,, r.-4,,: ;,..... -.,, O;*.?*... Y.

. h A

.i.u.v.... ty N -; ',. l .4.h - 9. s. W. 4,:. 3,. .r., - 4 g, 4 -y f.. 9 ' A.. h -- .'i.t. ' 9 f,.. ]. . ;g. :.m.s 9. N .: e c: S. hV,'."[M'9 ~ ~'e ... a r: ts > rd Q,kr,"~ \\ /* t.?. ,f j

v.'

s gr e.,::s s p .. s.' ...g.,,..; :. \\ x e M PLAN VIEW - SHORT " UNSUPPORTED LENGTH" (~G') h6 ,.h .--.,DIIICIe\\b SIAL ...;,g's w, %. 7'[ne,(s.,,h ;) ,.8[f,2 pfi,: 'TC h % *,tN[.D. [y,m], p ..A f f \\q, L& }. j, . 8,. f,. s;. i p *..-

m, y.,,

%^Y 5#W% %**%: my w,. n -n,, y 1

(D EDAC ~ 0.8 % CONSERVATIVE CAPACITY 8ASED ON INCIPIENT CRACKING = 0.6 g o P N MINIMUM MARCIN OF SAFETY ACCEL. QUE TO \\ g VERONA EVENT = 0.4 g \\ U 1 y 0.4 g Q A \\ C \\ LIMITING COMBINATIONS LUMulNEO LOADING UASED ON LOCAL 0.2 CRITERION BASED ON SOIL PRESSURES PROOADILISTIC CONSIDERATIONS V { \\ \\ 0 I I I O 5 10 15 20

    • UNSUPPORTED LENGTH," FT.

FIGURE 12 LOADING VS CAPACITY <* mm ec.wu s,. t, D I-I(( '.'(1, ,5 f, (

[

,,u i 4

EDAC 0.8 % % N MAX. ACCEL. QUE TO VERONA EVENT = 0.6 (USNRC) 9 0.6 - - -( .& :- - --- -- - \\ CONSERVATIVE CAPACITY cng \\ 8ASED ON INCIPIENT 9 CRACKING r \\ C MAX. ACCEL. QUE TO g VERONA CVENT = 0.49 (GE) 8 \\ ^ j \\ LIMITING g[ COMBINATIONS BASED ON PHYSICAL e C j\\ CONSIDERATIONS ff g (LOCAL SOIL COMBINED LOADING RESSURES) 0.2 CRITERION UASED ON PROBABILISTIC \\ CONSIDEHATIONS o i i i i 0 b 10 15 20 " UNSUPPORTED LENGTH," F'i. LOADING VS CAPACITY +$s, '.,n% ccsgu, oman 1 ,lc y..=. a p . ~, w r a.x.cr..c.;' f;_T,, ;. . c, r_.: %=....

O EDA 43 ~ PRESENTATION PART 2 ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS TO DETERMINE EFFECTS OF VIBRATORY MOTIONS DUE TO AN EARTHQUAKE ON THE CALAVERAS FAULT l 7"*w ,w.... sS ':p;c,,-- -$ u-; r.... 9 9 ) 4 ,j

  • -4'C - C,

4 l y s._a ' y i

  • W m > m,.,,.,

->v,.,.,, [ ^1 - l t 1 ~. \\

3(O HDAC PRESENTATION OUTLINE e GROUND MOTION CRITERIA e COMPONENTS OF EARTHQUAKE VIBRATORY MOTIONS e EVALUATIONS OF BUILDING vnw r c. cm$3, OFhlCiALE ,~Th :

n
.Lr - cru, gg,.n

'M% ! < y ' Z C L. ;. _ ' 7 j

l f'\\o HDAC GROUND MOTION CRITERIA o Effective horizontal ground acceleration: 0.60g o Effective vertical ground acceleration: 0.40g e Response spectrum shape: Regulatory Guide 1.60 COMPONENTS OF EARTHQUAKE VIBRATORY MOTIONS Case H1 (0.69) H2(0.6d Vertical (0.4 ) 9 1 +100% + 40% + 40% 2 1 40% +100% + 40% 3 1 40% 1 40% 1 2 00% e d f /:,. oma;y?T1~[

r...

