ML20106C908
| ML20106C908 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1992 |
| From: | Smith N SEISMIC QUALIFICATION UTILITY GROUP |
| To: | Partlow J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20106C859 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-46, REF-GTECI-SC, TASK-A-46, TASK-OR GL-87-02, GL-87-2, NUDOCS 9210060417 | |
| Download: ML20106C908 (27) | |
Text
t ATTACHMENT A g
- p...,
'm 1
1 ammm 6
1 mh>
iW
! '..: v E
"~
' r.u..:.A.f. 2:.... -.
Rg6 LGE August 21. :992 James G. Panlow Of5:e of Nuc' ear Reactor Replation U.S. Nue!:m Regulaterv Co:=ission Washington. D.C. 20f 55 S ub.te:t:
SOUG Response to Generic Letter 87 02. Supplement 1 and Supplemental Saferv Evaluation Report No. 2 on the SOUG GIP
Dear Mr. Panlow:
The Seismic Qual!5 cation Utuiry Group acknowledges receipt of Supplement 1 to Genenc Letter 87 02 and Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report No. 2 ("SSER 2") on our Gener:c Implementation Procedure (GIP) For Seismic Verification of Nuclear P! ant Equ:pmem. Rensica 2. corrected 2/11/92. We appreciate the Staff's extensive effen and cooperanen, without which th:s generic resolution of Unresolved Safety Issue A-46 would not hase been possi.e.
SQL, has advised its nember utilities that a plant speci5c response to "
<-2is required by September 21,1992. and has encouraged them to adopt the. wmmitmems and guidelines in the GIP as supplemented by the explanations. clari5 cations and interpretations in SSER-2 and this letter with minimal exceptions.
Ahhough SOUG accepts SSER-2 as marking completion of the evaluation of the GIP.
Revision 2, and the staning point for the plant speci5c A-46 resolution process, we would like to state our understanding of some of the Staff's positions in the SSER.
First. SOUG understands the Staff position that the GIP is not currently recognized as constituting an equipment seismic quali5 cation methodology. In that NRC regulations do not require " seismic quali5 cation," however, the Staff was able to conclude that implementation of the GIP satis 5es NRC regulations relevant to equipment seismic adequacy. SQUG interprets SSER 2 as recogninng that, for A-46 plants, the GIP methodology is an acceptable engineering method to insure that required safety functions are maintained during and after a Safe Shutdown Earthquake, consistent with 10 C.F.R. Part 100.
9210060417 920921 PDR ADOCK 05000266 Ab.b,
3-p PDR
Mr. James G. Partlow August 21.1992 Second, we understand that the scope of the Staff's evaluation of the adequacy of selected licensees' in structure response spectra ("lSRS")is limited to the A 46 program.
SQl'G acknowledges that,in light of discussions with the Staff, any evaluations of the adequacy of the ISRS will be conEned to the context of USI A-4 If evaluations of plant ISRS result in the Staff rejecting the spectra for A-46 prograin purposes, or if Staff actions significantly increase the cost of a licensee's A 46 program, SQUG expects the Staff to comply with pertinent backfit requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.109.
Third. with regard to the scheduling considerations for licensees submitting ISRS inicr7 nation :o the Staff under SSER-2, Seenon 11.4.2.3, we understand numbered paragraphs (1) and O to mean that a licensee should await written Staff approval pnct to ecmmencing implementation. If the Staff dces not respond by accepting. cuestion ng.
or re;ecung the spectra withm sim days the Staff is dee=ed to hase acceptec the licensee's spectra and the licensee may proceed with implementation. If a rejection or quest;cn is received from the Staff, the licensee will provide additional information to the Stati to resolve the problem. If the Staff takes no action on this new information within six v days, the Staff is deemed to have accepted the licensee's resolution and the licensee may proceed with implementrrion. When the Staff is deemed to have accepted a licensee position by inaction for sixty days, as noted above, any subsequent Staff action to, reject the licensee's position will be considered a changed staff position requiring 10 C.F.R. s 50.109 consideranons.
Fcunh. with regard to the Staff's position on operator training as discussed in SSER 2.
Scenen 11.3. "Evaluatica and Conclusion." numbered paragraph 2 and the statement that
"{t]he compatibility cf these procedures with the USI A-46 safe shutdown equipment :ist shouid be sen5ed.. and the results included in the operator training program." SQUG understands that appropriate changes to operator training will be made only if licensees finc tha' changes to the plant operating procedures are necessary to achieve compatibility with the Safe Shutdowm Equipment List. Traming will be modified only to the extent needed to fandliarize operators with these procedure changes.
Fifth. SQUG notes that SSER-2. Section 11.4.4.9, was modiEed by the Staff, and ditfers considerably from the March 13.1992, draft version of SSER 2, which was the subject of 7
discussion between SQUG and the Staff. - Speci5cally, the final version of SSER-2 suggests that licensees consider concrete crushing strain, determination of the overturning axis, and the applicability of the rigid base plate assumption when using the ANCHOR and EBAC codes. Concrete crushing has been shown by extensive experience data to not be a concern for A-46 equipment. The only plausible situation for actual concrete crushing might be for unconfined concrete pedestals and footings. For those situations.
SQUG will agree to consider concrete crushing.
