ML20135F448

Discusses Issues Related to Concept of Review Level earthquake,high-frequency Motions & Response Spectra Shape to Be Used in Seismic IPEEE Assessment.W/Enclosures

ML20135F448
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/27/1989
From:	Chen J NRC - EXTERNAL EVENTS STEERING GROUP
To:	NRC - EXTERNAL EVENTS STEERING GROUP
References
NUDOCS 9612130063
Download: ML20135F448 (26)

Text

/EAJC,4-D&W6 8{ ) # g cg UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Distribution FROM:

John T. Chen Seismic Subcommittee External Events Steering Group

SUMMARY

OF OCTOBER 20, 1989 MEETING WITH NUMARC ON SEISMIC IPEEE

REFERENCES:

(1) Summary of September 21, 1989 Meeting with NUMARC, Oct. 4 1989 by R. Kenneally (2) Letter from Rasin of NUMARC to Shao of NRC, dated Sept. 25, 1989,

Subject:

Seismic Accident Policy Implementation i

The NRC staff met with and its technical consultants to discuss issues related to(IUMARC the concept of review level earthquake, high-frequency motions and response spectra shape to be used in seismic IPEEE assessments.

This is a follow-up to September 21 meeting (Reference 1) with NUMARC on industry's approach to seismic IPEEE. is a list of meeting attendees.

Dr. John Reed, NUMARC's consultant, discussed the industry proposed approach for capacity evaluation. is the material he presented.

Basically, he felt that (1) The use of review level earthquake and review level ground motion spectra are for the purposes of determining what type of seismic review--a process of binning.

(2) All plants will be walked down to search for plant specific " vulnerabilities".

(3) For type 2,

3, and 4 reviews HCLPFs will be calculated for all components not screened-out (outliers). He also discussed the approach of addressing the relay chatter issue.

The staff stated and Dr. Reed agreed that each bin for margin type review should have a single seismic level for seismic assessment.

The NUMARC report will be reviewed to clarify this point explaining how exactly this will be accomplished using NUMARC procedure.

Currently, NUMARC procedure uses site-specific review level ground motion spectrum shape bases on the EPRI uniform hazard spectra.

The i use of site-specific spectrum shape versus the use of a standardized spectrum shape (e.g.,

NUREG/CR-0098 shape) was also discussed.

The staff also made comments related to the proposed approaches presented in reference 2: (1) The most significant drawback of the approach is the failure to include the seismic hazard curves

,\\ T, o hh 130009 9612130063 891027 PDR REVGP NRCEXTER PDR

f developed by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) into consideration. (2) The correlation of core damage frequency and Safety Goal Policy is not appropriate because the proper (CDF) of the safety goal has not been defined by the NRC.

Further, use i

correlation of any criteria with the safety goal may imply that the i

criteria are to be used to determine if fixes are to be made rather than a simple reporting criteria derived by the staff.

i other issues related to the use of safety goal based criteria, such There are as, use of " fixed" PRA results in contrast to "as-found" plant results earlier PRA - results may not include contribution from human ac,tions/non-seismic failures, and small uncertainty display in generic estimates. (3) The reporting criteria are not compatible with those required for fires or other events (IPE requires reporting of functional sequence with a core damage frequency greater than 1E-6 per reactor year while the internal fires and high winds use similar criteria.)

NUMARC agreed to clarify its position on this issue.

J. Whiteraft of NUMARC acknowledged that NUMARC is aware of staff's concern.

However, NUMARC has not finalized its position on seismic IPEEE at this time.

NUMARC approach first and to provide appropriate response afterwards,wants to rev i

i f' M John T. Chen Seismic Subcommittee External Events Steering Group

Enclosures:

1. Meeting Attendees

2. Recommended Procedures for Addressing Seismic Severe Accident Policy Resolution s

e

[

to-zo - p f A/R c,/gy w c.

p;7 4 w

$g.,,,,,,e Arrraprec :

5thu' 7~

C H ent A/K c/icos /s4ie M z -f1/y 6L 3 6rdE yar (M_ as

/1 9 9 - Y l 4 t

~5 m (Jurrc4APr

^/W c-zoz-P7 z -r ? Po t

I% ke hr qC (PM-t BifC 6 20t-N'"

I

@qer nnully site / tees /ssev3 (soi)4az 3393 i% Are c.> A'up y Awcpeer/rsst) s oi-vez-y n o L

Dany c~

L OILC/part/Grcyll (3cy <ff2-aP)L.

i 2

d' a k ; W 76A (915) W1-TttL Eec igd,om/$s s&Eu/&ua A</4/

Q;;6s-30W y

JU.

