ML20195B303

Forwards Details Concerning Resolution of Seismic Topics Using Plant Seismic Program in Response to Request from 880510 Meeting W/Nrc.Complete Set of Viewgraphs Used for Presentation Also Encl

ML20195B303
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	06/10/1988
From:	Mcdonald R GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
References
REF-GTECI-A-46, REF-GTECI-SC, TASK-A-46, TASK-OR GL-87-02, GL-87-2, SL-4688, NUDOCS 8806210376
Download: ML20195B303 (110)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

G( g a Pa.ser Comrag 3 33 Peaver> A,. :e A:' eti Gcer;; a XUO3

' geone et S.M Fi26 Ma mj Ad@ess ftst Off'e flor 4545 Ar c'.t Gecrg a 30332 R. P. Mc Donald Irv Soufttvo electrc s,pem Eiect! se %ce Pres dent me ear oceocs SL-4688 1023U X7GJ17-H220 June 10,1988 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Attn: Document Control Washington, D. C. 20555 PLANT HATCH - UNIT 1 NRC DOCKET 50-321 OPEPATING LICENSE DPR-57

_P_L, ANT HATCH SEISMIC PROGRAM Gentlemen:

On May 10, 1988, Georgia Power Company (GPC) presented the Plant Hatch Seismic Program to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in Rockville, Maryland. The program includes the A-46 as specified by NRC Generic Letter (GL) proposed resolution of 87-02, Verification ofUSIthe Seismic Adequacy of Electrical and Mechanical Equipment in Operating Reactors; the implementation of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) seismic margins program using the EPRI seismic margins methodology; and the resolution of outstanding NRC seismic topics at Plant Hatch. A complete set of viewgraphs used for the presentation is provided in Enclosure 1.

During the meeting on May 10, personnel from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) requested more details concerning the resolution of seismic topics using the Plant Hatch Seismic Program. Enclosure 2 to this letter contains these details.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact this office.

Sincerely, R. P. Mcdonald Ml KWW:Ju : Viewgraphs of May 10, 1988 GPC presentation to the NRC : Description of topics to be resolved through the Plant Hatch Seismic Program c: (see next page)  ;

.0 geenBiSTur I P

Georgia Power b U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission June 10,1988 Page Two c: Georgia Power Company Mr. i. T. Beckham, Jr.

Mr. L. T. Gucwa Mr. J. P. Kane GO-NORMS U. S. Nuc1 Lear Regulatory Comission Mr. Daniel Guzy, Office of Nuclear. Regulatory Research Mr. Larry Crocker, Licensing Project Manager U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region II Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator 1023V

ENCLOSURE 1 VIEWGRAPHS OF MAY 10, 1988 GPC PRESENTATION TO THE NRC

. ~

l 3 R ES E N A D \ ~~O ~~- E NUC_ EAR :lEGU_A- ORY COV V SSON l

_A\

~~

3 - A- C- S E SV C 3 ROG RAv GEORGIA POWER COMPANY i

.1 MAY 10,1988 I

I

, i l

AGENDA PLANT HATCH SEISMIC PROGRAM OVERVIEW NRC HEADQUARTERS ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND MAY 10, 1988 INTRODUCTION DON CROWE INTRODUCE PEOPLE PURPOSE OF MEEllNG INTRODUCTION NRC PROGRAM OVERVIEW JEFF BRANUM PROJECT TEAM SELECTION JEFF BRANUM SCHEDULE JEFF BRANUM TECHNICAL ACHIEVEMENIS DON MOORE COMBINING SEISMIC MARGINS AND USI A-46 DON MOORE ANilCIPATED RESULTS DON CROWE NRC COMMUNICATIONS DON CROWE NRC COMMENTS NRC

SUMMARY

DON CROWE 0687N

l l

1 i

_:S~~ Or A~~~~EN JEES RE3RESEN~~ NG GEORGLA DOWER COV DANY DON CROWE NUCLEAR SAFETY MANAGER, GPC JEFF BRANUM PROJECT MANAGER, GPC JIM HElDT HATCH LICENSING MANAGER, GPC KERM!T WHITT NUCLEAR GENERATION ENG, GPC, DON MOORE TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, SCS KEITH WOOTEN PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR SCS BOB KENNEDV STRUCTURAL MECHANICS CONSULTING ED 'DRISS WOODWD-CLYDE CONSULTING dlM JOHNSON EGE 1

- - - - . . . - _ , . . - - , . , - - - ,--.-,--_,,,---.,.,,,_--_,,-._-.-.,,,...--_,,,,n, - , , , , . . , . . - , , , , - , _ , - -