When using the EBAC code, it is understood that the overturning axis location should be evaluated in the Seld by Seismic Capability Engineers. These types of evaluations are covered in the SOUG traming program and are within the capability of their engineering
t Mr. James G. Partlow August 21,1992 judgement; therefore SQUG believes that these considerations are adequately covered m the GIP.
With regard to the ANCHOR code, SSER 2 incorrectly states that a rigid base plate assumption is used in the analysis, in fact, ANCHOR uses ultimate strength design principles to establish the location of the neutral axis and to determine the capaciy of the anchorage: the Denbility of the equipment and its base plate do not have any influence on the anchorage capacity values calculated using this method.
Sixth, with regard to exchanging GIP-implementation information among the SQUd member utilities. SCUG com=ts to facilitate a transfer of knowledge regardinc mQor problems identified. and lessons ' earned, in the USI A 46 plant waldowns and third-paq reviews. This transfer wdl consist of periodic written communications to alj member utilities and. as needed, periodic workshops.
As a final note. SQUG has identified a process for long-term maintenance of the GIP for appii:stiens beyond the A-46 resolution. The procedure for updatmg the GIP in accordance with SSER-2 is attached.
Sincerely, k, $. ?. S w b m.i c w
Neil P. Smith Chairman Seismic Qualificanon Utility Group Enclosure cc:
P. Sears, NRC J. Richardson. NRC J. Norberg, h7C (6 copies)
B. D. Liaw, NRC P. Y. Chen, h7C G. Bagchi, hTC W. Russell, hTC J. Conran, NRC E. Igni, ACRS (3 copies)
W. Rasin, NUMARC R. Kassawara, EPRI R. Schaffstall, EPR]
SQUG Member Utilities
EihisQUGlv.#
g
=
Attachment to SQUG 1.ctter Dated August 21,1992 PROCEDURE FOR REVISING THE GIP INTRODUCTION The purpose of this procedure is to provide a framework for resiewinE and evaluating new information and data on seismic ruggedness of equipment, and for implementing necessary changes to the criteria and guidelines contained in the Generic Implementation Procedures (GIP) for Seismic Verification of Nuclear Plant Equipment.
Changes to the GIP are anticipated for several reasons. First, since the GIP is based on experience data from past earthquakes and testing, it is pos!,ible that hew areas of concern or vulnerability may become evident from new earthquakes and tests. Also,it is likely that new information could be used to expand the coverage of the GIP and possibly refine or eliminate certain restrictions. Changes to the GIP are also anticipated from practical experience gained while applying the criteria and guidelines during implementation of the USI A.46 program. These type of changes would include clarifications and corrections of typographical errors. It is also planned that the GIP will be resised to reflect NRC positions contained in the SSER #2 which are different than the current version.
PROCEDURE The main elements of this procedure for revising the GIP are summarized below. This approach is similar to that used by SOUG/EPRI to develop the GIP. Specifically, a SOUG/EPRI oversight panel will supervise the review and evaluation of available information and data which becomes available, an independent peer review panel will review and comment on substantive GIP changes, and the NRC Staff will review and approve GIP changes before use by the utilities. The details of each of these activities are desetibed below.
t 1
~
1.
SOUGIPRI Oversight and Sucenision. SOUG/EPRI will provide the oversight and supervision of the overall process of selecting, reviewing, and evaluating available information on seismic ruggedness of equipment covered by the GIP and, based on this new information, deseloping changes to the GIP when they are considered necessary. The SQUG Steering Group will exercise this responsibility for SQUG/EPRI during the A-46 implementation. Contractors, under the direction of the Steering Group, may be used to perform most of the work described in item 2 below.
2.
Review and Evaluation of New Information. Several sources of information will be used to obtain new information which may be of use in revising the GIP.
These sources will include additional experience gained from earthquakes investigated by EPRI, shake table and other relevant test data furnished by utilities and vendors, lessons learned by SQ11G utilities during implementation of USI A-46, and other publicly available sor es (e.g., LERs, I&E Bulletins, etc.).
Incidences of seismic damage will be evaluated to the extent necessary to cetermine whether changes to the GIP are necessary. New information may e!so be used to expand the coverage of the GIP and to revise, add or eliminate certain restrictions. Based on these evaluations, proposed revisions to the GIP will be developed for review and approval by the SQUG Steering Group.
3.
Peer Resiew Paneh Substantive changes to the technical requirements of the GIP and the reference material supporting these changes will be sent to the Peer Review Panel and the NRC Staff. The Peer Review Fanel will review the reference material and the proposed GIP revision. The conclusions and recommendations from the Peer Review Panel will be communicated to both SQUG/EPRI and the NRC. This may be by written comments and/or by oral presentations at meetings. The Peer Review Panel will be composed of seismic experts selected by mutual agreement between SOUG/EPRI and the NRC.
Additional individuals may also be selected, on an as neMed basis, to provide specific expertise during review of certain topics.
4.
Finalization of GIP Chances. SQUG/EPRI will consider the recommendations from the Peer Review Panel and will develop a final draft of the GIP changes.
Theu will be submitted to the full SQUG membership for review and comment.
After the membership comments have been considered and incorporated into the GIP, a final version of the GIP revision will be prepared for submittal to the NRC (see item 5 below).
2 i
1
5.
