ML19347D519

Summary of 810218 Meeting W/Util in Bethesda,Md to Discuss Methodology for Seismic Analysis at Foundation Levels & Evaluation of Acceptability of Designs of Structural Components.Attendance List & Meeting Handouts Encl

ML19347D519
Person / Time
Site:	Byron, Braidwood
Issue date:	03/23/1981
From:	Rajender Auluck, Moon C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8103260445
Download: ML19347D519 (49)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:r ~ [ha ucq,Io UNITED STATES g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i e' o (, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20S55 f" h e$. Docket Nos.: 50-454/455 and 50-456/457 PEMORANDUM FOR: B. J. Youngblood, Chief, Licensing Branch No. 1, DL FROM: R. Auluck, Project Manager, Licensing Branch No.1, DL C. Moon, Project Manager, Licensing Branch No.1, DL

SUMMARY

OF MEETING WITH COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY TO DISCUSS METHODOLOGY FOR SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF THE BYRON AND BRAIDWOOD STATIONS (FEBRUARY 18, 1981) l A meeting was held in Bethesda, Maryland on February 18, 1981 with Commonwealth Edison Company to discuss the criteria used in the analysis for seismic input at the foundation levels and evaluation of the accept-ability of the designs of structural components. An attendance list and a copy of the meeting handouts are attached.

Background

l l The Byron /Braidwood PSAR was docketed on September 20, 1973. In the PSAR Commonwealth Edison proposed a Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) of 0.12g based on an intensity VII seismic event. During our review, we took the position that an intensity VII event was not conservative. We subsequently, agreed to an SSE of 0.2g with deconvolution of design spectra from the ground surface'to the bedrock-till interface. After the completion of the Byron /Braidwood review, Standard Review Plan 3.7.1 was issued with certain restrictions on deconvolution such as vriaton of soil properties and limitations of the deconvolved design response spectra to 60% of Regulatory Guide 1.60. In a letter dated September 2, 1976, we requested Commonwealth Edison to document that the overall margin of safety in their seismic design is not significantly af fected by this change in criteria. In a meeting held on November 16, 1976, the applicant provided a preliminary response to our request entitled, " Areas of Conservatism in Seismic Analysis / Design." Subsequently, NRC staff detennined that for sites involving rock found' ations with shallow soil overburden, deconvolution from the free surface of R.G. 1.60 response spectrurn, as permitted by SRP 3.7.1, is not appropriate and previously reviewed plants employing deconvolution procedures will require reevaluation to determine whether an adequate margin of conservatism exists. f\\ Ca usse 0 %

s B. J. Youngblood Commonwealth Edison Presentation Mr. Jim Abel discussed the agenda items and purpose of the meeting and stated that some agreement must be reached for the reevaluation methods which will provide an assessment of the adequacy of the Byron and Braidwood seismic design and resolve the NRC backfit position concerning deconvolution. Mr. Abel further stated that Byron /Braidwood design level spectra exceeds the R.G. 1.60 requirements in most frequency ranges and local areas where R.G.1.60 exceeds the Byron /Braidwood curves is more than compensated for by the conservatism in earthquake levels and conservatism in design. Mr. Jim Westermeier explained the background sumary of events from the docketing of PSAR in September 1973 to the present stage. The present Byron /Braidwood design is based on the 1974 NRC seismic criteria and meets the CP requirements and further when NRC changed its position on deconvolution in May 1979, the plant construction was complete and any resulting field changes should be treated as backfit requirements. Complete reanalysis to a variation in sesmic input will delay the plar:t operating date by three years at a cost of 67.5 million dollars for Byron Unit 1 only. Mr. O. Zaben described the equivalence of Marble Hill design and the Byron /Braidwood design. At Marble Hill, R.C.1.60 response spectra was The impact of R.G. 1.60 spectra at the applied at the foundation level. foundation level on structures at Byron /Braidwood will be severe and will result in a complete reanalysis of containment, auxiliary building and fuel handling building. Mr. A. K. Singh described the areas of conservatism in Byron /Braidwood design and stressed that, current regulatory pratice provides additional The margins associated with Byron /Braidwood design margins of safety. were quantified in our response to Q 130.06 to show that the increase in seismic response by not considering deconvolution is fully compensated for by other effects. To close out NRC staff concerns in the Byron /Braidwood seismic design Commonwealth Edison will agree to reevaluate and backfit the plant based on the following criteria: A. 0.2g wide band response spectra at foundation elevation, B. Evaluation to be limited to SSE only, C. Vertical spectra 2/3 of horizontal as per NUREG-0098, SEP plant reevaluation criteria, D. Damping values as per NUREG-0098, E. Limited inelastic action for cable tray hangers, and F. Conservatively account for wave passage effects.

B. J. Youngblood The above criteria are consistent with - The 1980 state-of-the-art, - NRC SEP plant reevaluation criteria, and - NRC consultants recommended revisions to SRP and Reg. Guides under TAP-40. Mr. Abel concluded the Commonwealth Edison presentation by highlighting the points already presented earlier and stressed that any reevaluation should be based on criteria appropriate to the backfit nature of the NRC position. The Commonwealth Edison's proposed " Reevaluation Criteria" are consistent with NRC criteria for backfit seismic reevaluations of Operating Plants in the Systematic Evaluation Program. Mr. Abel further indicated that an immediate approval of the proposed reevaluation criteria is required to avoid any further delay of plant construction and that the complete package should be accepted as such. Staff Comments Staff concluded that the proposed approach as presented by Commonwealth Edison is not acceptable as a whole at the present time. Some of the criteria presented are not fully backed by documented facts or basis. The referenced NUREG reports are still under study and may or many not be adopted, in whole or in part, by the NRC staff. P.M. Session Mr. Abel, Mr. Westermeier and Mr. Singh summarized briefly the main points l of Commonwealth Edison approach of resolving the problem. Mr. Cordell Reed I also indicated that there was a great deal of conservatism in the design of Byron /Braidwood structures. Reevaluation without benefit cf deconvolution or without consideration of the actual margins that exist on the as built plant would not produce results consistent with current licensing practice. A quick action from NRC is needed at this time to resolve this problem. l l i

B. J. Youngblood Mr. Vollmer suggested that he will discuss with his staff the various options for satisfactory resolution and will discuss with Commonwealth Edison at a later date. .h C. Moon, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing R. Auluck, Project Manager Licensing Branch No.1 Division of Licensing

Enclosures:

