ML20031F662
| ML20031F662 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 10/05/1981 |
| From: | Williams J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Miller T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110200275 | |
| Download: ML20031F662 (15) | |
Text
-
mis 7
gj] D x
- T 5 1981 9
39 Docket ?!o.:
50-461/462 f/
0 OSN J. R. filller, Chief D
"Ef'ORAFIDUM FOR:
Standardization & Special Projects Branc k I<degO )IllL U
Division of Licensing
' fh FROM:
J. H. Williams, r.'oject ! tanager Standardization & Special Projects Branch Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
SUPM.ARY OF ftEETING WITH APPLICAf!T ON SEPTEf!BER 24, 1981 The applicant met with R. II. Vollmer to discuss the resolution of the seismic questions.
(See Attachment A for the IPC handout). The attendees are listed in Attachment B.
IPC's problen centered around three issues:
1.
Deconvolution 2.
Soil property variation 3.
Soil spring vs finite elenent method and the schedule for SER preparations. IPC would like to resolve the Clinton seismic questions by:
A.
Determining a Clinton site specific spectra for !!g4.310.5 adjusted to the effects of a large R.
Studies tn show that the seismic hazard at Clinton is similar to that in other areas in the central stable region.
C.
Performing soil spring soil structure analysis including the embedment effects and the associated wave scattering and ground motion modulation effects using the three step solution to the soil spring soil structure interaction analysis by methods developed by Dr. Luco.
After hearing their case and indicating that some of the HRC staff was not available to consider parts A & B because of the unexpected riature of neeting, Fr. Vollmer suggested the applicant meet with SEB personnel and hc would jet.
back to them on the following Monday, to indicate the staff positf 9n.
He assured the applicant that NRC would use all possible efforts to solve the problem and meet the SER dates.
orrice) sun m e) 8110200275 811005
{DRADOCK 05000461 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam mme PDR
OCT 5 1981 J. R. Miller A second meeting between the applicant and SEB staff members followed. An attendance list is shown in Attachment B.
After some discussion on the basis for using Dr. Luco's method it was decided that if the method could be explained satisfactorily and NRC staff concerns are answered, then the staff will accept its use. Also IPC should compare the Luco results with several simple solution cases. SEB will develop a list of questions for the applicant to answer about Luco's method. The applicant will have Dr. Luco come to Bethesda to address the staff concerns. A meeting date arot.rA October 6th was planned. The meeting will be arranged through the Project f>anager.
ORIarNAI, STm n' J.11. Williams, Project Manager Standardization & Special Projects Branch Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As Stated cc: See next page 1a M%
..g.).).$.5 4.g.g ..f.........
DL:SSPB omce>
nm.cmo
....../..p. /. 81............
..........L'../ 81 10 1g/
om>
NRC FC 18 0480pACM oao OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom i i_.m.
- EETit
- 0 SUP:it.RY DIS!PIBUTE!-
eva"nf.n917ATION & SPECIAt P4ff lELis HkANLn DIISIC." 0F LICEUSING Docket File:
NSIC SSPB Reading H. Denton E. Case D. Eisenhut R. Purple R. Tedesco G. Lainas J. Roe
^
G. Zech-J. Hel temes S. Varga T. Ippolito R. Clark R. Reid B. Youngblood A. Schwencer F. Miraglia E. Adensam D. Crutchfield OELD IAE (3)
ACRS (16)
PPAS B. Grimes H. Collins F. Pagano S.-Ramos J. Krammer l
D. Vassallo P. Collins r
l D. Ziemann-l N. Hughes 1
t R. Bosnak H. Brammer D. Terao r
l.
l L.
I p2 MGo 8
'g, UNITED STATES
["'
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
/
OCT 5 1981 Docket No. : 50-461/462 MEMORANDUM FOR:
J. R. Miller, Chief Standardization & Special Projects Branch Division of Licensing FROM:
J. H. Williams, Project Manager Standardization & Special Projects Branch Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING WITH APPLICANT ON SEPTEMBER 24, 1981 The applicant met with R. H. Vollmer to discuss the resolution of the seismic questions.