MK Renew and Appuval. The NRC Staff will review and either approve or reject changes to the GlP submitted by SOUG/EPRI. All GIP changes shall be regarded as accepted by the Staff upon receipt of a letter to this effect from the Staff, or if the Staff does not reject the changes or request aditionalinformation in wnting within sixty days, the Staff is deemed to have accepted the GIP changes and the A 46 licensees may proceed with implementation. If a rejection or request for information is received from the Staff, SQUG/EPRI may provide cdditionalinformation to the Staff to resolve the problem. If the Staff takes no action on this new information within sixty days, the Staff is deemed to have accepted SOUG/EPRI's resolution and the A C licensees may proceed with implementatior of the change. When the Staff is deemed to have accepted a GlP change by inaction for sixty days as noted above, any subsequent Staff action to reject the GlP change will be considered a change in staff positien requinng 10 C.F.R. F 50.109 considerations.
n T. PES OF GIP CllANGES AND REVIDVS There are several types of changes to the GIP which are expected. The level of review gnen to these changes is different depending on the nature of the changes. The types of changes which might be made to the GIP along with the reviews to be performed, are aesmbed below and summarized in Table 1. All revisions will be identified by marginar notation or other means (e.g., strike outs, highlighting, etc.).
1.
Ivpotraphical Change 1. These include revisions to cortect typographical errors, and omissions and other minor changes which do not affect the meaning or intent of the GIP, e.g., incorrect spelling, format changes, inconsistent nomeniture, errors in copy'ng text or data from reference reports, etc. These types of changes wih not be re tiewed by be Peer Review Panel but will be sent directly to the NRC for resiew and approval.
2 Editorial Chances. Editorial changes include clarifications of ambiguous criteria
.d guidelines as well as additions to the GlP which. pin generally understood, g
but not explicitly stated aspects of the program. Tht e types of changes will not be renewed by the peer review panel before sending them to the NRC for review and approval.
3.
NRC Positions and Changes to Licensing Recuirements. The NRC staff has taken some positions in the SSER #2 which (1) are in conflict with the GIP, (2) expand, clarify, or emphasize topics already in the GIP, or (3) add new featurrs or elements not in the GIP. In addition, the Staff may also cheese to take positions on certain topics during implementation of USI A 46. '"hese ;taff positions and any changes to licensing critt.
may be incorporated into the GIP to simplify utility implementation of tt
! A-46 progam. A peer review of these changes is not necessary; however the,e y of GIP changes will be nibmitted for NRC review and approval.
t 3
4 4
4 a
Additi.nal Restnctions. New information may become available which shows that costmg GlP cntena and guidelities may be unconservatise. For example, new test or experience data might show the need for additional or more restrictise cascats on a class of equipment. These types of GIP changes will receive a peer resiew before being seat 'o the NRC for formal resiew and approval, and will receise expedited processing.
5.
Other Technical Changes and Additions. New information or experience may become available which shows that certain technical criteria and guit:elines in the GlP are overly conservative or unnecessary and the.cfore may be removed or modified. Likevise, new information may show that the scope of the GIP can be ecended in certain areas. These types of changes would receive a peer resiew before being sent to the NRC for review and approval.
Table 1 Types of GIP Changes and Reviews to be Performed Type of GIP Change SQl:G/EPRI Review Peer Review and NRC Review
=
and Approval Comment and Apprmal
- 1. hpographical x
x
- Editorial x
x 3 NRC Posi@ns and x
x Licensing Requirernents 4 Additional Restrictions x
x x
5 Other Technical x
x x
Changes and Additions m _,
4
l LICENSING CONSIDERATIONS A rension to the GIP will not apply retroactivel) to licensees committed to sn earher rension unless the licensees specifically commit to the new revision. The NRC Staff may require licensees to adopt certain safety significant changes in a rension of the GIP,if warranted under appicpnate NRC regulatory controls, e g.,10 CT.R.
50.109.
Unless the Staff requires licensees to adopt a ch. nge in a GIP revhion as discussed abose, bcensees have the opion of committing to the new revision (fo!!owing appropriate in house procedures and using the Staff letter or the Staff's lack of resoonse to the new rension within sixty days, as justification for the general acceptability of the change). If the commitment results in s modification of the licensing bases, licensees wul be required to follow the provisions of 10 C.F.R. t 50.59, where appropriate.
r This procedure for revising the GlP does not apply to plant specific exceptions to the GIP which individuallicensees may implement for internal use. Unless the change is adopted by SQUG under this procedure,it is considered to be a modification of a plant commitment, not a change to the GIP.
d-(
5-l J
I ATTACHMENT B DEVELQWART_RE lEETRUCT_UAE_RESfRRSX_SPECTEA EORlD.UiT_BEACILRCLEAR_EllRT MATHEMNELCAh3 0E L For the design of Seismic Class 1 structures a five step seismic analysis was performed.
The five steps are 1) formulation of a mathematical model, 2) determination of natural frequencies and mode shapes, 3) selection of appropriate damping values,
- 4) description of the appropriate input earthquake, and
- 5) determination of the struct'iral response to the earthquake.
Point Beach is made up of the following Seismic Class 1 structures:
1.
Containment Structure and Internals 2.
Auxiliary Building Central Part 1
3.
Auxiliary Building North and South Wings 4.
Control Building 5.
Pipoway #1 6.
Pipeways #2 & #3 7.
Pipeway #4 8.
Fuel Oil Pump House 9.