'l ~ '

: - u.:...., j >
  • R' m+p.

M*N )

O V EiDAC ~ EVALUATIONS OF BUILDING e PHASE 2 LINEAR ELASTIC DYNAMIC ANALYSIS WAS PERFORMED FOR 0.89 HORIZONTAL GROUND ACCELERATION. e CONSERVATIVE INERTIA FORCES WERE OBTAINED. e SEVERE MODEL WAS USED. e STRESS ANALYSES SHOWED THAT THE CONCRETE STRUCTURE IS ADEQUATE. (g;'bl\\\\. ';G

  • sAic. e; 3;y,'g.3 g:

OFFICIAL s "r'+ia c cy,c, gin .l. q.,,.. l,- y' ee a. n- ^~~~ ~.~n-4; l

i 1 oO HDAC I Containment Shell i Pool Third Floor . l. --....:.: g 1 s Canal ' l.'di.. .,Second Floor .. )l.. '4 N._ l First Floor .'h } .. ~ - -{ tit:2:lti liit1lti:.- e g Rasement . )*tj ...g I Foundation Mat FIGURE 3-5 REACTOR BUILDING VERTICAL SECTION n_nn~ OFFICIAL CCAL h 1 u,v n c c:w- ? -Ay%. e w y e x - cr." m

.e

< --r :, i e ,,s ?'9 pww =,.. .p,., ~..,~, rA i

Oa EDAC

y;;.

.. 'n.. ..ji. f

  • ... 'f

.( .#y ) ':k. 0 E E [

'.f g-

's. ....Q: ' ' / ~ 9 Basement First Floor n %,13 . :5,* Pool s poo) p, s % / s s s N \\ / L s__;g l s N

r. -

i [ l ..*.-[. ~' ~ Canal } b / 5

  1. = = = =1 J

/ 5%.,a m Second Floor Third FlooI FIGURE 3-6 REACTOR BUILDItiG FLOOR PLAf4S Ih '." ~: ;, ~ c,x, + ':~ twuc. Owny,y;a ) .,k. TI!Y --J;= O,L.;;;33Jm

O EDAC PRESENTATION PART 3 ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS TO DETERMINE EFFECTS OF VIRRATORY MOTIONS OUE TO AN EARTHQUAKE ON PIPING AND EQUIPMENT l 1 I s l \\ m.

aac4;Q,

/! g14 .. ~. f _pn %,1(';, '7.I s. se f

l '\\ V EDAC FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA e Originally obtained frcm lumped mass linear elastic dynamic analysis (0.89) o Amplitudes and widths of peaks are conservative e Calculated H1, H2, V spectra (building global axes) were enveloped and broadened to produce H and V spectra, a Equipment analyses were performed for hl, h2, and v directions (equipment global axes) and responses were combined by SRSS o Spectra for 0.69 case are enveloped by 0.89 design case (see f'igure) Primary cooling system run 1, fy = 7.4Hz Primary cooling system run 2, fy = 11.4 Hz HE101, ft = 19.1Hz Control rod drive assembly, f1>33Hz,f[>13Hz Incore shuttle drive assembly, f1 > 33Hz n-gg OFFICIAL SEAL afc N D.104 tlA C. CA*CU"! 0 .,, i W CY NCUC - 0) LTO M!.\\ (t W. r e

  • wwA. ;un

. I 1 BiDAC 300.0 250.0 8g + 200.0 'l Pc cent Oliii; is l iT ir Spc ctrJm Fqr

0. 800

(:,%: s .I l J s ,f ~ A s o s h 150.0 3 Pc cent Dam; ins R it io Spectr im Fg) r w I___ p :__1.. d

0. 609 (

g \\ -\\ \\

(Mgp g

s / -c s ,00.0 - 4 l -9 t s if l$c, N j/ 9 o 6 A h,,m 50.0 2 g' Peat F1oo Ac.:e1 tri tioi ^ 42.0 ft/: ec s .....,c ?! h j CO ' 5 i G ') ',1 < ri : i.e. p;j r" 0.0 n 3 ja ;o 0.1 1.D to ,,,,tt i Mand rataunty tes ENVELOPE FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR 110RIZONTAL MOTION AT ELEVATION 611.0 FT 7.0 IN.