As stated l cc: See next page i J

i Mr. J. 5 Abal Director of Nuclear Liccasing Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 ccs: Mr. William Kortier Mr. Edward R. Crass Atonic Power Distribution Nuclear Safeguards and Licensing Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation Sargent & Lundy Engineers P. O. Box 355 55 East Monroe Street Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Chicago, Illinois 60603 l Paul M. Murphy, Esq. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III 'Isham, Lincoln & Beale Office of Inspection and Enforcement One First National Plaza 799 Roosevelt Road 42nd Floor Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Myron Cherry, Esq. Mrs. Phillip B. Johnson Cherry, Flynn and Kanter 1907 Stratford Lane 1 IBM Plaza, Suite 4501 Rockford, Illinois 61107 Chicago, Illinois 60611 Ms. Julianne Mahler Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Center for Governmental-Studies - Atomic Safety and Licensing Northern Illinois University Board Panel DeKalb, Illinois 60115 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 C. Allen Bock, Esq. P. O. Box 342 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Urbanan, Illinois 61820 Union Carbide Corporation P. O. Box Y Thomas J. Gordon, Esq. Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Waaler, Evans & Gordon 2503 S. Neil Dr. Richard F. Cole Champaign, Illinois 61820 Atomic. Safety and Licensing Board Panel Ms. Bridget Little Rorem U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appleseed. Coordinator Washington, D. C. 20555 117 North Linden Street Essex, Illinois 60935 Kenneth F. Levin, Esq. Beatty, Levin. Holland, Basofin & Sarsany 11 South LaSalle Street Suite 2200 , Chicago, Illinois 60603 i / L_

i ATTENDANCE LIST NRC Staff Sargent & Lundy Commonwealth Edison Raj Auluck K. T. Kostal L. A. Bowen David C. Jeng A. K. Singh J. T. Wester 1nef er Niltsh C. Chokshi

0. Zaben T. R. Tranin J. S. Abel 4

L. Yang C. Reed S. P. Chan C. W. Moon R. L. Rothman J. Kimball J. T. Chen Banad Jagannath D. L. Bernreyter (consultant) F. Schauer B. Youngblood R. Vollmer J. Knight Isham, Lincoln & Beale Lawrence Livermore Lab. Alan Bielawski D. H. Chung I i ,e- ,7 .x

O 8 BYR0tl & BRAIDWOOD ~ SEISMIC DESIGN BASIS NRC MEETING FEBRUARY 18, 1981 AGENDA INTRODUCTI0tl - ABEL PURPOSE AGENDA flRC POSITION Oil DEC0tlV0LUTION - WESTERMEIER -BACKGROUND LOAD COMPARISON TO MARBLE HILL DESIGN SCHEDULE AND COST IMPACT

SUMMARY

w REEVALUATION CRITERIA - SINGH PROPOSED CRITERIA AND BASES PROPOSED CRITERIA VS. NRC NUREG 0098 & NUREG 1163

SUMMARY

'CONCLUSI0tlS - REED. I FEB.-13, 1981 JA/0Z-1

I BYRON & BRAIDWOOD SEISMIC DESIGN BASIS NRC MEETING FEBRUARY 18, 1981 PURPOSE AGREE TO REEVALUATION METHODS WHICH WILL PP.0 VIDE AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ADE0VACY OF THE BYRON AND BRAIDWOOD SEISMIC DESIGN AND RESOLVE THE NRC BACKFIT POSITION CONCERNING DECONVOLUTION. FEB. 18, 1981 .JA/0Z-2

PURPOSE (C0f4TINuED) B/B DESIGN LEVEL SPECTRA EXCEEDS THE RG 1.60 REQUIREMENTS IN MOST FREQUENCY RANGES. THE LOCAL AREM WHERE RG 1.60 EXCEEDS THE B/B CURVES IS MORE THAN COMPENSATED FOR BY THE CONSERVATISM IN EARTHQUAKE LEVELS AND C0flSERVATISti IN DESIGN. 1.0 i I 8/B ENVELOPE R.G. l.60 C s "% ( t...., mR. 5 i fff g ' '../Mff O / I ./ .\\ y l / %ry ,./,/ -(\\ v g 0.2 N ~. 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 Pe ri o d in Seconds COMPARISON RG 1.60 TO BY/BR DESIGN SPECTRA FEB. 18,1981 JA/0Z-3

BYRON /BRAIDWOOD - SEISMIC AtlALYSIS BACKGROUND SUMt1ARY OF EVENTS PSAR SEISf1IC LEVEL - DOCKETED SEPTEMBER 1973 0.06e OBE Af1D 0.12e SSE 1.11 LOAD FACTOR ON OBE flRC REQUIRED IN JAtlUARY 1974 0.250 SSE 1.9 LOAD FACTOR ON OBE NRC AGREED IN Afl APPEAL t1EETIt!G - JUNE 12, 1971! 0.09s OBE AND 0.20e SSE RG 1.60 AT SURFACE AtlD FOUNDATION SPECTRA FR0t1 A DECONVOLUTION ANALYSIS USING MEAN S0IL PROPERTIES DESIGN BASIS DOCUt1ENTED AtlD AGREED TO EY NRC v CP ISSUED IN DECEMBER 1975 (SEE Fie. " SPECTRA LEVELS") NRC C0flSIDERED REOPENING CONCERN FOR S0IL PROPERTIES VARIATION IN f1AY 1976 NRC LETTER - SEPTEMBER 2, 1976 DECONVOLUTION ACCEPTABLE, BUT CONSIDER S0Il PROPERTIES VARIATION t1EETING WiTH NRC IN OCTOBER 1976 SEISMIC LEVEL DECONVOLUTION - CONSIDERING S0IL PROPERTIES VARIATION CONSERVATISM IN DESIGN w. FEB. 18, 1981 JW/0Z-4

l BYRON /BRAIDWOOD - SEISMIC ANALYSIS BACKGROUND /

SUMMARY

OF EVENTS (CONTINUED) 1.0 R.G. 1.60 (.25g) 8/B ENVELOPE (0.2G DECONVOLVED) " N .~ (N \\~ o , ~, 0.5 7 4 r 'v'/ 'g \\- z '/ \\ 9 ,/ N,- / / , N 4 ct I / '%'N -y f w-y,/ w ) / \\ W s ,f j 'x o2 RG. l.60(0.12G)- N / s x N -/ l \\ 0.1 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 Pe ri o d in Seconds The seismic level to which this plant should have been designed to is represented by the lower curve which represents RG 1.60 for an SSE level of.12g. In 1974 the NRC wanted to double the already conservative seismic level. This is represented by the upper RG 1.60 curve 'for an SSE level of.25g. B/B design spectra was an accepted resolution to the above controversy in June of 1974. SPECTRA ~ LEVELS m FEB,10'!3901 JW/0Z-5

BYRON /BRAIDWOOD - SEISMIC ANALYSIS BACKGROUND

SUMMARY

OF EVENTS (CONT.) BYRON /BRAIDWOOD STRUCTURES REANALYZED IN 1976 AtID INFORMATION SENT TO NRC IN DECEMBER 1976 ADDRESSING:

1. SELECTION OF "G" LEVEL 0.06 OBE, 0.12 SSE VS 0.09 OPE, 0.20 SSE

2. RESPONSE SPECTRA AND CONSISTENT TIME-HISTORY

3. MODELING II. EFFECT OF FOUNDATION SIZE WAVE TRAVEL EFFECTS

5. MATERIAL STRENGTH AND LOAD FACTORS NRC OUESTION 130.06 TO FSAR IN MAY 1979 s-DECONVOLUTION NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE NRC MEETING OF OCTOBER 24, 1979 DISCUSSED DECONVOLUTION AtID S0IL PROPERTIES VARIATION AS IT AFFECTS STRUCTURE AND SYSTEMS RE-REVIEWED CONSERVATISMS IN DESIGN THAT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED ON OTHER NUCLEAR PLANTS BY THE NRC v

FEB. IS,-1931 JW/0Z-6

BYRON /BRAIDWOOD - SEISMIC ANALYSIS ~ BACKGROUND /

SUMMARY

OF EVENTS CECO SUBMITTED RESPONSE TO NRC QUESTIONS 130.06 ON JANUARY 28, 1980 RESPONSE PRESENTED AN EXTENSIVE EVALUATION OF THE E RG 1.60 SPECTRA AT THE FOUNDATION LEVEL ON DESIGN AND O WHY WE CONSIDER THE PLANT DESIGN ADEQUATE. THE DISCUSSION INCLUDED: A. JUSTIFICATION OF A 0.120 SSE AND A COMPARIS0N OF DESIGN P METERS (FORCES, MOMENTS AND SPECTRA) OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICA-TION 0.12c RG 1.60 AND THE BY/BR DESIGN BASIS SHOWING BY/B RESPONSES ENVELOPE RG 1.60 RESPONSES. 'B. QUANTIFICATION OF THE EFFECT OF WAVE PROPAGATION AND THAT THE REDUCTION IN RESPONSE FULLY COMPENSATES F 0F DECONVOLUTION. s-C. QUANTIFICATION OF OTHER SOURCES OR CONSERVATISM IN BY/BR DESIGN, SUCH AS, THREE EQUAL COMPONENTS OF EARTHOUAKE, LOPER DAMPING VALUES AND LOW DUCTILITY VALUES. D. PRESENTED THE AVERAGE STRENGTH OBTAINED FOR THE IN-PL MATERIAL WHICH EXHIBITED HIGHER STRENGTH THAM THE MIN SPECIFIED STRENGTH. E. COMPARISON OF DESIGN PARAMETER (FORCES, M0 MENT AND SPECTRA) OBTAINED BY THE APPLICATION OF RG 1.60 AT FOUNDATION TO BY/BR DESIGN. NRC LETTER - JANUARY 13, 1981 SECOND ROUND QUESTION REJECTING RESPONSE T0 QUESTION 130,'06 4 FEB. 18, 1981 JW/0Z-7

SUMMARY

OF IMPACT 0 RG 1.60 SPECTRA AT FOUNDATION LEVEL Ot! STRUCTURES

• INCREASE IN OVERTURNING N0MEtlT AND TOTAL SHEAR CONTAINMEllT MAT AND REACTOR CAVITY WALL ARE OVERSTRESSED INTERilAL CONTAltlMENT STRUCTURAL STEEL MEMBERS ARE OVERST Sl1 EAR WALLS ARE OVERSTRESSED AUXILIARY BUILDIllG AND FUEL HANDLING BUILDING MAT, IllTERNAL STEEL COLUMNS AtlD BEAMS ARE OVERSTRESSED THE CHANGE IN THE SEISMIC LEVEL WILL THUS tlECESSITATE:

GENERATION OF NEW SPECTRA COMPLETE REANALYSIS OF CONTAINMEtlT, AUXILIARY BUILDING AND FUEL HANDLING BUILDING

• TABULAT10N'0F INCREASES IN STRESS LEVELS AND IN DESIGN PARAMETERS IS PROVIDED IN HANDOUTS.

FEB. 18, 1981 JH/0Z-8

IMPACT OF RG 1.60 SPECTRA a F0UtIDATION LEVEL ON PIPING, EQUIPMENT AND ELECTRICALSYSTEMS DESIGN

• t REANALYSIS OF OVER 800 LARGE BORE PIPING SUBSYSTEMS l

l REVIEW 0F OVER 18,000 LARGE BORE PIPIflG SYSTEM SUPPORTS REVIEW 0F 5,300 CABLE TRAY HANGERS i REVIEW 0F 28,000 CONDUIT HANGERS REVIEW 0F 2,600 HVAC HANGERS REVIEW 0F SUPPORT STEEL FOR HANGERS OF ALL MECHANICAL AN ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS SEISMIC REQUALIFICATION OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT (60% OF m EQUIPMENT NOT REPLICATED AT MARBLE HILL) SEISMIC REQUALIFICATION OF ELECTRIC'AL EQUIPMENT (40% OF EQUIPMENT NOT REPLICATED AT MARBLE HILL) REASSESSMENT OF EQUIPMENT FOUNDATION LOADS REVISED MSSS LOADS WILL HAVE TO BE OBTAlf!ED FROM SUPPLIER .AND IMPACT OF THESE LOADS WILL HAVE TO BE EVALUATED

• QUANTITIES GIVEN ARE FOR ONE PLANT ONLY.

FEB. 18, 1981 JH/0Z-9

{ ( IMPACT OF REG. GUIDE 1.60 ON ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION 1981 1982 1983 1984 l985 1986 i i. I .l l l .I 1 t l 4 I l j i 1 i l Y ?ffff/,lfYf / /b ?b Y/$b R e gn l 'g i i 1 i ana i / / / / j I i I l l i i t i I I l !f// /?/ !/ ff b ha 1 9m nt f////Yhl//// r I i t [ I ? l l j I i l I i I ct c u pm nt f ((((// ((!/ / I i I I I l I' I i C nstruction Activi-f 'f / / g/f.f gg j l I i I I i I I I i i l i h,. i i kScheduled Fuel Load Date April, 1993 i l. u FEB. 18, 1981 JH/0Z-10