BEcshgs -

lKC,IRB',N n!!3

{ &I) 'M2 -39 97 e

S A l <

c Jt o K 1 H I A/Ac./'RstltMo l}oo+yt-39+)

&. 04G8/fL N/l*/AfKK,/RsGd

(.?ol)49zct90

/i/,

En/det-abyne,/Gez-(pie) ass-57sy

hccosare 2

i

)'

l I

i RECOMMENDE

D. PROCEDURE

S FOR ADDRESSING SEISMIC SEVERE ACCIDENT POLI'CY RESOLUTION i

GRADED APPROACH FOR SEISMIC REVIEW i

i i

CAPACITY EVALUATION l

l 4

h i

4 i

PRESENTED BY JOHN W. REED i

i

}

l PRESENTED TO:

4 l

NRC MEETING ON SEVERE ACCIDENT POLICY 1

i i

{

OCTOBER 20, 1989 4

d h

i i

i i

4 4

4 4

I 1

1 PREFACE o

USE OF RLE AND RLGM SPECTRA ARE FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING TYPE OF SEISMIC REVIEW o

ALL PLANTS WILL BE WALKED DOWN TO SEARCH FOR VULNERABILITIES o

FOR TYPE 2, 3 AND 4 REVIEWS HCLPFS WILL BE CALCULATED FOR ALL SCREENED-0UT COMPONENTS (OUTLIERS)

\\

j P

h INTRODUCTION i

i o

MODIFICATION OF RLE GRouuD RESPONSE SPECTRUM TO REFLECT LACK OF DAMAGE IN HIGH-FREQUENCY REGION I

J

- OBTAIN RLGM RESPONSE SPECTRUM

- INPUT FOR IPEEE SEISMIC ANALYSIS l

4 o

DEFINITION OF RESPONSE SPECTRUM PARAMETER LIMITS FoR l

SMA CAPACITY SCREENING GUIDELINES 1

1 i

o GRADED APPROACH FOR CAPACITY EVALUATION l

l l

o COORDINATION OF CAPACITY EVALUATION WITH A-46 PROGRAM l

o REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRICAL FUNCTIONALITY FAILURE MODES 4

h i

3 i

i 1

i a

4

]

4 1-l i

i i

i i

MODIFICATION TO THE RLE RESPONSE SPECTRUM TO OBTAIN THE RLGM RESPONSE SPECTRUM o

START WITH SITE-SPECIFIC RLE GRouMo RESPONSE SPECTRUM l

l l

l o

TRUNCATE THE PORTION OF THE RLE GRouno RESPONSE SPECTRUM IN THE.HIGH-FREQUENCY REGION WHERE SPECTRAL l

DISPLACEMENTS ARE BELoW 0.02 INCHES i

l 0

RETURN TO RLE PGA AT A FREQUENCY EauAL TO TWICE THE i

TRUNCATION FREQUENCY OR 33 Hz, WHICHEVER IS GREATER i

i I

i

^

I i

4 i

i l

1

4

)

1 i

01

'I Sd = 0.02 inch. N O

i F

I ".

Truncated -

<C Input QC

Response

RLGM Response Spectrum U

d Spectrum

~~'s/

~

\\

O j

O

\\

<C I

g.

I

\\

J RLE 's H

PGA \\

O l

~

bJ I

I Q-Enig: f* is equal (A

to the maximum of I

l 2f or 33 hz.

I I.

0.1 f.

1 10 100 FREQUENCY, hz EXAMPLE INPUT RESPONSE SPECTRUM CUTOFF AT HIGH FREQUENCIES.

DEFINITION OF RESPONSE SPECTRUM PARAMETER LIMITS FOR SMA CAPACITY SCREENING GUIDELINES o

SMA SCREENING GUIDELINES CURRENTLY DEFINED IN TERMS OF PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION (PGA) LIMITS, I.E.:

i l

0.3 a i

0.5 s l

1 o

THESE LIMITS DEFINE THREE SCREENING CATEGORIES USED IN l

I SMA i

LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.3 s 0.3 s TO 0.5 e GREATER THAN 0.5 s j

i I

i j

o REDEFINE LIMITS IN TERMS OF SPECTRAL ACCELERATION AND VELOCITY i

j PGA S

Sv A

l 0.3 s 0.8 s 20 IN/SEC.