Service Water Pump House
- 10. Spent Fuel Pool
- 11. Drum '..g Station Safe shutdown equipment is located in stractures 1 through 9 listed above.
The structural response was determined f or structures 1 through b listed above.
The Service Water Pump House was considered a low-rise, rigid structure, therefore, the design used the Housner horizontal peak ground acceleration as the design input acceleration.
The mathematical model of the structures were constructed in tems of lumped masses and stiffness coefficients.
At appropriate locations within the buildings, points were chosen to lump the weights of the structure.
Between these location' properties were calculated for moments of inertia, cross sectional areas, effective shear areas and lengths of interior and exterior walls.
Figures B.2 through B 5 show the models generated for the Containment Structure and Internals, the Auxiliary Building Central part, and the Cor. trol Building which are the structures where the majority of the safe shutdown equipment is located.
The mathematical models for the other structures of concern are similar to these.
The properties of the model were utilized in an IBM computer program, STRESS, along Page B-1 m.............
+
with unit loads to obtain the flexibility coefficients of the building at the mass locations.
I!UILDIRG._EATUFAL _FRE2]EliCIES AND DAMElEG NALUES The natural frequencies and mode shapes of the structures were i
obtained by a Bechtel computer program, CE617.
This program utilized the flexibility coefficients and lumped weights of the model.
The flexibility coefficients were formulat_d into a i
natrix and inverted to form a stif f ness matrix.
The program then used the technique of diagonalization by successive rotations to obtain the natural frequencies and mode shapes.
The mode shapes and natural frequencies were determined for the structures in both the north-south and east weet directions.
In the original design of Point Beach, Bechtel determined that j
the first and second modes were the predominant modes of vibration.
Table B.1 provides the natural frequency associated with the first and second modes for the seismic Class 1 structures ci concern.
Daeping values for the structural system were selected based upon evaluation of the matcrials and mode shapes.
Both first and second modes indicated activity mainly due to the elasticity of the underlying soil.
The first mode showed the soil to be contributing to a translating effect and only a little rocking of the building.
The second mode indicated translation, but the amount of rocking is considerably larger.
For both modes, flexure of the st ructure is considered negligible.
Due to this l
strong effect from the soil elasticity and the relatively small flexibility of the structure, no proportional combining of damping values was necessary.
The values of the dc.mping coefficients used in the analysis are presented and compared to RdGULATORY GUIDE 1.61, Rev.
O,
" Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants" values in Table B.2 BUIMLUia_RESl911aB I
In determining the response of the building to the earthquake, the response spectrum technique was utilized.
For_this technique, the earthquaka was described by a Housner spectrum response curve scaled to 0.069-f or the operating basis earthquake t
(OBE) and 0.129 for the hypothetical or safe shutdcwn earthquake (SSE).
From the curves, acceleration levels were determined as associated with the natural frequency and damping value of1each mode.
The standard spectrum response technique used these values to determine inertial. forces, shears, moments and displacements i
per mode, These results were then combined on the basis of the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) to obtain the-structural response.
The structures were analyzed for earthquake-i Page B - 2 l
i
... - - ~ ~. - - - -. - - - - ~., - -,
m-,,..
,_---.,,.,,,_....-e--,.-_--
.,m,7,
..,,,mm-m,,-v.,----nm.-.
e motion in both the north south and east-west directions acting non concurrently, The process was accomplished by a Bechtel computer pIcgram CE 641,
- Earthquake Spectrum Response Analysis of Structures. "
i r
SOlL STRUCTURE INTERACTION The type of soil / structure interaction used for Point Beach was t
based on a rigid foundation mat situated on an elastic half-space (the ground).
In this representation, the soil properties were modelled using soil springs as shown in Figures B.3 through B.5.
For buildings other than the Containment, the vertical spring constant is given by the formula:
E x.B x So 1 - p' and the hori?ontal spring constant by the formula:
K = E x S, j BxL where B,
L=
foundation plan dimensions and B is the g
dimension perpendicular to the direction of analysis.
E = dynamic modulus of elasticity of the soil.
y - Poission's ratio of the soil.
- o, S,
= constants.
The rocking stiffness of the structures is accounted for by placing two vertical springs at the edges of the foundation.-
For the containment, which is supported on piles, spring constants were developed for the piles using the properties of the piles.
Table B.3 provides a breakdown of the soil spring constants used.
EOUIPMENT IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA Hori ontal response spectra curves for equipment inside the buildings were generated by the time history technique of seismic analysis. The' sample earthquake utilized is. hat recorded at Olympia, Washington, N00E, April:13, 1949.
The in-structure response-spectra -(ISRS) curves were generated by applying the' Olympia earthquake acceleration time history, normalized to 0.06g horizontal peak ground acceleration, at the base of each building model.
Time histories were then developed for each' elevation (lumped mass node) in the building model.
These time histories Page B - 3
= - - - - -
4 s
j t
were then applied at each elevation of the applicable structure to a single degree of freedom system, for which values for damping and-natural frequency were varied.
The ISPS were generated with respect to the OBE value of 0.06g.
The acceleration values of the curve are increased by a f actor of 2.0 for seismic analyses of equipment with respect to the SSE.
At the high frequen y end of the curves, the acceleration levels converge to the value of the peak acceleration of the time history at the location inside the building.
The response spectra curves were smoothed to eliminate the erratic response of the earthquake's random behavior, and the peaks of the response spectra curves were widened to account for inaccuracies in values of the properties for the building, soils and calculation.