(See Attachment A for the IPC handout).
The attendees are listed in Attachment B.
IPC's problem centered around three issues:
1.
Deconvolution 2.
Soil property variation 3.
Soil spring vs finite element method and the schedule for SER preparations.
IPC would like to resolve the Clinton seismic questions by:
A.
Determining a Clinton site specific spectra for M =5.3+0.5 g
adjusted to the effects of a large distant earthquake, B.
Studies to show that the seismic hazard at Clinton is similar to that in other areas in the central stable region.
C.
Performing soil spring soil structure analysis including the embedment effects and the associated wave scattering and ground motion modulation effects using the three step solution to the soil spring soiI structure interaction analysis by methods developed by Dr. Luco.
Af ter hearing their case and indicating that some of the NRC staff was not available to consider parts A & B because of the unexpected nature of meeting, Mr. Vollmer suggested the applicant meet with SEB personnel and he would get back to them on the following Monday, to indicate the staff position. He
. assured the applicant that NRC would use all possible efforts to solve the problem and meet the SER dates.
L
OCT 5 1981 J. R. Miller
_2 A second meeting between the applicant and SEB staff members followed. An attendance list is shown in Attachment B.
After some discussion on the basis for using Dr. Luco's method it was decided that if the method could J
be explained satisfactorily and NRC staff concerns are answered, then the staff will accept its use. Also IPC should compare the Luco results with several simple solution ses. SEB will develop a 1 st of questions for the applicant to answer about Luco's method. The applicant will have Dr. Luco come to Bethesda to address tne staff concerns. A meeting date '
around October 6th was planned. The meeting will be arranged through the Project Manager.
cp'1UW Q.H. Williams,ProjectManager Standardization & Special Projects Branch Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As Stated cc: See next page 7
r4
-r---
y
,._ww.,,,
,m- - -
=
C AGENDA h " INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE OF MEETIflG i
- DECONVOLUTION
'S0IL PROPERTY VARIATION
'S0ll SPRING VS FINITE ELEMEf!T METHOD 2.
HISTORY OF CLINTON SEISMIC CRITERIA 3
BACKGROUNDTOSEISMICDESIGJCRITERIA INFORMAL ASSURANCES FROM NRC 3.
IMPACT OF NEW NRC SEISMIC REQUIREMENT ON CLIllTON PROJECT I4.
COMPARISON OF CLIllT0fl S0Il SPRING AND FINITE ELEMENT RESPONSES 5.
C0flSERVATISM IN CLINTON DESIGil BASIS AflD COMPARISON TO NUREG 0098 AND !!UREG 1181 6.
RECOMMEtlDED ACTI0tlS 10 RESOLVE THE flRC STAFF CONCERflS
/
,o 9
1
f HISTORY OF CLINTON PROJECT SEISMIC DESIGN BASIS a
PSAR DOCKET OCTOBER 30, 1973 0.13G SSE IN ACCORDAflCE WITH STANDARD FORMAT AND CONTENT OF SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLAllTS AND APPENDIX A TO 10CFR100.
ALTHOUGH HISTORICAL SEISMIC ACTIVITY INDICATED -INTENSITY VII RAND 0M EARTHOUAKE, AEC WANTED TO IMPOSE INTENSITY VIII, RAND 0M EARTHQUAKE, AllD LONG DURATION LOW FREQUENCY EARTHOUAKE BY POSTULATING !!EW MADRID TYPE EARTHOUAKE 110 MILES FROM SITE.
AUGUST 16, 1974 MR. S. BURWELL OF NRC ADVISED IPC 0F ACCEPTABLE CRITERIA FOR SEISMIC LOADING:
1.
SSE ACCELERATION AT FOUNDATION LEVEL WOULD BE.25G (BASED UPON INTENSITY VIII EARTHQUAKE).
2.
A BROAD BAND SURFACE SPECTRA (R.G.1.60) SHOULD BE DECONVOLVED TO FOUNDATION LEVEL TO GET THE FOUNDATION LEVEL RESPONSE SPECTRA.