0.5 a 1.2 s 30 IN/SEC.

^

1 J

J l

i i

l G

[

Sa = 1.2 g 7

O o

1-S 1(--

Sa.= 0.8 g

~

g Of y

J l.1.1 S'

g O

~

___]

}

9W D-f/)

0.1 1

10 100 FREQUENCY, hz SPECTRAL PARAMETER LIMITS FOR SMA SEISMIC CAPACITY SCREENING GUIDELINES *.

BASIS FOR INTERIM RECOMMENDATIONS i

4 RLE HIGH-FREOUENCY CUToEE I

o DBE EXCEEDANCE CRITERION 10 HZ CUTOFF AT 0.2 G (20 MILLS) o PRELIMINARY FINDINGS THAT ANCHORAGES (I.E., WELDS, EXPAHSION ANCHORS AND CAST-IN-PLACE ANCHORS) HAVE DUCTILITY TO RESIST DISPLACEMENTS GREATER THAN 0.02 INCHES o

JUDGEMENT THAT MORE REALISTIC CUTOFF IS HIGHER i

O TYPICAL HIGH-FREQUENCY MOTION DISPLACEMENTS ARE SMALL (E.G.,

1 G ACCELERATION AT 10 HZ IS ONLY 0.1 INCH DISPLACEMENT)

O DUCTILITY IS RELATIVE:

FOR LOW-FREQUENCY MOTIONS A COMPONENT MAY BE BRITTLE, BUT AT HIGH FREQUENCIES (I.E., WITH HIGH ACCELERATIONS BUT SMALL DISPLACEMENTS) ~HE COMPONENT IS DUCTILE T

O ARGUMENTS IN OBE EXCEEDANCE CRITERION REPORT WHICH auSTIFY A 10 HZ CUTOFF:

BLOCK WALL BLAST DATA FRAGILITY TESTS ON EQUIPMENT VIBRATION DAMAGE THRESHOLDS FOR EQUIPMENT CODE FATIGUE REQUIREMENTS

14 12-10-y)

O.

.g g_

O 1/4 in, fillet welds

<C 6-AWS E60XX electrodes O

longitudinal direction

__I 4-1 2-0 --

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 DISPLACEMENT, inches I

i

~

12 10-t in o

8-

• E I

Z 6-Example force-displacement 9

curve for 3/4 in, wedge fc=pe anchor bolt in tension, ty CA spalling fai'(:ure mode) i 3700 psi concrete Z

bJ 4-l--

2-r i

I O

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 DISPLACEMENT, inches 3

28 24-20-toa

'E l

16-Q[

~

~

[12-Example force-displacement curve for 3/4 in. wedge I

t pe anchor bolt in shear, W

f =3700 psi (shear failure B-t rough threads)

~

4-0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 DISPLACEMENT, inches

b 1

I I

l l

BASIS FOR INTERIM RECOMMENDATIONS l

(CONTINUED)

RESPONSE SPECTRUM LIMITS O

SQUG REFERENCE AND BOUNDING SPECTRUM AND RUGGEDNESS OF EARTHQUAKE COMPONENTS (Sa = 1.2 G AND 0.8 G, RESPECTIVELY) 0 WALKDOWN OF ALL SCREENED OUT COMPONENTS WILL IDENTIFY OUTLIERS O

EXTENDING SPECTRAL ACCELERATION PLATEAUS TO HIGHER FREQUENCIES BASED ON ANALYTICAL ARGUMENTS TEST DATA m

A--2

-r-

I i

4 i

1 4

i t

7 i

4

)

i i

1.0 i

g i

i i

l I

i 5% DAMPING 3 0.8 r

2 O

i F

)

BOUNDING SPECTRUM 0.6 i

oo i

4 1

i.

.J 0.4 4

i.

eg 1

O GROUND ACCELERATION = 0.33 g j

w 4

g

~

so 0.2 2

1

.I I

I I

I f

I 0.0 0

4 8

12 16 20 24 28 4

FREQUENCY (Hz) i i

SQUG SEISMIC MOTION BOUNDING SPECTRUM HORIZONTAL GROUND MOTION l

1

)

l i

i

1 i

2.0 p

+

z but unknown)

'l 9

~

True (

~

p 1.5 -

Capacity Curve

<C CF_

i w

J Extrapolated W

Capacity Curve O,o.