The results of the structural analysis showed that the structure response was very similar in both north south and east-west directions.
Therefore, horicontal ISRS were generated for one horizontal direction and considered applicable for seismic analysis in either the north-south and east-west direction.
The original design basis ISRS were generated by Bechtel for the initial plant design.
Table B.4 provides a breakdown of the original ISRS developed for Seismic Class 1 structures at PBNP.
During the review of masonry walls for NRC IE Bulletin Pa. 80-11, additional ISRS were developed for the Auxiliary Building and the Control Building for other damping values.
These spectra, scaled to the 0.12g SSE, were generated at it, 2%, 4%, 5% and 7% damping by Computech Engineering Services Inc.
Wisconsin Electric's resolution of the IE Bulletin No. 80-11, which utilized the ISRS developed by Computech, was reviewed and approved by the NkC in NRC Safety Evaluation Report (SER) dated May 11, 1982.
At a later date, additional ISRS curves at higher damping values were generated for other S21smic Class 1_ structures.
Spectra for the Containment Structure, Containment Internals, and Pipeways were developed at 1%, 2%, 4%, 5%, and 7% damping, scaled to the 0.06g OBE.
The curves were developed by Impell Corporation using their computer code, FLORA.
FLORA used random vibration thaory to generate respense spectra directly from the original design 0.5% damped respotse spectra developed by Bechtel.
Table B.4 clso provides a br 3akdown of the f ollow-on in-structure' response spectra developed for Point Beach.
To facilitate the use of the ISRS for Point Beach, the ISRS developed by Com' utech and Impell, were consolidated into a single format b' Sargent & Lundy Corporation. _The curves were peak broadened oy i 15% and the Computech ISRS curves.were scaled down to the 0.J69 OBE.
Figures B 6 through B.8 provide sample 5%
damped horicoatal ISRS for the Containment Internals, the Auxiliary DL11 ding Central Part, and the Control Building.
Table B.r provides peak horicontal in-structure acceleration values at 2mportant equipment locations for the SSE.
Page B - 4
.___._.._____.a______,-________.____.._.,_...-_,._
...... ~
.---.---,e
\\
l i
I 1
REITREtLWS:
1.
Bechtel Corporation, Civil Engineering Dapartment, Power and i
Industrial Division, " Seismic Analysis Report, Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 & 2, Reactor Building wit h Concrete Internaln", March 1970.
i 2.
Bechtel Corporation, Civil Engineering Department, Power and
}
Industrial Division, " Seismic Analysis Report, Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unita 1 &
2",
June 6, 1969.
1.
Computech Engineering Servicen (CES) Inc., Point Beach Project No. 541, Point Beach Nuclear Plant Control Building and Auxiliary Building In-Structure Response Spectra.
4.
Impell Corporation, " Floor Response Spectra Generation for Higher Damping Values", WEPCo P.O.
C443378-5, Impell Job No..
0870-009-1453, Revision 0, May 1988.
4
-i 5.
John A.
Blume and Aurociates, Engineers, " Proposed Nuclear Power Station Recommended Earthquake Criteria", May 1966.
6.
Sargent & Lundy, " Response Spectrum Curves for Point Beach Plant, ReviHion 0",
Project No. 89924 01,-August 3, 1992.
I i
l I
I Page B-5 i
.. _.,,... _,,. ~. _,..,
__.~,,,_...,_.....c,,.....
..,, _ -. ~,... _.,.,,
_... _.. ~ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ _. _ _
,.-_....-__._._.._.._._._m.
l e
o v
i TABLE B.1 l
STRUCTURE DYNAMIC MODELING 1
MODE SHAPES AND NATURAL FREOUENCIES NATURAL MODE FREQUENCY j
f;.TRUCTUR E SHAPE (Hz) r Containment Structure 1
1.C and Internals 2
4.1 Auxiliary Building 1
1.9 Central Part 2
9.3 Auxiliary Building i
1.9 North & South Wings 2
6.1 Control' Building 1
2.5 2
6.4 Pipeway #1 1
6.6 2
20.2 Pipeways 112 & #3 1
3.0 2
6.9 Pipeway #4 1
5.4 2
'18.3 Fuel Oil Pump House 1
4.5 2
7.4 i
e Page B-6
-s..
a.
. -. ~.
. - -.. ~. -.~ - _._ - - -
s TABLE B.2 EJRiP STRUCTLUl&L DESIGli DAMPING COEFFICIENTS Ilypothetical Ea rtilguake (SSE)
EEiE RG 1.61 Welded-Steel Plate Assemblies 2%
4%
i Welded Steel Framed Structures 2%
4%
Bolted Steel Framed Structures 5%
7%
l Interior Concrete Equipment 2%
Supports Reinforced Con <~ ate Structures 7.5%
7%
on Soil Prestressed Concrete Containment 5%
5%
Structure-on Piles Vital Piping Systems
.5%
2%
<12 in, diameter i
e S
s L
Page B
')
mm'-
m-
.-E.t e
w-.--,
s
,e--c.,,
m.