POSITI0'l WAS DOCUMENTED BY ATTACHNENT "SAB TECHNICAL POSITION:
GEOLOGY / SEISMOLOGY NO 1," WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE AEC'S SEPTEP.BER 18, 1974 LETTER TO MR. L. J. KOCH, CLINTON PROJECT SER AND PSAR DOCUMENTS AGREED UP0fl APPROACH WHICH HAS BEEN USED Ill PROJECT DESIGN. s i
e L
0
4 i'
s t,
COMPARIS0N OF CLIllTON S0IL SPRING AND FIJIITE ELEl1ENT METiiOD RESP 0llSES
' USING MEAN SOIL PROPERTIES
' NO DECONVOLUTION
' O.25 RG 1.60 RESPONSE SPECTRA l
'\\j
./
e 1
S*ECT8^
70" COMPARISOil 0F FfN AND Caf e. N r.
8.11.4-1 SARGENT& LUNDY SOIL SPRING METHOD R ev.
0 Date zcNGINEEPS C " 'C ^
X Safety-Related Non-Sefety-Related Page of Client II.LINOIS POWER COMPANY Propernd by Date Project CLINTON PO'n'ER STATION Revier.W by Date Pr;j. No.
4536 Equip. No.
Approved by Date Frepency. CP5 0
M 20 10 is il to Lo
.5 2tto 3
'i8 8 4 ' ' sa 5
3 6
- i*
2fla I
"~
CLIN'T ON ' ESIGN! AS E.S
( F E.9 )
)
- - SC IL SP RING 0, 25' EG 1. 60 ~
to _
11 0 1
i to -
to i
to to to 10 to (a
to 10 zn
)
-.m
- t3
\\
- za t3
[
s to
/-'
^
/
N r- *7 i
- tc
/
,/
\\
/
.t C
\\ s
\\\\
G
/
r i
t
' &, '.g i
\\.\\,- '.g!,
3
. /
,4 f
b
.4 5
/
- 3
/
'3 1
,-M f
,.I
.0
...D
.I
=
=
.le
.C
~
~
es
=
.D
,3 i 1 I I f f 4_*
I t
f 1
1 f f I f f ? t t I f I I i ff f
f I
t t
t t
t I t t *f f g
_g
.cf
.o1
.os
.os
.06
.ns
.n
.2
.3
.s
.5
.s.
.o to ts to Peraus, Sec.
exclTATION HORIZOMIAL X LOC ATION :
BASEMAT DAMPING 0.01 c ercra A No.
s te v4 Tion :
710'-0" BPD
~
8 "E c "^
Fo" COMPARISON OF FEM AND*~
Cale. N r.
3.11.4-1 SA!13EilT4 LUtlDY SDIL SPRING METHOD Rev. 0 Dete
'E NGINEEets C"C^*
X Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Ps9e of Clhnt ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY Prepared by Date Prject CL157ON POWER STATION Reviewed by Date Proi. No.
4536 Equip. No.
Approvsd by Date Frequency. CP5 O
31 29 10 10 13 10 10
.5 Z10 _'
' se' i
i i
i<i' ii>>
s a i a i sai i
a i
240
'1" CLIN TON DESIGN BASI 3 PEM
-SOIL SPR NC 0.' 5-PC 1.60
-'~
c.
m.
LO 40 to te to
' is 40 to lo
~
10 10 to E
k.
5 t,
J m
t, i
/
"R
~
Lo 7
/
\\
v 'e. m" s
- Lc
/
f
\\
', 1
,{
?
/
\\ /
g
?
/
/
\\ % -
?
.6
' T '\\ -.6
.E-si 3
r 1 \\
3s f
~
~
L. -gT
)
y x
3 j
.2
-_.2
.ts
. t>
.o
-.ic
.o 2
c
~
~
.os "p
1 f f f f f ff f
f f
f f
f f f f f f ff f f I f f f f f f
f f
f f
f f
f f f I f ' !