N/

1 O

a=0.83_,

<C S

~

__J

/

\\ Recommended

<C Capacity in 0.5 -

Bounding

/

"~ ~

n Spectrum (1) g m

0.0 1

10 100 FREQUENCY, hz EXTENSION OF.SQUG sounoINs SPECTRUM INTO HIGH-FREQUENCY REGION.-

\\

1 4

Y 4

J 4

Army TRS RADIAL g,#

4 l\\l

}

J

'w o :-

AXI Al, fI

=

t VERTICALS,s 5

N/

1. ,./

f"

f. / p.*-

I

/

10.0 f

~

'O 2

O E4 E

eua ensuU 4

.J

=

4 K

>=U 1.0 I'

=

e.el

,,,,,l

,,,,,l 0.1 e

e e e 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000,0 FREQUENCY, Hs ~

2 PERCENT DAMPED PRESSURE CONTROL VALVE CAPACITY SPECTRA (Z).

i, l

GRADED APPROACH FOR CAPACITY EVALUATION 1

j o

INITIAL COMPARISON oF RLGM To SSE GROUND RESPONSE

)

SPECTRUM i

i TYPE 1 REVIEW 2

i TYPES 2, 3 AND 4 REVIEWS i

i o

COMPARISON ~ oF RLGM To SMA SPECTRAL SCREENING LIMITS To l

DETERMINE TYPE 2, 3 oR 4 REVIEW j

i NOTE: PGA VALUES ARE NoT COMPARED To PGA SCREENING

\\

j LIMITS i

i I

i o

FoR TYPE 2, 3 AND 4 REVIEWS WALK DoWN THE PLANT FoR f

THE SMA SCREENING LIMIT i

j o

CALCULATE HCLPF FoR OUTLIERS i

l i

o FoR TYPE 4 REVIEW MosT COMPONENTS WILL BE SCREENED IN i

i

}

I

i 1

No Is RLGM Response Spectrum more than 10 percent higher than SSE Ground Motion Response Spectrum?

Yes If Is RLGM Response Spectrum No higher than the 0.8 g Sa SMA Screening Response Spectrum?

Yes No Is RLGM Response Spectrum higher than the 1.2 g Sa SMA Screening Response Spectrbm?

[

f Y

)(

Perform Perform SMA f r SMA for Perform Perform RLGM scaled RLGM scaled SMA SMA t 0.8 g Sa to 1.2 g Sa for RLGM Walkdown screening screening spectrum spectrum Tyne 2 Type 3 Tyne 4 Type i CAPACITY REVIEW TYPE FLOW CHART FOR NON-SQUG A-46 PLANTS.

r r-w

-z o

.1-

}<---

(E W

SSE' J

w o

O I

RLGil w

O_

m

0.,

1 10 100 FREQUENCY, hz a.

RLGM does not exceed SSE (Type 1 review).

O 2

Z O

I~

~

~

l-RLGM Exceeds SSE By More Than 10 Percent (i.e..

i (RLGM-SSE) > 0.10*SSE) t W

SSE i

1

_I w

oo a

u J

l k

RLGH

}o-w CL m

0.i I

10 100 FREQUENCY, hz b.

RLGM exceeds SSE (Type 2, 3 or 4 review).

i COMPARISON OF RLGM AND SSE an0UND RESPONSE SPECTRUM.

S-'1 iI.

<OOW. y O2 O

(QWg A.

)

J 0

1 1

1 S C P O

.a E M C P T

T A y

R R p

A I e

S F

O 2 R N

c E a Q O

p U

F a

DDwa J < O o w. w h O i-C c E t.

J p

i R

No L

0 t

1 1

y C G

,Y M

r 1

e v

An e z a

a h

i S

S o

c.

w

=

R e

L 1

S M

T M

8 2

A y F ".

g g

p R C

e A

E 1,

P 4Q 0

A c U.

0

<OOW. w O2 G

C a E 1 (QWg J

A.