SUMMARY

THE PRESENT B/B DESIGN IS BASED ON THE 1974 NRC SEISMIC CRITERIA AND MEETS THE CP REQUIREMENTS. DECONVOLUTION WAS REVIEWED AGAIN IN DECEMBER 1976 AND WAS FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE NRC STAFF. IN MAY 1979 WHEN NRC CHANGED THEIR POSITION ON DECONVOLUTION, THE PLANT CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETE AND ANY RESULTING FIELD CHANGES SHOULD BE TREATED AS BACKFIT REQUIREMENTS. TO FORCE CECO TO BACKFIT TO THE MORE CONSERVATIVE ASPECTS OF THE 1974 AND THE 1980 CRITERIA WILL IMPOSE UNDUE HARDSHIP. ANTICIPATED THREE YEAR DELAY IN PLANT OPERATING DATE AT A COST OF 675 MILLION DOLLARS DUE TO THE INCREMENTAL COST OF REPLACEMENT ENERGY AND THE ADDITIONAL RETURN ON CAPITAL FOR CONSTRUCTION WORK IN PROGRESS INCLUDING ESCALATION ON DEFERRED EXPEDITURES. THIS COST IS FOR BYRON UNIT 1 ONLY AND DOES NOT INCLUDE COSTS FOR ENGINEERING, FOR CONSTRUCTION REWORK OR FOR ADDITIONAL OR REVISED EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS. THIS COST DOES NOT INCREASE THE PRESENT HIGH LEVEL OF SAFETY INHERENT IN OUR PRESENT BYRON /BRAIDWOOD PLANTS DESIGN. MARCH 2, 1981 REV. 1 JW/0Z-12 0995B

THE COMPARISON OF DESIGN PARAMETERS BASED ON THE ORIGINAL B/B DESIGN CRITERIA AND THOSE BASED ON THE LATEST NRC REQUIREMENT SHOWS THAT THE NEW REQUIREMENTS WILL RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL REDESIGN AND FIELD CHANGES REVIEW 0F THE LATEST NRC REQUEST SHOWS THAT CECO IS BEING REQUIRED TO REDESIGN THE PLANT TO THE MORE CONSERVATIVE ASPECTS OF THE 1974 AND THE 1980 STATE OF THE ART-WE FEEL THAT THE PLANT SAFETY BE EVALUATED ON THE 1974 QR THE 1980 STATE OF THE ART AND NOT ON THE MORE CONSERVATIVE ASPECTS OF BOTH THE 1974 AUll THE 1980 STATE OF THE ART ' THE PRESENTATION WILL COVER 'e - AREAS OF CONSERVATISM IN B/B SEISMIC DESIGN - B/B DESIGN CONSERVATISM OUANTIFIED IN RESPONSE TO Q130.06 - B/B REEVALUATION CRITERIA CONSISTENT WITH THE 1980 STATE OF THE ART, SEP PLANT CRITERIA AND THE NRC CORSULTANTS RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO SRP AKS -1 2-18-81

aHEAS OF CONSERVATISM IN B/B SEISMIC DESIGN \\ A. CONSERVATIVE SELECTI0ll 0F GROUllD ACCELERATION LEVEL B. 110 CREDIT TAKEN FOR REDUCTION IN ACCELERATION WITH DEPTH C. USE OF THREE EQUAL EARTHOUAKE COMPONENT D. USE OF SYNTHETIC TIME HISTORY WHICH ENVE' LOPES THE DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRA BY 0-20% E. NO CREDIT TAKEN FOR WAVE PASSAGE EFFECTS F. USE OF LOW DAMPING VALUES G. METHOD FOR COMBINATION OF CLOSELY SPACED MODES H. NO CREDIT TAKEN FOR REDUCTION IN RESPONSE DUE TO INELASTIC

RESPONSE

I. WIDENING THE PEAKS OF FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA BY 15% J. USE OF ENVELOPE RESPONSE SPFCTRA TO ANALYZE PIPING AND TESTING EQUIPMEllT K. NO CREDIT TAKEN FOR S0IL-ROCK-STRUCTURE INTERACTION EFFECTS L. NO CREDIT TAKEN FOR REDUCTION IN OVERTURNING MOMENTS DUE TO BASE MAT UPLIFT AliD SIDE SOIL / ROCK EFFECT M. COMBINATION OF LOCA AND SSE BY THE ABSOLUTE SUM RULE N. USE OF MINIMUM SPECIFIED AND NOT THE HIGHER MEASURED STRENGTH IN DESIGN I 0. USE OF A HIGH OBE LEVEL WHICH RESULTS IN OBE AND NOT THE SSE GOVERNING THE DESIGN l MANY OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS ARE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS i l THESE ASSUMPTIONS D0, HOWEVER PROVIDE ADDITIONAL MARGINS OF SAFETY AKS-2 2-18-81 l

B/B DESIGN CONSERVATISM OUANTIFIED IN RESPONSE TO 0130.0E IN OUR RESPONSE TO 0130.06 THE MARGIlls ASSOCIATED WITH THE B/B s, DESIGN WERE QUANTIFIED TO SHOW THAT THE INCREASE IN RESPONSE B NOT CONSIDERING DECONVOLUTION IS FblLY COMPENSATED BY ANY ONE THE FOLLOWIliG EFFECTS A. 0.12G SSE AllD 0.06G.0BE LEVEL C0llSISTENT WITH EXPERTS EVALUATION FOR B/B SITES AND PROPOSED IN THE PSAR B. WAVE PASSAGE EFFECTS AS CONSIDERED FOR THE DIABLO CANYON PLANT C. CONSERVATISM ASSOCIATED WITH: THREE EQUAL EARIHOUAKE COMPONENTS CONSERVATIVE SYNTHETIC TIME HISTORY USED IN DESIGN LOW DAMPING VALUES REDUCTION Ill RESPONSE DUE TO INELASTIC RESPONSE bSE OF MIi11 MUM SPECIFIED AND NOT THE ACTUAL MATERIAL STRENGTH IN DESIGN Ill JAl1UARY 81 THE STAFF INFORMED CECO THAT THE RESPONSE TO 0130.06 WAS !0T ACCEPTABLE EVEN THOUGH THE STAFF ALLUDED TO THE MERITS OF MANY OF THE ARGUMEi4TS PRESEi1TED IN OUR RESPONSE AKS-3 2-18-81

B/B REEVALUATION CRITERIA CONSISTENT WlTH THE 1980 STATE OF THE TO CLOSE OUT STAFF CONCERNS Oil THE B/B SEISMIC DESIGN WE WILL u TO REEVALUATE AND BACKFIT THE PLANT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING A. 0.2G WIDE BAND RESPONSE SPECTRA AT FOUNDATION ELEVATION B. EVALUATION TO BE LIMITED TO SSE ONLY C. VERTICAL SPECTRA 2/3 0F HORIZONTAL AS PER NUREG 0098, SEP PLAliT REEVALUATION CRITERIA D. DAMPING VAdiES AS PER NUREG 0098 E. LIMITED INELASTIC ACTION FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS F. CONSERVATIVELY ACCOUiiT FOR WAVE PASSAGE EFFECTS j l THE AB0VE CRITERIA IS CONSISTENT WITH l THE 1980 STATE OF THE ART i4RC SEP PLANT REEVALUATION CRITERIA NRC CONSULTA!1TS RECOMMENDED REVISIONS TO SRP AND REG GUIDES L AKS14 2-18-81

