ML19351D184
| ML19351D184 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/06/1980 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-1755, NUDOCS 8010090169 | |
| Download: ML19351D184 (13) | |
Text
A&M
& %/9fD \\
n M [r'.i %,
MINUTES OF THE ACR3
. EM XTERNAL PHENOMENA SUBCOMMITTEE
- dN5 - /70 3'i WASHINGTON, DC
@gM'e
..., d ', \\
JUNE 4, 1980 b
t b
Subcommittee on Extreme External Phenomena held a one day meeting at 7 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. on June 4,1980.
The purpose of this meeting was to review considerations related to the seismic design of nuclear power reactors., to discuss the NRC's Task Action Plan A-40, and to discuss the NRC's FY 80 and FY 81 and proposed FY 82 and beyond funding for research programs in the area of extreme external phenomena. The notice of this meeting was published in the Federal Register on May 15, 1980 and May 21, 1980. Copies are included as Attachment A.
The schedule for this meeting !s included as Attachment B.
A list of attendees is included as Attachment C.
Portions pro-vided to the Subcommittee at this meeting are included as Attachment D.A comolete set of the materials provided to the Subcomittee is in the ACRS files.
No written statements or requests for time to give oral statements were received from membei.
lblic.
l
.8010 0 9 0/fo9
e EXTREME EXTERNAL PHENOMENA SUBCOMMITTEE JUNE 4, 1980 Dr. D. Okrent, Subcomittee Chairman, and the Subcommittee members Dr. C. Siess, Dr. D. Moeller, Mr. J. Ebersole, and Mr. J. Ray were present. The ACRS consul-tants Dr. W. l.ipinski, Dr. E. Luco, Dr. J. Maxwell, Dr.B. Page, Dr. Z. Zudans, Dr. T. Thompson, and Dr. M. Trifunac and Dr. R. Savio of the ACRS Staff were also present. The Designated Federal Employee for this meeting was Dr. R. Savio.
NRC SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM - SEISMIC REVIEW - H. Levin (NRC), W. J. Hall, University of Illinois), R. Kennedy (SMA), J. Stevenson (Woodward & Clyde)
The systematic evaluation program (SEP) seismic review was discussed. The SEP involves ten plants designed to varying degrees of seismic competency. The plants in question are Yankee Rowe, Millstone 1, Haddam Neck, Oyster Creek, Ginna, Big Rock Point, Palisades, Lacrosse, Dresden 1 & 2, and San Onofre 1.
All of the plants but the exception of San Onofre 1 are in the Eastern United States. Dresden 1, Big Rock Point, Yankee Rowe, and Haddam Neck were licensed prior to 1969. The very earliest of these plants were designed essentially to the unif' arm building code criteria whereas the later plants were designed to standards approaching the Standard Review Plan criteria. The Dresden 2 plant is the lead plant in this review sequence. The plants were grouped into two groups. The Group 1 plants received their construction permit after December 1964. The Group 1 plants had the highest level of seismic competence. The Group 1 plants were Oyster Creek, Dresden 2, Ginna, Millstone 1, and Palisades. The SEP seismic review procedures specified that for Group 1 plants the NRC Staff and counsultants review the existing information with supplemental evaluations by review teams for purposes of spot checking, and confirmation of NRC/ consultant judgments as to the e.dequacy of the plants. For Group 2 plants the NRC Staff and consultants will review new licensee seismic design evaluations with supple-mental evaluations being performed by a review team for the purposes of spot checking.
A Senior Seismic Review Team composed of five members has been assembled. They are N. Newmark, (NMN), W. Hall (Univeristy of Illionis), R. Kennedy, (SMA), J.
Stevenson, (WC), and F. Tokar, (LLL). Other seismic review teams are formed in NRR Staff by NRC personnel, LLL personnel, and subcontractor personnel as needed.
EEP June 4, 1980 The schedule for the issuance of the consultants reports on the Group 1 plants are given in Table 1 of Attachment D.
Licensee reports for Group 2 with action plans for required modifications are to be completed by January 1, 1982.
The NRC review is scheduled to be complete by April 1, 1982 and all facility modi-fications are to be installed by January 1,1983.
As indicated, this review is not yet completed.
Preliminary findings indicate that for both Group 1 and 2 plants the functional qualification documentation for electrical equipment is deficient and that the anchorage and supports of electrical equis. ment may require upgrading.
Mechanical piping in Group 1 plants appeared to be generally adequate but is likely to require substantial upgrading in Group 2 plants.
The structures in Group 1 pitnts are likely to be adequate but some of the structures in Group 2 plants may require upgrading. The recently issued consultant's rep for the Dresden 2 facility indicates that the structures and structural elements of the facility are adequate to withstand an earthquake with a SSE acceleration of 0.2 g and that piping in this facility can withstand the same earthquake with acceptable inelastic deformation. As-built pipe supports were not examined.