.+.ri.r-.,.e,,a,,
w g
,,w.-
e,-
w
,,,. -. r p
y er r-
? b lt
&I5I
<;i!
eI it i{![liltlhl't[bt l;Ijtj\\:i[:;
s
)
i
)
.l t
lE n
E a
t 0
s 51 n
o c
T
( (
S g
E 3
4 5
6 1
8 84 n
W 3
5 3
5 5
22 i
2 r
LT 3
1 1
1 0
0 00 p
A S S
T A N E O
Z H E
I T S
R U O O W
4 HS 3
7 9
1 7
74 N
5 3
5 3
5 5
22 H
s 0
N T
3 1
1 0
2 0
00 i
O R
I O
3 T
N S
A yy TN T
la N
nw N A T
E oe O T N )t I
p I
S T
A R
ti C N T
O nP f
O
/
A S
a R C s
N G
tf p
E O
N T
so G
i T
C I
S n
8 N N k
3 R
E oe I
I G
P W
5 7
6 5
6 8
3 cd 5
B R
N 0 E
2 8
0 8
4 5
2 un P
E I
1 T
gto B
E S
L R
R L S 5
0 1
0 0
0 0
nii U
P x A A i gt e
E B
T S(
C E rnc g
A C R poe a
I T
U U T T H sLr P
R C R T i
T E U W
d U
4 G
VO 5
2 4
8 2
6 W
RT S
2 3
0 2
3 3
1 ESe i
L
- s S
0 I
H 5
1 1
0 2
O 0
eEr O
T dNe L
S R
i v
I O
vss O
N ein S
r a
p2 r t
sy nae owh iet tp ain lPi u.
cfs e
loi r
a s
u s
e c'e y t
g gg s
dl c
n nn u
lua u
i ii g
3 o
etn r
d dW n
H tia t
l l
i hg' Ss i
ih d
p cnr l
ut ut l
m eoo ta Br Bu i
2 u
BLf nn
.a o
u 1
4 P
. er yP yS B
me r
r s
l 12 nt al a&. l y
y y i i n i a i
o
.a a
a O
aI lr lh' r
w w
w s
t i t it t
e e
e l
e n d' xn xr n
p p
p e
t on ue uo o
i i
i u
o Ca' AC AN C
.P P
P F
N 3l ;
Ii l
i!!!
- i l!l 1i!
liiIij:
<:;f.
1t lj 1jl l1l!ljll j
7 7
6) 5 v.
5 5
in c
4 4
9 l
2' l
6 e
2 2
r7 o
f &
r I_
1 1
(
7 7
7 5
5 5
P
)
N B
4 4
4 F
l t
h s
a-T n
c 2
2 2
A A e
e
- m c
t uT r
u 1
1 1
r N e
p c-E c
~
c 5
5 5
(
- r. P C
c I
S
- w. U E
nt O U
7I E LA c%.O V
er.
'A CN 9
rL.
^
S I
L E P
T 1
,c R
M 2
2 r-U A
l B
-n iv T D
e u
r p C t
1 1
e
,-r 1 U h
g a.
a c~ R c
T e
5 5
5 5
5 P
S B
T 1
V S
)
S t
A e
t L e
-u e C f
o vt
(
- n. C es, I N
M O
5 r.
p-S I
37 V
I T
5 5
m E A
5=50 7 Os 6 6 6 6 6 642 68 6404 nu S V
61.*71 1"z45679 8246 824 82467 E
R L
O E
F e
s r
l u
a s
t n
g gg c
r n
nn u
e i
ii g
r t
d dW n
t n
l l
i S
I i
ih d
ut ut l
t t
Br Bu i
n n
a o
u E
e e
yP yS B
R m
m r
r
- L n
n al a&
l T
i i
i a i
o C
a a
l r lh r
U t
t it it t
R n
n xn xr n
T o
o ue uo o
S C
C AC AN C
lllll l
il, I!iltI!lji1, i!!lrl;lllt1![1lIlli' Il llllil!
L
l ls:
tt!tt!I [!
Fl!>l!!
ii,!
- t
- !.
t
?>
fr i,h i>i;#[i$l 7
7 7'
5 5
5 4
4 4
l l
e 2
2 2
p m
I 1
1 1
P
)
N B
P A
t h
x T n
c A
e e
1c c
t E T r
u P N e
p S E c
m M
o
(
E P C
S I S
N U E
O O U
)
P E L
d S
A e
E D V
u E_ N R
n A
G 0
i N
t 1
R S I
n U E P
o T R M
c C U A
l B
(
U T D
e R C t
e 4
T U h
g S R c
B a
T e
5 5
5 P
5 N S B
E I
L 1
B F
A O S
}
T S
t T A e
N L e
E C f
M
(
P C O I N
L M O
5 5
23 E S I
95 7
43 5.4667 5.5 6 V I T
5..
E E A
43 55 DS V
612 61234 612 523 E
R L
O E
F esu 3'
o H
p m
2 u
1 4
P E
R s
U y
y y
. l i
T a
a a
O C
w w
w U
e e
e l
R p
p p
e T
i i
i u
S P
P P
F il
.)
,i3
,iI l
'. j j
- i,.
11 ii
o FIGURE B.1 i
.OLYMP7.A. WA. N80E, APRIL 13. 1943 vs HOUSNER GROUND RESPONSE SPECTRA OLYMPIA 1949 - N80E i
5% DAMPING O.1 L
i l
l L
i i
F3 it
- noa~c c
WT'
/
O P~%
=
/
as
_4 ^^
O.01
.f7 C;
I f
a 7
J o
1
/;W 4
/
/
l
/
(
/\\
/
I
/
t
/
i 0.001.