O EDAC PRESENTATICN PART 4 CONSERVATISMS IN THE SEISMIC EVALUATIONS OF THE GETR REACTOR BUILDING y.... s.. s. f g,,T(;i u,,.,,, '.I 1 !CI AL c' '3] .[w.. c .N m. j gT{t 7 -},ll 'to if.?? pysuc : ff,,. . ;,} V R&/ ~sa ,2. :,, 2N23 31

/S EDAC CONSERVATISMS IN THE SEISMIC EVALUATIONS OFTHEGETRREACTORBtjILDING o Many conservatisms exist in the seismic evaluations of the GETR Reactor Building. o Conservatisms are inherent in Selection of seismic criteria which quantify postulated seismic events, Analytical procedures used to determine the response of the structure to the postulated events, The acceptance criteria for the structure. o Conservatisms tend to over-estimate response and under-estimate capacities. inypr i c r. '7'r%O {- OFrtCIAL ?ML yl gj. psgg'.gihon#N NsX c u cArcA{( j m e

m s

%m: i

u a 2
1 i+.--

w w w. ~ +ess;w.-w w y re

O HDAC CONSERVATISMS IN THE SEISMIC EVALUATIONS OF THE GETR REACTOR BUILDING (Continued) o Actual overall safety margin is substantial. o Objective is to point out the conservatisms which exist, and illustrate the likely influence of these conservatisms on the total safety margin. o Permits, as a minimum, the qualitative conclusion that the total safety margin is substantially above the values detennined by the conservative seismic evaluations of the GETR Reactor Building. y@: - -w.e:xn.... ( L 'sL p t; j., U s th,,,,,, ' " A;l 5 ' Y, ~+ ~ ~~m,. _,.;

C'1 v EDAC TABl.E 1

SUMMARY

LIST OF AREAS OF CONSERVATISM CHARACTERIZATION OF EARTHOUAKES 1. Selection of a Low Probability Extecme Event 2. Use of.Wioe-Bana Ground Response Spectra 3. Conservative Amplification Factors in Response Spectra 4. Duration of Time History of Input Motions 5. Cecrease of Ground Motions With Depth 6. Propagation of Seismic Waves Beneath the Base of 4 uuilcing vr' Finite Wicth (" Tau Effect") POSTULATED VERONA FAULT 7. Postulatea Surface Rupture Off set 8. " Unsupported Length" in Surface Rupture Offset Case ANALYTICAL MODELS 9. Modeling Assumptions -- Response Models

10. Modeling Assumptions -- Stress Analysis Model
11. Emoecment Effects
12. Additional Nonlinear Effects STRENGTH AND CAPACITY
13. Static Versus Dynamic Strength 14 Concrete Strength
15. Energy Dissipation Capacity l

i OFFICIAL SEAL .s C fU V 'qUt< 9 rm?'"!S C. CASOUFCO

.:t ex.uc - cAwoRN;A l

iI ' -*: / J - '.-~~m d r* -

O EDAC ~ 1 l l CONCLUSIONS e There are numerous conservatisms in the procedures used to evaluate the adequacy of the GETR Reactor

Building, o Conservatisms are cumulative.

o Illustration of influence of conservatisms on total safety margin Assume Loads (L) = Capacities (C) = 1.0 as calculated by conventional procedures. Assume actual Loads, L' = 0.7L = 0.7 Assume actual Capacitics, C' = 1.3C = 1.3 Actual safety margin = (1.3)/(0.7) = 1.9 t I k2A g f t,. J y' $ L,. ' f, P .\\ c.

p

'*l'\\ y

  • ~-
  • *, a n..