Selected representative mechanical and electrical equipment were examined by the consultants and found to be adequately designed to withstand the 0.2 g SSE earth quake but with smaller margins than would result from the application of current Standard Review Plan criteria.
The consultants, however, recommended that all safety related electrical equipment anchorage be checked to verify adequacy an that a thorough inspection of the plant be made to identify and upgrade as neces-sary any overhead or suspended items capable of sliding or overturning that could fall and damage safety equipment.
SEISMIC CAPACITY OF PIPING - E. Rodabaugh, NRC Mr. Rodabaugh discussed the accumulated experience with ductile piping desi to ANSI codes.
He indicated that there were histories of failure due to corro-sion, vibration, external damage, fatigue, and transient forces associated with fluid phenomena.
The experience with pipe systems under earthquake leads has been good.
Failures have been nonexistent with ductile systems and rare even _
with systems designed to less demanding codes.
DIABLO CANYON SYSTEMS INTERACTION PROGRAM - C. Thomas, NRC Mr. Thomas indicated that a systems interaction program which considers a seis-mically induced interaction between non-seismically qualified equipment and l
I
EEP June 4, 1980 safety related equipment was underway at Diablo Canycn. Affected equipment has been identified. Potential systems interactions are being identified by field " walk-downs" by interdisciplinary teams of experienced utility personnel augmented by, consultants.
The teams are conducting an in-situ analysis of the systems by tracing the path of the system through the actual plant and noting any potential modes for systems interactions. The information obtained is being processed utilizing a computer to insure that the capability exists for systematically retrieving and analyzing this information.
It is expected that this effort, when completed, will have consumed about 50 man-cears of effort.
The issuance of a safety enluation report on this information 's expected in August.
REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEMS - C. Graves Mr. Graves suma'rized the history of the development of the current NRC position on residual heat removal. The NRC position was developed from Branch Technical Position RSB 5-1 and was later written into Regulatory Guide 1.139. The Regula-tory Guide was issued for public comment in May 1978 and was revised to reflect TMI experience in 1979. The revised guide will be issued for public comment by July 1980. Full implementation of the Regulatory Guide will be required for plants which the CP was docketed on or after January 1, 1978. Partial compliance will be required for other plants.
SEISMIC QUALIFICATION OF AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEMS - R. Baer, NRC Mr. Baer noted that the issue of non seismically qualified feedwater systems has been raised in the past and is the subject of current NRC review. H9 noted that for many older plants the auxiliary feedwater system was not designed to seismic Category-1 criteria (i.e., pre Reg Guide 1.139). The NRC currently has an ongoing effort which is directed at identifying those operating PWR plants whose auxiliary feedwater systesm are not designed to seismic Category -1 criteria and to identify the importance to safety. Recomendations as to appropriate licensing actions are to follow.
These evaluations will be based on proba-bility/ risk assessments. A decision as to continue # operation of these plants will result. A longer term program (two to three years) is planned for the purposes of developing improved criteria for auxiliary feedwater systems.
EEP June 4, 1980 SUITABILITY OF SEISMIC SCRAM - J. Knight, NRC and L.Shao, NRC Mr. Shao and Mr. Knight discussed the current usage of seismic scrams in the nuclear power industry. The seismic scram is a requirement for power reactors in Japan and i,t is used on some research reactors and one power reactor (Diablo Canyon) in the U. S.
The Japanese practice is to set the scram at an accelera-tion level corresponding to the greater of one-third the design static coeffi-cient or two-thirds of the dynamic response acceleration for the plant.
In terms of the U. S. practice this corresponds to about two-thirds of the OBE where the OBE is one-half of the SSE.
In the Japanese experience, to date, there has been no spurious events or a:tual earthquake induced trips. The Japanese usa two-out-of three or three-out-of-four logic on these trips minimizing their potential for spurious action. The seismic scram at Diablo Canyon is set at 0.4 g and utilizes two-out-of-three logic. There was some discussion as to the suit-ability of a seismic scram on reactors sited in the United States.
It was generally agreed that it would be worthwhile for the NRC to devote some effort to investigating the suitability of high level seismic scrams and it was sug-gested that RES devote some funding to a study which would result in recomenda-tions in about the time frame of a year.
TASK ACTION PLAN A-40 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA /SHORT-TERM PROGRAM - G. Bacc L. Wight, TERA; L. Reiter, NRC; H. Levin, NRC; P, Smith, LLL The Task Action Plan A-40 (TAP A-40) was discussed. This Task Action Plan addresses the safety margins inherent in the current regulatory procedures for seismic design and is designed as a program for yielding short-term results and recommendations.
The Seismic Safety Margins Research Program (SSMRP) is to address the longer term needs.