.l...-
i, 0."
1 10 100 Frequency Page B - 12 4
l o
l TABLF B.5 EEAK SPECTRAL ACCEL;ERATION VALUES AT IMPORTANT Fl&QR LOCATIONS FOR SAFE SHUTDOWN EOUIPMENT_AT PBNP 0.120 SSE (HORIZONTAL) 5.Q1 DAMPING STRUCTURF ELEVATION (feet)
MAXIMUM SPECTRAL ACCELERATION (q's) i Containment Structure 45
.84 i
75
.98 l
105 1.26 1
Containment Internals 29
.82 56
.88 76 1.02 Auxiliary Building 8
.70 Central Part 26
.96 44.3
.98 l
62.75 1.18 Auxiliary Building 8
.64 North & South Wings 26
.80 48
.94 Control Building 9
.92 l-26 1.32 44 1.64 60 1.92 74 2.0 t
I l
l l
l l.
Page B - 11
o FIGURE B.1 OLYMPIA. WA, N80E. APRIL 13, 1949 vs HOUSNER GROUND F.ESPONSE SPECTPA OLYMPIA 1949 - N80E 5% DAMPING t
0.1 t
I i
r i
I i
f r
?)
c
(
V#'/%
/- Houw-r
}
I o
=
i a3 4'
3 0.01 4
^ ^-
e
/ 1 i
L)
I s
s O
/AT/
I
/
/
1
/
(
/\\
/
I
/
s 0.001 i,isi i
i i i.i,,10 100 n
i i
i i iii>>
O.1 1
Frequency Page B - 12
s__.._.--____
i i
FIGURE B.2 l
PJHP - CORTAUR03{T._S.TRUCTURE AND IlfrERNALS SEISMIC MODEL i
l 1
4 i
6 E L. !4 d-O' l
y 5
E L. lOS'-O' L
EL. 9G 0" 15 l
13 'j, L
E L. 76 O" 12( )
14 4
EL 66LCf ll EL.75 0" L
I ' CTME~
8 E L. 5 6'- O" Z
( Dio 3
H d
EL. 4 5'- O" L
( $9 l'
EL. 4 6 O" O
- l EL. 2WO l
~ ]t l
r i EL.17L 0"
=2 l
1 EL.15 O' L
L..
d l E L. 6t6' I
I EL. O' O' Page B-13 l
P FIGURE B.3 EDNP - CONTAINMENT J.TRUCERE_1RD._lHTENIALS_.MATI!KMATICAL_MODEL 1
(L Wo o ' __ _ _ _
. - - - -hit. 6(p I'A ei A
.c t/./oS o 6.600 of.qg El 9Ao 2 4, c "'
_ i3q)
() :5 32.P _
g r>ui ts C,,,
e M p A _q;y
_ _ ig gp 1pN_ r 70 0,__
tt g o.
h1 75 o
._ - _ _._ 5.J 0 0. 0 t)_ qp Qt) 0 '
h N
}g@j, _
D. 6 6 o'
$4/c o. o
- c 4> oo l.ZR92.
El 5l' *.
c-osa A s em e ta Ox.,
S$)
~
ap9
.Os.cua.,e EL W o, gt..,,5o_
_._..-go n o 3gg tv)... /,Jt41 t; w ta su :,
c ggg 6000.6<
[l, [9 0 C
(i}-'
. (,-
q,, un#
n.no' n./5.o, _.
. -Mp%g y qp 9
SED 1
b'
- n. E o' 0g Q44 gmm% nnynnmm (
)l:.mmmnTn"mxt*:r";
hjja.._.['
r1 IB
[t g, 3 *
(!)
/ _2_ Moo o'(3) y p
h.@
$9 8
ese as,
>>9.aus y
a s.-
i Page B 14 l
l t
l
.~c
~
. ~
FIGURE B.4 AITKILRRY DUILD'AllG_CJQ{ TRAL PART_SIISMIC MODEL M11P I
i e
l I
J l
e I
E Et 62.]L ',
////
__p. # 2 6
. [p/,
[
I
/l
_ E L % 3' my l
l
!/
o.oB o /
gt.
o g
,}$
/ !,ll/ / l,/ / l
' / / //l/
//
[ ~l}
/ / / 'l q,y L_sqY
'l,//,.(
/
/
///
/1 /
_1_ t u g.o '
f g'
F 8 C= 2.
3e rte n 8T ir a y. t)
F I Cs. 1 M E AC H E L E VAT IC N 4
Page B-15
O **
c FIGURE B.5 PENP CQ]{ TROL BUILD 111G SEISMIC MQDEL t t 14. o' 5
o, e s s m
y s / / // s sss =v/<//
/ / / /
1,
(
/
i
/
/
/
i I L Ga o o'
~
. U
- c. t t 4 I
1
// / / / s / 7~7 me
/77 i / / s,-
/
s
/
/
tt 4 4. o' _
<///un'~7~7~ / / / /
.3 s
- o. s o r
/
/,
i g
./
I
/
/
/
l
/
/
i.-. 2, /
o nQo
-l E L. t b. o'-
/
),'- / ////
/ 1 ; 7 r r-r s
.I
,/
'/
/
s, l
f
<)
/
/
tL s.o An' c.o ne
<r w
v
,g.