,, j ~' N +% s edM.-h[

OG EDAC CONCLUSIONS -continued-e If all individual margins were quantified, the result would be a total margin of safety significantly above (and likely on the order of at least two times) that conservatively determined by the seismic evaluations of the GETR Reactor Building. w_ ~~, m i ,;m A g py,=, ,:3m '\\ ? i thA V so mwe><. n., - m,, . w wn.;.e, , s A e

O HDAC PRESENTATION PART 5 SUM 4ARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1 pQ O? ' ' ta;,g;p r.my ?hh \\* ~ ~ ~ u ,,,s J y, .v ""W N > - = 4 i

OV EDRC 0.8 % % N MAX. ACCEL. DUE TO VERONA EVENT = 0.69 (USNRC) 9 0.G ---~~.--mm'-.'~- CONSERVATIVE CAPACITY C \\ BASED ON INCIPIENT 2 CRACKING wjf MAX ACCEL.DUE TO Gj .: j;; VERONA EVENT = 0.49 (GE) E$ \\ 0.4 e g A LIMITING g g COM8INATIONS o BASED ON PHYSICAL CONSIDERATIONS ."#i!! \\ (LOCAL SOIL COMBINED LOADING PRESSURES) 0.2 \\ CRITERlON BASED ON PROGABILISTIC .g CONSIDERATIONS \\ \\ 0 I I f k 0 b 10 15 20 " UNSUPPORTED LENGTH," FT. LOADING VS CAPACITY . umg -, r, CI A,.**s gy ;* s ,g N.- ~ f

- -,...... _ _.......... _............. _, _..... ~.... -...... _ _.- n, y 4 ne,J ESg GETR LANDSLIDE INVESTIG ATIONS o Geologic investigations, assessment of Phase I report February,1978 surficial and large-scale landsliding o Relative stability analysis, simplified Report July,1978 slip-circle analyses o Heview of relative stability analysis Phase II report February,1979 in light of Phase IIinvestigations o CDMG simplified slip-circle analyses Special Publication 56 August,1979 o Parametric stability analyses Meeting with NRC January,1980 o Proposed program of field and laboratory Submittal March,1980 investigations and analyses o Slope monitoring program May,1980 h w. gs Cl$ o I h: '2 %~ l l :', !]+ b 'I [3 '"r Ed o i; 4 hsd QQ j fi!)Id

b. ADG A) EsA O i 1 e PROPOSED FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS AND ANALYSES Field Investigation - borings - e-logging - piezameter installation - test pits (contingency) ) Laboratory Investigations -index properties - static triaxial testing -direct shear testing (possible option) - cyclic triaxial and post-cycIle static triaxial testing (possible option) Analyses -static analysis using STABL2 - pseudo-static analysis using STABL2 - simplified deformation analysis after Makdisi and Seed,1978 (~' y. w wm.

m.. m.

u v l ! _,. . s. 3, ' " ^ ' 4 .s ~ ,1 _,, {' - u = c _i

Firehouse s\\ Spare Parts BIdg. Fab. \\ Shop -F Mockup Shop Coolin9 C A '~ \\ l Tower l {' l 1 t i 0 f G [$ u N ,~ 7 - es EN 3 i Office 9' i b E a, g 2_ ? ?, "O }gsb,' 8 ij Equipment i N >' N y un y u W . m { _.._..._ g N.. ~ GETR PLOT PLAN RANGE OF VIEW 0F EXCAVATION Pil0T0GRAPils i

gu n e - x-?.. -.- l 4'_ I \\ 1 SOlt STRATIGRAPHY AND AGE DATING e Age of buried paleosols l

  • Age of sediments under GETR
  • Age of modern solum I

k i d I 1 i l }f w <_*^ ^^ w; m I jfr" OFCICIAL SEAL g 1 V..+ p, n- ~ r ?. c cu :.,ma >. < g(p m wy cucuc - ce u. un:4l ' g;, i f m. aY p . 4n a -~m-;6"M, un [ d .% m m,y. _ -.__. _ _ _ --_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,j yy L 1