C
.43
.00
.05
.06
.08 '
.I
.15
.2
.3 4
.5
.6
.8 LO LS 10 SACRIFICIAL SHIELD
'*C ^ 7 ' ".
PEDESTAL' RPV EASE cxcerArno" HORIZONTAL X' DAMPING 0.01 c erevna no E L E VATt oN l 742'-8" BPD
[
sercTn4 roa LOMPARISON OF FEM'AND ^
Csic No.
8.11.4-1 SARGENT" LUNDY SOIL SPRING ME7 HOD R ev.
0 Date
' ENGINEERS C~C^"
X Safety-Related Non-Safety-Ratated Page of Ctent Ir.LINOIS POWER COMPANY Prepared by Date Project CLINTON POWER STATION Reviewed by Date Proj. No.
4536 Equip. No.
Approved by Date Fregwancy. CPS C
D M
4 in 13 to Lo
.5 JEs
'i8 '
i s
ii e ia i
'sai i
e a
2to CLI. TON DES IG:l Er iS (FEM)
-d SO LL SRIt G0.25g EG 1.60 to tas
- as '
to q
4 so L3 it
' is
~
to (o
to in to I
7 ts L.
2
.M
- \\
2 t3 j
\\
t,
/
y to
/
/
F N
v_
u
- e s
) /
/
\\
/
.\\
E
- 4. '
\\
/
/
\\\\
--,{
//
\\h 1'5 g
. /
'. \\.r i n
i
=
7 61,
g g
Asi y
'a
/
r w
f.
J
-~
3
.s
.2
.2
~
.15
[D
.c
-.:n
~
.O
,3
.O
'.e iit t t *tt t
t t
t t
t t t t t t t i i a t i e et t t
t t
t t
t iif f
'f g,
g
.tt
.os
.os
.os
.os
.co '
.1
.13
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.a to t>
to rwise. sa.
^#'
ex C Q TATION HORIZONTAL X DAMPING 0.01 cere na uo.
an.sv4 Tion: 7 6 2 '-0
BPD
AREAS OF CONSERVATISM IN CLINTON SEISMIC DESIGN ESTIMATED DESCRIPTION MARGINS _
A. CONSERVATIVE SELECTION OF GROUND ACCELERATION 30%-50%
AND THE USE OF 1.60 i
B. NEGLECTING THE Ef1BEDMENT EFFECTS FOR SOIL j
SPRING SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS C. USE OF THREE EQUAL EARTHQUAKE COMPONENTS 5%-20%
D. USE OF SYNTHETIC TIME HISTORY WHICH ENVELOPES 5%-20%
THE DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRA E. NOT TAKItJO CREDIT FOR WAVE PASSAGE EFFECTS 5%-25%
F. USE OF L0 LIER THAN AVERAGE DAMPING VALUES 10%-20%
G. METHOD FOR COMBINATION OF CLOSELY SPACED 0%-10%
MODES H. NOT TAKING CREDIT FOR REDUCTION IN RESPONSE 20%-50%
DUE TO INELASTIC' RESPONSE I. WIDENING OF FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA PEAKS I/
l t15%
l l
J. NO CREDIT TAKEN FOR REDUCTION IN RESPONSE IF A TIME HISTORY METHOD FOR PIPING ANALYSIS 10%-20%
~
IS USED K. USE OF ENVELOPE RESPONSE SPECTRA TO ANALYZE 10%-20%
PIPING AND TESTING EQUIPMENT' 1
ESTIMATED DESCRIPTION MARGINS L. USE OF MINIt1UM SPECIFIED AND NOT THE ACTUAL MEASURED STRENGTH IN DESIGN M. USE OF A HIGH OBE LEVEL WHICH RESULTS IN 0%-20%
OBE AND NOT THE SSE GOVERNING THE DESIGN N. CONSERVATIVE CODE ALLOWABLE STRESSES 30%-50%
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE CLINTON STRUCTURES AllD COMP 0flENTS ARE DESIGilED FOR TWO TO FIVE TIMES THE RESP 0flSE NHICH IS LIKELY TO BE EXPECTED DURING THE MAXIMUM CREDIBLE EARTHQUAKE AT THE CLINTON SITE.