Contractor activities are essentially complete and reports have been issued. The NRC currently has these reports under inter-nal review.
The contractor studies have resulted in a number of proposed changes to the regulatory guides and the Standard' Review Plan. The site-sptcific spectra which will be utilized in the SEP work developed the TAP A-40.
The site-specific spectra was higher than the FSAR input and is expected to have major impact on the seismic design of five of the SEP plants. The major recommendations contained in the TAP A-40 contractor studies are as follows:
l l
l l
EEP June 4, 1980 a) Replacement of the regulatory guide 1.60 spectra with Newmark/ Hall spectra b) The development of improved criteria for selecting the SSE c) The use of multiple time histories in the anal,v;is and design d) The use of direction solution and substructure approaches to the soil-structJre interaction analysis e) The modifications of the techniques used in the treatment of non-linear soil behavior f) Modification of the current methods for combining modal response g) Allowing credit to be taken for a limited amount inelastic energy absorption in the analysis for the SSE level earthquake h) Modifications to the dampening values specified in Regulatory Guide 1.161 i) Allowing the use of probabilistic methods in the generation of structure response factors j)
Increased requirements for the seismic testing of structures systems and components, including fragility testing to failure.
SAFETY RESEARCH BUDGG ON EXTREME EXTERNAL PHENOMENA - L. Shao, NRC; J.
NRC; G. Bagchi, NRC; J. O'Brien, NRC The safety research items related to extreme external phenomena were discussed.
Research is being sponsored within the Site Safety Research Branch, the Mechanical Engineering Research Branch, and the Structural Engineering Research Branch.
A Significant portion of this work is being done under the Seismic Safety Margins Research Program at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. The research items are under the Plant Operational Safety (Mechanical Components Safety, and Structural Safety) and the Siesmic and Environmental Research (Seismology, and Geology and Meteorol-ogy and Hydrology) line items.
The proposed budget for FY 82 for the Site Safety Research Branch is $5.5 M ($4 M for regional seismicity studies, $1 M for the tcpical seismicity studies, and $0.5 M for studies of severe storms and floods).
The proposed FY 82 budget for the SSMRP work is $3.5 M. $2.5 M of which is in the Mechanical Engineering Research Branch, $3 M of which is in the Scructural
~
Engineering Research Branch. The total budget for research topics related to extreme external phenomena for FY 82 under this proposal is $10.5 M.
I I
EEP June 4, 1980 I
More detailed summaries are givaa on pages 1-4 of Attachment D.
Opinions were 4
l expressed by members of ths Subconiittee that the increased level of resources j
should be devoted to *, as related to the determination of the design base flood and the, effects of flooding.
NOTE: For additional details, a complete transcript of the meetirg is available in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, tid, Washington, D. C. 20555 or from Alderson Reporting Company, loc., 300 7th Street, j
S. W., Washington, D.C. 20024,(202/554-2345).
l 4
e
7#3df.d
~
SCHEDULE GROUP 1 PLANTS DRAFT FINAL CONSULTANT CONSULTANT REPORT REPORT DRESDEN 2 7/79 C L1/80 C GINNA 6/80 T 9/80 T PALISADES 6/80 T 10/80 T OYSTER CREEK 7/80 T 11/80 T MILLSTONE 1 9/80 T 12/80 T e
e
E.EfHAf!ICAL Ef!GINEERING RESEARCH BRAJLCJJ RUDGET SilN1ARY_FY80-FY82
($1000's)
EYB0" E131 EL82 l
1.
EXCLUSIVELY SEISf11C RESEARCll
~
1320 2550 370')
(FOUR PROGRAMS)
(75%)
(35%)
(37%)
2.
PARTIALLY SElSMIC RESEARCH 230 2250 2650 (EIGilT PROGRAMS)
(16%)
(31%)
(27%)
3.
NOT OR SLIGHTLY RELATED TO 150 2530 3650 SEISMIC RESEARCll (9%)
(35%)
(37%)
(EIGilT PROGRAMS) t
~
TOTALS 1750 7330 10000
- DOES NOT INCLUDE TI'0 PROGRAMS TERMINATING lli FY80 1.
DYNAMIC TESTING OF OPERATING REACTORS
$50K Il! FY80 (LLL)
$150K Ill FY80 2.
Il0f! LINEAR SYSTEM MODELING (USC)
I MECHANICAL ENGliiEERING RESEARCH BRANCH IlDDGET
SUMMARY
FY80-FY82
($1000's)
EXCLUSIVELY SEISMIC RESEARCH EY3B E181 EL82 1.
SEISMICSAFETYhARGINSRESEARCHPROGRAM 1150 2000 2500 (LLL) 2A. IIDR SEISMIC MONITOR 100 100 250 (ANCO) 2B. liDR SEISMIC ANALYSIS 20*
150 250 (INEL) 3.