O v' i i

SUMMARY

OF SOll-STRATIGRAPHY Upper buried palcosol developed during isotope stage S-70,000 to 125,000 years B.P. Underlying sediments are of stage 6 age; deposited about 125,000 to 200,000 years B P. Sediments in the GETR foundation are at least 125,000, and more I:kely 350,000 years old. The modern solum is developing on sediments laid down in latest Pleistocene time. The albic horizon (Ae) may occur at any position within the profile. Radiocarbon ages must be corrected for (1) mean residences time, and (2) modern organic matter contamination. Last displacement on the B 1/B-3 and B-2 shears took place before about 8,000 years B.P. 1 p wss e +w_e j'. OIMCI AL T' AL _,} f m.~. ,g i :... ',4' ~, .s. .s, A~~+w. ..,;j ) 4 i __z

s /,$TATICM NO. ,._ O / 0 +120 o+1ts 0 +tle 0 +tte 0 +112 0 +110 o +10s o +tos o+1o4 0 + 102 0 +100 7, I I I 8 I 8-l l I 8 I e 1 8 I e i llEASURED $011. PROFILE 's.o- \\- MODERN SURFACE p gg(gy - 1.0 M.j y-93 c - 3 PA EOSOL 52 -6017 83th '.o r .. u e' m. y a2 4,t t .8 - [- 2 i.i i nct

1.:

u ir - 7.Ae-s1.i.i.B1,'.- ib,7q i

8. :.:

~ ~ ~ _ _, UC3 'lI I,, 'g - } L - { ~l p\\suras % 3,o .cnq 82 I I GI-SOI ~, I,, o f ]'~ ~l H82t-83tb l Lg_ i ; 1 1 gtsCn 1 7.o Il ll* ' s.o IIe VERftCAL EIAC8ERAflou e,~ U.- g.'. - : p . !? k. a? f 's Figure A-9: Soil stratigraphy, west wall, Trench B 2: ESA stations 1+00-1+20. Repr:sentative soil profile h: measured at station 1 +00 (Table 3). Albic horizon (Ae) extends into low.t Bj of modern solum below shear (station 1+14). Radiocarbon sample localities indicated by laboratory number (e.g., GX-6011; see Table 1). ,9 1

m C\\ __. Q - -. ~ ~ . _ m a. g g_-,,_,_ 0 +123 0+118 0 +118 0 + 114 0 +117 0 +110 0 F108 0 +108 0+104 0 + 102 , 0 + 10 0 j 3 a l e l e l e. l e g a g g .g g l I I IdEASURED $0ll PROFILE h.0- \\ SURFACE 33 .3 p :.:.' W - ~~ F

  • r t~):

t.0 '..z. _ NN$ 82 [ HB3th 1=u]@, p-.'t 32-\\,( i; I ,. ' / ' y 'i

s. :

F

S Up i.) i,

HC2 .Ae-31 ,BI'i,i..- ' ' -- f _ ' g ?T ~~, d[ e % HC3 '2 3,3 g i :'- B2

  • 7.l N GI

-l I ~ ~ p ] _-E01

-l i

anEan -l HB2t-83tb I,Lg i; e i t 1 stata 1 li ll* ' B.0 HQ VERflCAL EIACCERAfl0N l (2 )$ t.' 3 . ), ir ~ y p Figure A-9: Soil stratigraphy, west wall, Trench B 2: ES A stations 1+00-1420. Repr.mntative soil profile measured at station 1+00 (Table 3). Albic horizon (Ac) extends into lov..r Bj of modern solum below shear (station 1+14). Radiccarbon sample localities indicated by laboratory number 7, (e.g., GX-6011; see Table 1). i i. 3 4

/' STAT 10M H0. ~ -~ ~- 'U'

  1. 7' s "f*

8 78 078 o +es o +s4 o+st o +as 8' I w@c/j.n I D3_- llEASUREO =< 30ll PROFILE N N@og +l.0 413 3 y -. -n .9 I.! t. W3 ,C-p ,k ,0( ggg GRAM g 2.0 Yb

n n i.