AcctLam AT oN (g'S)
NI hE AT S A C. 64 ELt, VAT f o H du ad h i
l I
1 l
l l
l Page B-16 l
l i
1 u
FIGURE B.6 EMIP - CONTAllD4E!!T_!){IRR!{ALS_ISRS E LEVATI 91L2 L_QJ52_pB E, 1HORT10HTAL)JALD AMP IlfG PtH S witthtC l' 451 Ch late SIDI
)g g g7 O w th3 0.0$0 STC100 F e t 00t ht t th (PS 53 c to e it 0 6.0
- 1. 0 40 05 LP ','N h4 r 4,4+,h tr 4,', l v- 'Il*!.
l M 4 Tt2t.0
~hsr 4,'s41 10 t:
v
'i i t. c',
~
l.0
~
it 0.
l
.19 0 I
..ct,
,,s.co t
s te, j.cn CO 6 BC e et.
.:.te E
b
. u.
1 g
A e
.? to O t te.
f E
l 3
o i st,
,i.60 r
~
L f1 V t.,
1-to o.:-
2 l
-m.o t e s e'
~3 to w
'd e S t.
n to g
o i
3 eo o 4:
h l
h l
t n-3,30 g
e it,.
_n.to 3 15 O tl l
./
/
. c..
-\\
. tse e nt.
.3..
i.e.
i 3.e.
, e.i h,d...a t; i
..c. 2.h..i ii i i i I
\\. a.u.d.e6 i
ii wia ii a >
t1 4
..t.
i..
PLSICD IN 5tt0NOS Ott t'Ett.4 h0 102 5 N001 t;tvAll0h 29 00 ft.
y Olttttt>u HO*.
ANGLt totallDN
Page B - 17
. u a
FIGURE B.7 EDNP - AUXILJARLDUlkDIEG_CEHTRAMART_MiRS EkESATI.QR_0L15L 0. Qjg._QBE_MQRMQRTAM. 5.dt.RAMPllLG 10 DEC 91
" "' 8 " ' 0 ' '. 0 5 0 IC " '5* O'
'"C" 8'0!
onelwo 0 SYC14 1
ratosthrt 16 tes 50 t to.D 19 0 68 f.0 i.e 66
' l ' ' l l l ', l,. ;, *,;
+ r, l
- l ' - l.' l ', ;,
l ', :,,,c:o.o totd-+ll2,,,
i 5
is-e,
_is.o
.s t,. 6,.
.it.0 t
3 0 00
- .00 6.00
- ._ 00 4 00
. 00 h*
l 4.00,
,, :.00 i
i 3.00,
,8.00 c 8 GL l
e
.,.00 v
L E
I i
o I.50 a.50 g i.00
,,i.00 g e.ed I
h.so g 0 40 240 V" 0.50 3.$0
',r
\\
r I
\\
c *0 J -40 l
/
3 E
a s.sc, y 40 E
/l\\
3 0,14 3 10
=
l
\\-
~
i
+
e e. i s ---
p.is f
s l
...E 1
\\
3 2..
e se
,\\
3..
a.co
....E 1
,,,,mi,
,y,,
.1 ii.,
m, e 02 0 08 c De 0.0s 6080.49 0 15 e.to c.sc e.e0
. e.so p.sc i.e.
sa t.o PIRIDD th SECOND$
Cet SPfttRR hr,.
204-t h0DL fLithflow 67 15 Ft.
g DIAtt110m NOR.
AmLtf LOCRilDu Aval. sL00. (gntR AL Note - Multiply OBE spectral acceleration by a factor of 2 for SSE analysis.
Page B - 18
-i
. o FIGURE B.8 i
C0!! TROL E lLplHG_1SBS P_ BHP ELEYbTIQ1 LEO ', Ittof 9._QB Fu.1HORIKRHTALL__idLDAMPlRG 09 DEC 91 Pl, ant wittatD 6' ilt pu gat > tiet
,,, n 3 o, c,3 3 SYC14 te!Duftti lh ten to e 30 0 10 6 86 f.0 10 06
\\-jf20 f e t-+t vf-4n -m WyW TV-f,4+
M 4 i i
'1
'1 >\\
/
i 1
- 6.e
,g p-h.
i t
.it 0 io t, l.._
l i
, ot b
l 3
J te s ot.,
7--tt S tt e cv l
l 1
I to h
l 5
s to,
} CD
+
1 to
- t. t ee, E
E l
l 3
i te
, t lo o
b 1
a L
1 l
.i 00 g i ce
- o e t --
)
3 i
I l
l
) to O * "E l
/
I i
2" w e St.
j
\\
e to E
F 4
,/
\\
1 e nr.
- so c
- :'
l l
\\
d
~
r J
"c lo e tt.
,/,
\\
\\
to 0
(
. bit e it, 3_
m e,iv, p.te 1
J k
?
3 9
e to
-) co E
I 3
l
\\
2 e os
) to I
"3 -Cl g.,g" t.n i i1A e
iaa iiii2
- 2a n 14ii a
i i i s i e
i ii i e 37 c.): c.es J -t s e ot ).io o 15 c.to L.lo c.s>
e to c.ac i-o 15 13
- te t0D im 5t ttmM Det 5*ttien he.
108 t
.0!!
('t dfilA 50.0C f t.
L' n
niettii3 nee.
==:st t> cation
Page B - 19
_ __