SEISMIC QUALIFICATION TESTING 50 300 200 "
(RFP) 11.
ADVANCED SEISMIC DESIGNS 0
0 500 (UNDESIGNATED)
IN ADDITION, APPR0XIMATELY $50K CARRIED OVER FROM FY79 WE PLAN AN ADDITIONAL $1000K Ill FY82 TO CONDUCT TESTS AS A SPECIAL ISSUE (SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING) -
v c,.
r...,
,3
MECHA"ICAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH BRANCH BUDGET
SUMMARY
FY80- FY82
($1000's)
PARTIALLY SEFSPIC RESEARCH EYM E181 E182 1.
PIPING SYST:M RESTRAINTS 100 300 350 A!!DSNUBBERS (ETEC) 2.
LOAD COMEINATIONS 130' 500 1000 (LLL) 3.
VERIFICATION OF COMPUTER CODES 0
800 450 (UNDESIGNATED) 4.
PIPING EENCHMARKS 0
200 200 (UtiDESIGNATED) 5.
TEST FACILITY FOR OPERATIONAL 0
0 150 LIMITS AND FAILURE MODES (UNDESIGNATED) 6.
FOREIGN RESEARCH AND LICENSING 50 100**
250 PRACTICE COORDINATION (RFP) 7.
REQUALIFICATION/DAflAGE ASSESSMENT 0
350 150 (UNDESIGNATED) 8.
ANCHORING OF COMP 0fiENT SUPPORTS 0
0 100 (UNDESIGNATED)
TOTAL FOR LOAD COMBINATIONS IN FY80 IS $830K, THE BALAllCE BEING PROVIDED BY LIGHT t'ATER SAFETY RESEARCH AND i'.ATERIALS AND I
fiETALLURGICAL RESEARCH 1
AN ADDITIONAL $100K IS PROVIDED BY OTHER GRSR BRANCHES l
\\
MECHANICAL E!1GINEERING RESEARCH BRANCH BUDGET
SUMMARY
FY80-FY82 (1000's)
SLIGHTLY OR NOT RELATED TO SEISPIC.RESEARCH FR2 E181 E182 1.
PUMP AliD VALVE QUALIFICATION 0
600 600 (UNDESIGNATED) 2.
NONSAFETY RELATED SYSTEMS 0
0 250 (UNDESIGNATED) 3.
PUMP AND VALVE FUNCTIONAL PARGIllS 0
0 150 (UNDESIG!1ATED) 4.
CONTAINF.ENT LEAK TESTS 0
0 150 (UfiDESIGi ATED) 5.
C0!iTAIM!!EllT PURGE VALVES 0
0 100 (UNDESIG!iATED) 6.
ASME CODE EVALUATION 0
200 200 (UNDESIGNATED) 7.
IN-SERVICE INSPECTION EFFECT ON RISK 0
0 200 (UtiDESIGNATED) 8.
PRESSURIZER RELIEF AND SAFETY VALVES
- 150 1730 2000 (INEL) pas 3..'-
TRANSFERREDFROMRESEdRCHSUPPORTBRANCHT0tiECHANICALEN RESEARCH BRA!iCH IN MAY 1980 W
3 l
l nttt1Nb KUUM* h h s
i m
l ADVISORY C mMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS MEETING
/
m mE
- EX TKE m L G X TG-K n AL l
04ENOWENN l
vh ATTENDEES PLEASE SICN BELO'4 NetE BADCE NO.
AFFILIATION Dennis A //r io, I c. 20 i t I mec sMs>
(1) 3 14ALL lJ oob l
d4C
=
3b C,rehma 13 os D l4M
~
//.I' L A l Tool, I f4 SAA 0
' =
k C. L i essn, l r oo s 7 lW i
.f. 6/N6H l 7 03 3 / lSco W 2Lw W %,
7 i Zu An e 11 o gro l Ac / s cew u 0b e w
B, M. PAGE l,)CO 79 l
ACR5 Gnwtro,t
==f e.c.ta u - a l
l amne
- 12. L. C L-o a D lJ 00 3 e l PLMo&-
=
'Pn s D SJ-k IJoox7 I L4 <~a u. Ld,
~
%%el f L>k l 4 00lb
- l hw m.n D
Ll
=
sL c.
ofkdAf l J o o tu lL totu - W LZ' Dl'Lwa=
f R. #sJ l
l > !L 1
Tm-A B. Sa vea l l
TV,4
~
~
S. k l,,'nea v l
l
, r&- A/deaa (&g-e.c. Pos h l
l O i om b l Joh cz l E ff r~
btm&w I
,00 ci l
usc_
s GA77 -
l rooss
.I s4 4 h
W I
v =47 I
ocds
'aJ E M & % \\\\
Iann*
I We n.
73
,y J, o o ju o
.1 m
,p
---.__-,