RFFVALUATIO11 SHOULD BE LIrilTED TO THE SSE LOAD COMBINATION Of4LY - COMPONENT STRESSES UfiDER THE OBE EXCITATION ARE WELL ~ BELOW YIELD LEVELS AND THUS DO NOT AFFECT PLANT SAFETY - THE PRESENT 0.09G OBE HAS A 2150 YEARS RETURN PERIOD WHICH IS VERY CONSERVATIVE - SSE LEVEL AL0i1E DETERMINES THE PLANT SAFETY MARGIllS THUS ANY SAFETY REEVALUATION SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE SSE LOAD COMBINATIONS Oi1LY - THE PROPOSED APPROACH MITIGATES COSTS AND SCHEDULE DELAYS BY REDUCING REAWALYSIS, REDESIGN AND FIELD MODIFICATIONS w-i l l I AKS-5 2-18-81

il0 REG 0098 VERTICAL SPECTRA SHOULD BE USED FOR REEVALUATION - A VERTICAL ACCELERATI0il EQUAL TO 2/3 0F HORIZ0flTAL SHOULD BE 1; SED FOR REEVALUATION AS REC 0fiP. ENDED IN NUREG 0098 - RECORDED MOTI0llS SHOW THAT THREE C0f1P0ilENTS OF EARTHOUAKES DO NOT HAVE THE SAME ACCELERATIONS AS REQUIRED BY RG 1.60 - STUDY BY BARTU HAS SHOWN THAT A 1.0:0.8:0.5 RATIO FOR THE THREE COMP 0NEilTS IS MORE APPROPRIATE - -.... u u =. u .= .. y 3a gaiij DY.II'I r,,, ; - I f.['. %Ty.'IIll:1!IIIITI!!{ MIIIIf..h. y;^ ;o.f,.* E h,, . Ill,11TG PI"IlI t, i ... -, -], yyj, = } %,,,0 w- >.,s.~ .I,... u,w y ua. %,M:' -,.t,'e, c) AB1,it.MshY' 4.fy' %. ,2 . ' E; e s f# M'sX 'X,. r ., Q h v, a 3 A ',. 2, .-py';~,q,' gs -.- p . i, ; ' w y ~ n 9 'i - si scea.,3 -~ . p., y',',v s,yf., g s 3 h.- Noiuz ..sp- .,,,1....t. e i. s - .. vp* s ,,,[ '.. ' voitTICAf. l ', p,E5 4 g.#.,,c,. s, 3'... 'i s. s.. ',4.. ' Ca / .,,r .,.c.. i. :....,, p;t ',h.. a p+ s. s .!+,#,; . :0,, !;+. 4 p !.g , f - i \\;%,4f'_;f,M. '. l _ ?.7..,1/ '. T.

{;;M,.

'. i. t -4, e;- ..w

.',,:e.

.),.... ejT .'ONv . 'ht , g. f v r/,'< 70 ',1,.- ) ,' 's' 3., ,, s 4.gvpm'D,2.r -{g 1j I [g f. ' ',' s 4 a s n; m c c' m [h.' .} '. I' h' b .1. v.i'.,. -ra1?iL

4. n:.n:m ' m;.?-...;..

y .u..,i,;a, A,., - .*i i g;t t 4 ,d wy .4., s .y. ik g/..,-. s /,/,D(w#w$ .pa f, b);;a,g.9 .,.i 0.c.' 4 u 4' J ^,'.,N -'..v,5 q s-s .,.,*.y 4 s-r I-JFu-r+1 o. 4 64 .a 7 N ]'.' A',[ps -. '-tA j,',. h.: .,;7. ' ;, L I,.4 8 e, * [J. '.C u N L ' .N' s' L*- ,, s ' M.-. ',2* ?l/)) I ses C/,-),' a'-['.. s..' f.i, .'.h 5, ', ~M.,< ~'s;, ' ~. .x 1,.13nihn f,1 JJg n I i i n h'n ni i e,1'n nth ( in! r? 3, g k ~. AKS-6 2-18-81

VERTICAL SPECTRA (CONTII{UED). - BOTH DR NEWMARK (NUREG 0003) AND NRC'S SEP PLANT REEVALUATI0ll CRITERIA (HUREG 0098) RECOMMENDS THAT VERTICAL ACCELERATI0il BE 2/3 0F THE HORIZONTAL - RIZZO STUDIED VERTICAL MOTIONS AT 30 ROCK SITES AND SHOWED THAT THE SITE SPECIFIC SPECTRA FOR ROCK SITE LOWER THA!! THE NUREG 0098 SPECTRA 1 1 J i. F 7 .Y F Y b% DAIViPING VERTICdE h bhz'i i ' i}t".l _mW DESI.GN.S.P.ECTRA M4 p p>"dh,j,; tim,e' 3;13 ! ',,,7Rock Sites i"d"I 1 RG 1.60 if. 4.'). N ~ ~ i ~ ffj:' L' E' d I L.' ' f NUREG 0098 T J u a lc ~. 5.M~.;A_ _W, a.S..ii. i 'id L a i w 1s. w m [ *' ' filD.hI",fs h'i

• i h '

.I' .I j].l) Aj f 'i @ W ! MI ! J.$,d,k kIhl%~ i. j;{l[ 1 { I

4nws,

.+ m = p.Mm ^ iA - .. w,.

t

, H i

..M .i.,,i~ <i. i ltO; ,i'.rhi i i 6 yt M Jg.t..;. < ' gy x.r i M1at ~ Wr '1P 5'fg ld' W [ ,4' yf .t'Q q j [ D '. .ih j '.j.y er Mr i .. :i.h f A (d:d liL M.m... - i M. k.,,il i g i (D&p ,s - BASED ON THE AB0VE WE FEEL THAT THE USE OF THE NUREG 0098 VERTICAL SPECTRA IS JUSTIFIED FOR REEVALUATION l l q AKS-7 2-18-81

DAMPING VALUES RECOMMENDED IN NUREG 0098 SHOULD BE USED IN REEVALUATI0d - NEWMARK AND HALL 01UREG 0098) HAVE SUMMARIZED THE LEVELS OF DAMPIf1G AS A FUNCTION OF THE TYPE OF STRUCTURE AND THE STRESS LEVEL OF INTEREST - BASED ON THIS INFORMATION THE FOLLOWING DAMPING VALUES ARE RECOMMENDED FOR REEVALUATION USED IN RECOMMENDED FOR DESIGN REEVALUATI0ii (RG 1.61) (NUREG 0098) RElliFORCED C0ilC. 7 10 i PRESTRESSED CONC. 5 7 WELDED STEEL 4 7 BOLTED STEEL 7 10 CABLE TRAY AND HVAC SUPPORTS SYSTEM 7 15' PIPING-2 3 f