I p

)

a N 0, T

0 Y

cC i

1 1

y,Y t

SC 1

s R

rh a

,5 b

e z E

v E

i N

e

.o s

1 T

I w

y E

2 e F N

p m

G R

3 G

1,

E R

0 cQ 0

O a

U p U N

a E1.

c D

i N 0, t C R

yr,Y ES e

P vb S

S O

iz a

a N

e S

w 0

1 E

.s 2

g g

1 0,

0 e

1 l

SUMMARY

OF RECOMMENDED STEPS i

FOR SEISMIC IPEEE l

1.

SELECTION OF REVIEW LEVEL EARTHQUAKE (RLE) SITE-SPECIFIC RESPONSE SPECTRUM 4

i l

2.

TRUNCATION OF RLE TO OBTAIN REVIEW LEVEL GROUND MOTION l

(RLGM) RESPONSE SPECTRUM (20 MILL CUTOFF) 3.

COMPARISO OF RLGM To SSE SPECTRUM AND SCREENING LIMITS TO DETERMINE EVALUATION BIN 1

4.

PERFORM SEISMIC MARGIN ASSESSMENT WALK DOWN PLANT USING SCREENING GUIDELINES AND IDENTIFY OUTLIERS, IF ANY CALCULATE HCLPF FOR ALL OUTLIERS (USE RLGM RESPONSE SPECTRUM SHAPE IN ANALYSIS) 5.

PRESENT RESULTS LIST OF COMPONENTS SCREENED OUT HCLPF VALUES FOR ALL OUTLIERS

1 3

i l

RELATIONSHIP OF RESPONSE SPECTRUM SHAPE TO HCLPF i

4 l

0 RELATIONSHIP NOT REQUIRED FOR SINGLE COMPONENT MOUNTED ON GROUND WITH 1-DOF AND BRITTLE FAILURE MODE I

a o

RESPONSE SPECTRUM SHAPE AFFECTS HCLPF FOR FOLLOWING cau:

i i-MULTIPLE COMPONENTS AND PLANT HCLPF j

COMPONENT MOUNTED IN STRUCTURES i

SINGLE COMPONENT WITH N-DOFS SINGLE COMPONENT WITH DUCTILE FAILURE MODE o

HCLPF CAPACITY CHANGES FROM SITE TO SITE O

IF SAME RESPONSE SPECTRUM SHAPE USED FOR ALL SITES, POTENTIAL CONFUSION FOR COMPARISON WITH SITE-SPECIFIC SPECTRUM

--n

d i

4 l

l COORDINATION OF CAPACITY EVALUATION l

WITH A-46 PROGRAM i

i i

i o

PLANT REVIEW TEAM WILL COORDINATE IPEEE AND A-46 TASKS i

RATIONALLY:

l USE GIP REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPONENTS UNDER A-46 i

i PROGRAM j

1 USE SMA SCREENING GUIDELINES FOR STRUCTURES AND j

Enu1PMENT (IDENTIFIED IN SUCCESS PATHS) OUTSIDE THE A-46 PROGRAM 4

i I

o OUTLIERS WOULD BE EVALUATED IN PROGRAM TO WHICH THEY BELONG l

1 4

t i

0 COMMON COMPONENTS WOULD BE EVALUATED FOR BOTH PROGRAMS i

QUALIFICATION To SSE FoR SQUG A-46 i

f CALCULATION OF HCLPF CAPACITY FOR SMA 1

i i

i l

1

+

i J

i 4

4 h

l i

1 i

i REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRICAL FUNCTIONALITY i

FAILURE MODES i

i j

o FoR COMPONENTS WITH FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCIES LESS THAN 16 Hz 1

l CABINET AMPLIFICATION CAN BE CONFIDENTLY ESTIMATED l

SMA PROCEDURES ARE ADEQUATE i

i o

FoR COMPONENTS WITH FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCIES GREATER i

THAN 16 Hz j

CONSIDER FoLLoWING APPROACHES o

RECOVERY BY P uMT OPERATORS o

ELECTRICAL CIRCUITRY MODIFICATION i

o RELAY REPLACEMENT (RussED MODEL) o Ir THESE OPTIONS NOT FEASIBLE THEN PERFORM RELAY CAPACITY A'NALYSIS DEVELOP floor RESPONSE SPECTRA USING RLE GROUND RESPONSE SPECTRUM (I.E., WITHOUT MODIFICATION)

OsTAIN CABINET LEVEL CAPACITY CURVES (I.E., TO avoid NEED TO ESTIMATE GROUND To DEVICE AMPLIFICATION) v

.,. -, -,,