~ h g y ' s.a s }i,.b L.- [,- - % r, m ist c2 0 } i )pdRiE0 0 EO 0 ~ C1-6007 ,, s IIB 2_2 t 2 hat-B1 g,, p 4. o CI-E008 C l l=a IIS22 t 1 m let ,m, i 9 ,_s \\ r "\\ ANIi g U O22 I 2 t' I - 0. 0 I "S21t / l O gg.stu \\ Uo y store vasu i 3y [' " ns22t /,,, / t 2 MO VERTICAL EIACCERATION, -S.3 i ) j Figure A-8: Soil stratigraphy, west wall, Trench B-1; ESA stations 0+60--0+80. Representative soil profile measured at station 0+60 (Table 2). Dominant shear extends into 1118 horizon of modern solum. t Radiocarbon sample localities indicated by laboratory number (e.g., GX-6008: see Table 1). I L .v-m' I

(m .MTUN' Ro, M - Y W /N *I8 f g,gg 0 +ys E *I4 0+72 0 +70 0 +83 0 +es o,,, 0 + sz a,,, l SJf } b / ' I i I e I I a i I

.'C l
n. n;,>

w MEASURE 0 i 50lI. PROFlf.E ? CIo h

  • t. o -

\\l Qq '2 : ch gN ( l fl 1 P( Mtt gas tan CREVELS_.,, a.o suanct . j's $ swa% ' MODE

  • 30 C ' l;I!lh D ^c-81

<?i-e i Q' All s f m ] w ;$ ;$ '.

  1. ~~ ~

f ~I s L W m ggg'D8$ lg a ~ s ? }'BURlE0_ 1 f;;;~~'[Qt-\\\\~

-3.c k '* ' ' "

rui } gt *S*' .o 7 " ~~ %_ HB22 t 2 L1 ~~ m..,, snen %' d'. $ -~u~en,t ~ ,v ~~ cx-Eoca c3 i; / -c-pi 4. _ : -:.a m iar xi., s i -, p nen2t 1.2., /j/ -..a r-,8 f \\ SLOPE VAsN 'I S'"'" ' ti - 1. o 322 {,,, / !...-g j // /// J NO VERTICAL EIAccggATION,

4. o I

Figure A-8: Soil stratigraphy, west wall, Trench B 1; ES A stations 0+60-0+80. Representative soit profile measured at station Ot60 (Table 21. Dominant shear extends into !!!8 horizon of modern solum. t Radiocarbon sample localities indicated by laboratory number (e.g., GX-6008; see Tabfe 1). ~ .\\ --g ~ l

6 i

SUMMARY

o THE GE0 LOGIC INVESTIGATION WAS THOROUGH AND RESPON TO SUGGESTIONS FROM THE NRC STAFF AND USGS .o THE SEISMIC DESIGN BASIS SPECIFIED BY NRC STAFF I CONSERVATIVE ANALYSES SHOW THE GETR CONCRETE STRUCTURE AND SAFETY o RELATED EQUIPMENT WILL PERFORM THEIR REQUIRED FUNCTI DURING AND AFTER THE POSTULATED EVENT AND THE FUEL W REMAIN COVERED WITH WATER o THE PROPOSED LANDSLIDE STABILITY ANALYSIS WILL BE CO AND IT IS CONTEMPL'ATED THAT IT WILL RECEIVE APPROVAL NRC STAFF REQUEST A REVIEW BEFORE THE FULL ACRS COMMITTEE AT TH o EARLIEST POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY 9 M ~T jff LE%hSi35E3 % c y,' ,?.Tf,iiM,d RWD:6/13/80 - - - - _ -}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19330B420&oldid=4750137"