• BASED ON BECHTEL TESTS

- THESE VALUES ARE BEING USED FOR SEP PLANT EVALUATIONS AND SHOULD BE ACCEPTABLE FOR EVALUATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AT B/B e AKS-8 2-18-81

LIMITED INELASTIC ACTION FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS REDUCTION IN RESPONSE DUE TO INELASTIC ACTION WILL NOT BE C0iiSIDERED EXCEPT ON CABLE TRAY HANGERS RECENT BECHTEL TEST HAVE SHOWN THAT CABLE TRAY HANGER SYSTEM HAVE CAPACITIES FAR IN EXCESS OF THE0RITICAL COMPUTED CAPACITIES CABLES CAN SUSTAIN DEFLECTIONS OF 6 INCHES WITHOUT LOSS OF FbNCTION REEVALUATION WOULD BE BASED ON ALLOWING LIMITED INELASTIC DEFORMATION HOWEVER THE TOTAL DEFLECTIO!! AT TIP NOT TO EXCEED 3 INCHES OR 3 TIMES THE ELASTIC DEFLECTION WHICHEVER IS LESS r l I l s. AKS-9 2-18-81

Wl% q)+4+q,,, sj48W %4 4 _e. me _ TEST TARGET (MT-3) !$ IB 23 "2 !r36

1. lllE l-l ec

,_8 1.25 1.4 1.6 / 6" +< 4 <$ 4%

• kkV b//),

4A>(@ 5, y //// 9

/ 6%', N'&h kN> %++/ %+4 TEST TARGET (MT-3) l.0 5E8ILM

M gu m

== m l,l h,'# lllb 1.8 1.25 1.4 jj l.6 i = s~ =

1. 4 4S+4 4:$ Nf
2. 3 jgf 4

4 /// 4 i

RFEVAlUATION SHOULD C0llSERVATIVELY ACCOUNT FOR THE WAVE PASSAGE EFFECTS IN OUR RESPONSE TO 0130.06 WE COMPARED THE B/B DESIGN SPECTRA TO THOSE OBlAINED BY USING THE WAVE PASSAGE EFFECT DETERMINED BY DR NEWMARK FOR DIABLO CANYON PLANT. THIS WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE STAFF. FOR THE REEVALUATION WE WILL USE A MECHANISTIC APPROACH USING A CONSERVATIVELY HIGH APPARENT WAVE VELOCITY TO ACCOUNT FOR THE WAVE PASSAGE EFFECT AT B/B. ~ AKS -10 2-18-81

_ AVE PASSAGE EFFECTS (C0iEIKilD1 W - EVALUATIO!10F PAST EARTHQUAKES Sii0W THAT LARGE FO RESP 0ilD WITH LESS IllTEilSITY THAN DO SMALLER STRUCTU - RESEARCHERS HAVE C014CLUDED THAT DURING EARTHOUAK PARTICLES U14 DER A LARGE FOUNDATI0Il DO NOT DESCR SAME MOTI0iis SIMULTAllE00 SLY; THUS THE RELATIVELY RIGID FOUi1DATI0il AVERAGES THE GROUilD MOTIONS RESULTING REDUCED EFFECTIVE IllPUT C I FOUNDATION APPARENT WAVE g VELOCITY, V t 0.2 0 1.2 1.0 0 Ol 74 T=L/V TIME IN SECONDS AKS-11 2-18-81

WAVE ~ PASSAGE EFFECTS (C0fiTINUED) - THE EFFECT IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO SURFACE WAVES, BODY m WAVES, HEAR FIELD EARTHOUAKES AllD FAR FIELD EARTHOUAKES S0 LONG AS THEIR FREMENCY CONTENT IS THE SAME ~ - THE FOUNDATI0il SIZE, APPARENT SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY AilD THE FREQUEllCY C0llTEi1T OF THE MOTION ARE THE OfiLY PARAMETERS WHICH DEFIliE Tf!E REDUCTION 30 i i i i i i i i o 7 WAVE VELOCITY,V 2,4 l: d L = 0 FT or V = ce ~ L = 160 F'I) V = 4 000 FT/S CC ~ 8 L = 400 FT; V= 4000 FT/SEC -Q g 1.2 d l 8 O.6 0.0 OO O.1 0.2 G3 0.4 05 06 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 PERIOD IN SEC l l N. AKS-12 2-18-81

( ( ~ COMPARIS0110F REEVALUATION CRIlERIA TO SEP PLAf1T REEVALUATION CRITERIA AND TO RECOMMENDED REVISIONS 10 NRC _ SEISMIC CRITERIA SEP PLANT RECOMMENDED REVISI0liS TO B/B REEVALUATION CRITERIA NRC SEISMIC CRITERIA CRITERIA -(NUREG 0098) (NUREG 1161) VERTICAL ACCELERATION 2/3 0F l10RIZONTAL YES YES YES 11UREG 0098 DAMPil1G YES YES YES WAVE PASSAGE EFFECT YES YES YES INELASTIC RESPONSE NOT* YES YES CONSIDERED REDUCTION IN G DUE T0 (10T N0 YES BUT COULD NOT AGREE EMBEDMEllT CONSIDERED ON UPPER LIMIT 25% OR f10% REDUCTION IT CAli BE OBSERVED THAT Tile PROPOSED CRITERIA IS MORE CONSERVATIVE TilAN NRC C0'iSULTANT'S RECOMMENDED REVISIONS TO NRC SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA AND Tile NRC SEP PLANT CRITERIA

• EXCEPT FOR CABLE TRAY ::,u1GERS AKS-13 2-18-81

SUMMARY

TO CLOSE OUT STAFF C0dCERUS ON THE B/B SEISMIC DESIGN Ceco WILL '-v AGREE TO REEVALUATE THE PLANT DESIGN BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CRI A. 0.2G WIDE BAND RESPONSE SPECTRA AT FOUNDATION ELEVATION B. EVALUATION TO BE LIMITED TO SSE ONLY C. VERTICAL SPECTRA 2/3 0F HORIZONTAL AS PER NUREG 0098, SEP PLANT REEVALUATION CRITERIA D. DAMPING VALUES AS PER HUREG 0098 E. LIMITED INELASTIC ACTION FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS F. CONSERVATIVELY ACCOUNT FOR WAVE PASSAGE EFFECTS THE AB0VE CRITERIA IS CONSISTENT WITH THE 1980 STATE OF THE ART NRC SEP PLANT REEVALUATION CRITERIA NRC CONSULTANTS RECOMMENDED REVISIONS TO SRP AND REG GUIDES UNDER TAP-40 l AKS-14 2-18-81