IN NUREG/CR 0098 DEVELOPMENT OF CRITERIA FOR SEISMIC REVIEW OF
(.
SELECTED NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AND IN NUREG/CR 1181 REC 0fiME REVISIONS TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA, THE NRC STAFF AND THEIR CONSULTAllTS HAVE RECOGNIZED MANY OF THESE CONSERVATISM AND hs"id RECOMMENDED REDUCING THEM.
~
COMPARISud 0F CLINTON DESIGN CRITERIA TO SEP PLANT REEVALUATION CRITERIA AND RECOMt1 ENDED REVISIONS TO NRC SEISMIC CRITERIA fR T Cb!kkkIbbkf"k!fA DESCRIPTIGN CLiNTON DESIGN NUREG/CR 0098 NUREG/CR 1181 NO A.
SITE SPECIFIC SPECTRA 0.25G RG 1.60 YES YES B.
REDUCTION IN G VALUE WITH DEPTH C.
USE OF THREE EQUAL VERTICAL VERTICAL YES COMPONENTS 2/3 0F HORIZONTAL 2/3 OF HORIZONTAL D.
USE OF SYNTHETIC TIME REAL TIME HIS-REAL TIME HISTORIES HISTORY TORIES PREFERRED PREFERRED f
E.
WAVE PASSAGE EFFECTS NO YES YES
'F.
USE OF AVERAGE DAMPING LOWER -fALUES YES YES VALUES USED H.
LIMITED INELASTIC RESPONSES e
1 WE BELIEVE THAT A REDUCTI0tl IN THE LEVEL OF C0tlSERVATISM FOR ALL OF THE AB0VE ITEMS IS JUSTIFIED FOR THE CLINTON PROJECT,
.HOWEVER, IN PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS WITH THE STAFF Oil 0THER PROJECTS THE STAFF HAS TAKEN THE POSITI0tl THAT THEY WILL fl0T l
ALLOW ANY REDUCTION IN THE CONSEfNATISM It!HERENT IN ITEMS C, E, F AND H.
i WE BELIEVE THAT THE CLINT0fl SEISMIC QUESTI0tlS CAN BE RESOLVED BY-j A.
DETERMINING A CLINT0fl SITE SPECIFIC SPECTRA FOR MB=
5.3 0.5 ADJUSTED TO THE EFFECTS OF A LARGE DISTANT EARTHOUAKE, B.
STUDIES TO SHOW THAT THE SEISMIC HAZARD AT CLINTON IS SIMILAR TO THAT IN OTHER AREAS IN THE CENTRAL STABLE REGION.
C.
PERFORMING S0IL SPRING S0IL STRUCTURE AllALYSIS INCLUDING THE EMBEDMEllT EFFECTS At!D THE ASSOCIATED WAVE SCATTERING At!D GROUND MOTI0tl MODULATI0tl EFFECTS USING THE THREE STEP SOLUTI0tl TO THE S0IL SPRING S0IL STRUCTURE IllTERACTION AtlALYSIS BY METHODS DEVELOPED BY DR
- LUCO,
1 MEETING WITH CLINTON NAME ORGANIZATION J
williams NRC/DL
.i. Vollmer (1)
NRC/DE
- n. Gerir Illinois Power Co.
A. K. Singh S&L R. A. Witt S&L K. T. Kosiac S&L G. E. Heim Harding-Lawson Assoc.
J. P. Singh Harding-Lawson Assoc.
T. Udaka Earthquake Engineering Technology R. C. Heider S&L J. P. Knight (1)
NRC/DE F. P. Schauer (1)
HRC/SEB J. K. Shaukat (2)
NRC/DE/SEB N. C. Chokshi (2)
NRC/DE/SEB R. E. Lipinski (2)
NRC/DE/SEB D. Jeng (2)
NRC/DE/SEB L. Yang (2)
NRC/DE/SEB (1) Attended only first meeting (2) Attended only second meeting i
l
_ __ _ _ _ j