BYR0fl AND BRAIDF00D v - SEISMIC DESIGN BASIS NRC MEETING FEBRUARY 18, 1981 CONCLilSIONN 1. BYRON AND BRAIDWOOD CllPPENT SEISMIC DFSIGt! INCL.UDING liSE OF DEC0tlV0LUTION BASED EtlTIPF_LY ON METHODS ACCEPTFD BY NRC FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT. 2. POSTlILATED llNCERTAINTIES PELATIVE TD llSE OF DECnNVOLllTION ARE fl0T A SllBSTANTIAL SAFETY CONCERN BECAUSE THE CliRREt!T BYRON AND BRAIDWOOD SEISMIC DESIGN IflCLilDES OTHER SilBSTANTIAL C0flSERVATIStiS. 3. NRC CURREllT POSITION ON BYR0fl AtlP BRAIDWOOD IS A BACKFIT OF LATER SEISf!IC DESIGN CRITERIA RELATIVE TO DECONVOLUTI0tl. 11. ANY PsEEVAl.liATION SHOULD BE BASED ON CPITERIA APPROPRIATE TO THE BACKFIT NATilRE OF THF NRC POSITION. 5. WE HAVE PROPOSED "REEVALUATI0fl CRITFRIA" WHICH ARE CONSISTENT HITil NRC CRITERIA FOR BACKFIT SEISMIC REEVALUATIONS OF OPEPATING PLANTS IN THE SYSTEt1ATIC EVALilATION PROGRAM. i 6. THE PROPOSED " REEVALUATION CRITEPIA" ARE EXPECTED TO SHOW T ADEQUACY OF THE CilRRENT BYRON AND BRAIDWOOD DESIGN BASIS RESPONSE SPECTRA. 7. COST AND SCHEDULE IMPACT OF NRC POSITI0tl EXCESSIVE IN VIEF 0F INSIGflIFICAtlT SAFETY CONSIDERATION. 3. IF YOU REQUIRE THE COMPLETE REANALYSIS ASSOCIATED FIT!' THE CURREtlT NRC POSITION, THE INDilSTRY SHORTAGE OF QUALIFIED PIPING DESIGN AtlD EQUIPt1ENT GUALIFICATION MAtlP0HER HILL BE Fl!RTHFR AGGRAVATED. v FEB, 10, 1981 L_

BYRON AND BPAIDif00D SEISMIC DESIGN BASIS flRC MEETING FEBRUARY 18, 1981 CONCLUSIONS (CONT.) s 9. Iff1EDIATE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED REEVALUATION CRITERIA REQUIRED TO AVOID ANY FURTHER DELAY OF PLANT OPERATING. t i e f 1 5 1 FEB. 18, 1981- + m-- m- .. J. h m n.J -.A a . m-mm.o u m,m-._ -mu

e O 9 BYRON /BRAIDWOOD SEISMIC DESIGN BASIS NRC MEETING ON FEBRUARY 18, 1981 e HANDOUT MATERIAL v gB 18, 1981

%r EQUIVALENCE OF MH AND B/B MARBLE HILL GENERAL ARRANGEMENT REPLICATE OF BYRON /BRAIDWOOD MARBLE HLL DETAIL DRAWINGS REPLICATE OR BYRON /BRAIDWOOD BYRON /BRAIDWOOD AND MARBLE HILL HAVE THE SAME STRUCTURAL CONFIGURATION MARBLE HILL IS DESIGNED FOR.20s SSE; BASED ON R'.G' 1.G0 APPLIED AT FOUNDATION LEVEL FEB. 18, 1981 OZ-2 t

f -l r, / ,s.;, e * =.., -s . *.d , NOTE: ' i a s ALL STRUCTLRAL ELEMENTS 8 .'I I ". THEIR THICKNESS SHOWN ON THIS SKETCH ARE SAME FOR BYRON / BRAIOWOOD AS WELL AS MARSLE HILL PROJECTS. 3*. 6" 3'- 6" ? t J' . ~ f ,1T ' 3 E ' '.3-3' e E E L 461' 10" m ~, m .g y 3 = N, %~ t 't 'O k-eQL 426'-O* _I;

• /

,.j' 4:

• '*j

~' '4 's s 9 i lL l "m t EL 412'-O" 4'- 6" d-' O" 4'd' i r %-~ 3'.d 3'.3 i ,O . ). W 'Z __. EL 398' 6" e no J Tr"a 3.o 3 . !.:;;tT I' .(.'\\ s i n. 'g I r a l l l lT - i EL 37 7'-O" m \\ -+ y- .... V -j, '; w 1::...:.s;- y ,., v. - Mi 3 ~ ~ ~ s:

.i

.: :.: n. m\\ eeO roc < _..w _ CONTAINMENT BUILDING u FEB,10,1931 0Z-3

(( ( AuxLt ARY @lll&D_itg_ FUEL O HANDLMS BulLpjNG = l 4 i I EL 406-O" h b, EL 477'- 0" EL. 475'-4" 'em EL, 474'- O" g gs 'Y ,[ EL.4sf-4' wI V EL 60'-T t _ EL. 451'- 0" b' m 42'-0"

3. g..

b' ~ 3'n e i EL. 426'- 0" 'et %{ u _ 4-y 4 6* - 0 IO" 4 mm l [ b g6" -IA N I & EL. 401'-O" $1 EL.408' 0" L %{ 3. 3 g ] I r .,.-Q b [ g-t..- ,9 v,{ 'l i -~ , d_. k' 'el b a e . g.; el l _ EL. 385 - BYRON BE - t-- .. r... JL. 364'-0" k k k mancn 1 ._,j

g..]

I l Q -.m b IO~ EL.544-Cf j EL 544*-W* I* w I f .g r_. ,. -j I EL.330'.d' E l ...":.. $0" { +... V NOTEt ALL STNuCTURAL ELEMENTS AND -y, theft T SHOWN ON THIS SWETCM FOR BYRON /8R AIDWOOO A8 WELL AS MARBLE HILL PROJECTS j AUXILIARY AND FUEL HANDLING BUILDWGS 1 4 i FEB, 13, 1931 0Z-4 i

4 BY/BR LOAD COMPARIS0N TO RG 1.60 CONTAINMENT BUILDING FORCE DE MOMENT (SSE) JIEM BY/BR DESIGN - RG 1.60 TOTAL OVERTURNING MOMENT 1 1 AT BASE /SHELL 4,500,000 -K 5,260,000 -K K K TOTAL SHEAR AT BASE /SHELL 26,500 30,700 i NET TENSILE MEMBRANE FORCE IN SHELL 27 K/1 72 K/1 BENDING M0 MENT IN BASEMAT 6,650 -K/1 9,5L3-k/l 1 1 i I NET MEMBRANE TENSILE FORCE IN REACTOR CAVITY WALL NA 1,335 K/1 f i b i; FEB, 18, 1981 OZ-5 .- N

4 4 W DOME - . o. y/ v b s..., g *. =.:.. j ., a e _a g (.*

• .1 e

. _3.'_ 3_'. 6." SHELL w SHELL f g /f l 6 5 _,, y 6h,,,,_, y,,,3 6h a b. s El 461'-10" r ~ ~~ ~.*1 .g s s

)

l .t t 'o .~ i~ 4' %l FL 426' 0" 4 n),,. c ' ,7 ,+ g ,6 l .....s .o t y ik .e L 4l2'-O" PR AR v _ _._'." WALL ' 3'_. d.__ 4-6 4-O" 44" ... 3_-3 ,o .J mEL 398'.6" .2 - - SECONDAR' I _) SHIELD ,,3,5,. +- PRIM ARY

g

- --SECONDARY S. ELD WALL-i ,o l b >,: I I-- -,= r. SHIELD watt e m, WALL i 1 g _L 377'.O .. '"",i r-- .? r G8

le.

.). ~ ;., **,' Y-{ g,* q f, ", ' 4..'. f rl$ Unk" bl(bil$ a,. 5 OTYh Y}aa i t-

.:: a.'.

I MAT

l fi!fibTa i

CONTAINMENT BUILDING FEB. 18, 1981 0Z-6

BY/BR LOAD _ COMPARISON TO RG 1.60 SPECTPA CONTAINMENT BUILDIflG 4 INTERNAL STRUCTURAL STEEL 1 i % INCREASE IN NUMBER OF BEAMS DESIGN PARAMETER OBE SSE i 0 84 88 0 - 10 12 8 10 - 20 4 8 20 - 30 4 30 - 40 8 1 40 f TOTAL 108 108 i i I fl0TES: 1. ALL 108 BEAMS REVIEWED FOR EL. 426'-0". ( FES. 18, 1981 02-7

( BY/BR STRESS C0f1 PARIS 0N TO RG 1.60 CONTAlflMENTBUILDING(UtlIT-#11 INTERNAL STRUCTURAL STEEL BEAMS

• STRESS LEVEL NUMBER OF BEAMS I

O - 1.0 671 l l 1.0 - 1.1 32 l 1.1 - 1.2 15 t 1.2 - 1.3 12 1.3 - 1.4 5 l 1, 4 _ _ _ _ _. 5 740 TOTAL i l i l-l l 4. r % 4

• RATIO OF STRESS TO AISC ALLOWABLE FEE. 18, 1981 0Z-8

O 6 I BY/BR LOAD COMPARIS0fl TO RG 1.60 AUXILIARY FUEL BUILDING COMPLEX SHEAR WALLS % INCREASE IN NUf1BER OF SPRINGS DESIGN PARAMETER DEE SSE 0 122 153 0 - 10 25 51 10 - 20 19 30 20 - 30 8 7 30 - 40 50 8 40 - 50 33 6 50 15 17 TOTAL 272 272 v 4 -s-FEB. 18, 1981 0Z-9

BY/BR LOAD COMPARIS0N TO RG 1.60 AUXILIARY FUEL HANDLING BUILDH!G COMPLEX STEEL BEAMS % INCREASE IN NUMBER OF BEAMS DESIGN PAPM ETERS DBE SSE 0 148 132 0 - 10 61 85 10 - 20 16 7 20 - 30 5 6 30 TOTAL 230 230 NOIE 1. BEAMS LOCATED AT EL.-426'-0" AND 451'0" IN AUXILIARY BUILDING. FEB. 18, 1981 0Z-10

7 BY/BR STRESS C012aPJ101LIfulG 1.60 AUXILIARY-FUEL HANDLING BUILDIflG COMPLFX STRUCTURAL STEEL BEAMS

• STRESS LEVEL NUMBER OF BEAMS 0 - 1.0 3.273 1.0 - 1.1 83 1.1 - 1.2 21 1.2 - 1.3 2

1.3 ----- 21 3,400 TOTAL -~ COLUMNS

• STRESS LEVEL NUMPER OF COLUMNS 0 - 1.0 76 1.0 - 1.1 31 1.1 - 1.2 5

1.2 ----- 0 112 TOTAL

• RATIO OF STRESS ~0 AISC ALLOWABLE FEB. 18, 1981 0Z-11

O O Oi Q EL 374*-0" - EL. 3 74*-O" - EL.342'-4"m /, s 'N Ase p' b @ cT NOT REPLICATED AT MARBLE HILL) SEISMIC REQUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT (l10% OF EQUIPMEflT NOT REPLICATED AT MARBLE H!LL) i ? REASSESSMENT OF EQUIPMEflT FOUNDATION LOADS REVISED NSSS LOADS WILL HAVE TO BE OBTAlt!ED FROM SUPPLIER AND IMPACT OF THESE LOADS WILL HAVE TO BE EVALUATED l t V

• CUANTITIES GIVEN ARE FOR ONE PLANT ONLY.

FEB. 18, 1981 0Z-95

r L MEETING SUMM RY DISTRIBUTION Docket File G. Lear NRC PDR V. Noonan Local PDR S. Pawlicki TIC /NSIC/ Tera! V. Benaroya N. Hughes Z. Rosztoczy LB#1 Reading W. Haass H. Denton D. Muller E. Case R. Ballard D. Eisenhut W. Regan / R. Purple D. Ross B. J. Youngblood P. Check A. Schwencer Chief, Power Systems Branch F. Miraglia

0. Parr J. Miller F. Rosa G. Lainas W. Butler R. Vollmer W. Kreger J. P. Knight R. Houston R. Bosnak Chief, Radiological Assessment Branch F. Schauer L. Rubenstein R. E. Jackson T. Speis Project Manager Auluck/ Moon W. Johnston Attorney, OELD J. Stolz M. Rushbrook S. Hanauer OIE (3)

W. Gammill ACRS (16) T Murley c R. Tedesco F. Schroeder D. Skovholt gi u) M. Ernst NRC

Participants:

fQ R. Baer f ~f h g C. Berlinger U K. Kniel f MAR 2 5 Jggy,'C G. Knighton i S A. Thadani I %'88D% D. Tondi J, Kramer s D, Vassallo ^3 TS P Collins D. Ziemann i bec: Applicant & Service List 4 J .}}