3 _AN-~ - A~~C- SE SV C 3ROGRAv 3 .RDOSE Or V EE~~L\.G

3 _AN-~ -

A- C- S E Sv 'C 3 ROG RAv DURDOSE Or v EE- NG

• PRESENT AN OVERVIEW OF THE HATCH SEISMIC PROGRAM e PRESENT GEORGIA POWER's METHODOLOGY FOR COMPLETING THE SEISMIC PROGRAM

= PRESENT PROJECT TEAM AND SCHEDULE

• PRESENT THE RESULTS OF ACTIVITIES ACCOMPLISHED TO DATE

• EXPECTED PROGRAM RESULTS l

• ESTABLISH NRC INTERFACES

3 _A\- - A~~C- SE SV C 3 ROG RAv l

OVERV ~~W O= 3ROGRAV i

l 1

I 1

I l

1 1

_ _ - , . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ , _ , . - , , , . _ . , - _ _ , , . - . _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - , _ _ . - _ _ -

3 _AN-~ - A~~C- SE SV C 3 ROG RAv

\ J S-~RY SE SV C SS ES l

• USI A-46, SEISMIC QUALIFICATION OF l EQUIPMENT (GENERIC LETTER 87-02) I 1

• EASTERN SE!SMICITY l l

• EXTERNAL EVENTS SEISMIC

• USl A-40 (SEISMIC DESIGN OF TANKS)

• USl A-17 (SEISMIC SYSTEMS INTERACTION ONLY)

OU- S~~A\ J \G SE SV C ~~CP CS

~ ~

A-~3 A \ _ - A-~C -

• USl A-46, VERIFICATION OF SEISMIC ADEQUACY OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT IN OPERATING REACTORS (G. L. 87-02)

• FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA-PEAK BROADENING e SOIL DY'NAMIC PROPERTIES

• CABLE TRAY SUPPORT LOAD ACCOUNTABILITY

• PVRC DAMPING

• REACTOR BUILDING ROOF STRUCTURE  !

1 i

e- - - - - ' - -' - - . - - - -

pr. -. - ,,y,,-,,..__,.y -,

,,y,.-_g.--, , - ,m-w- w,

l 3 _AN~~ -K C- S SV:C:3;OG;Av 03uEC-~ VE

• TO IMPLEMENT THE EPRI SEISMIC MARGINS PROGRAM ALONG WITH THE TECHNICAL RESOLUTION TO GENERIC LETTER 87-02 AND USl A-46

• TO RESOLVE OUTSTANDING SEISMIC TOPICS FOR PLANT HATCH BY:

1. DEMONSTRATING A SIGNIFICANT SEISMIC MARGIN AT AN EARTHQUAKE LEVEL HIGHER THAN THE DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE (DBE)

2. IDENTIFYING ANY ' WEAKER LINK' COMPONENTS WHICH REDUCE THE HCLPF VALUE OF THE PLANT 1

• USE RESULTS OF PLANT HATCH SElSMIC PROGRAM TO ADDRESS INDUSI HY ISSUES l

l

3 _AN-~ - A-~C- SE SV C 3 ROG RAV l PRCL EC-~ ~~EAV

.1 1

1 1

1

1 1

3REL EC-~ ~~EAV l

l

• GPC CORPORATE '

- HATCH ENGINEERING AND PROJi__iS

- NUCLEAR SAFETY AND LICENSING e ARCHITECT ENGINEER

- SOUTHERN COMPANY SERVICES, INC -

- BECHTEL EASTERN POWER COMPANY l

, e INDUSTRY ORGANIZATIONS  ;

- ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

- SEISMIC QUALIFICATION UTILITY GROUP l 1

• CONSUL' ANTS

- DR. BOB KENNEDY STRUCTURAL MECHANICS CONSULTING (GENERAL CONSULTANT)

- DR. JIM JOHNSON EGE, INC l (SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION)  !

- DR. ED IDRISS WOOCVARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS (SOIL EVALUATIONS)

- MR. [ AVE BUTTERMER AND DR. DENNIS BLEY PICKARD, LOWE AND GARRICK, INC (SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS)

3 _A\-~ - A-~C- SE Sv LC 3 ROGRAV SC _

r g,L _,-

- C

,,,,,,--,---_ym_..,,,-,_,,,--n, y- r,, .,,, -e.,,_- , _ - ,,,,4,_.

-- -- ___ _ _ _ - -,,----.---,-_.,,m -

e.-- , ,-

4 -,, ,,w ,,.

I e

~) _AN -A C-l SE:SV C 3RWRAv

_=, =

_aa__

l l

i SELECT SEISMIC MAFEIN COMPLETE EARTHQUAKE

]

SELECT SEISMIC REVIEW TEAM COMPLETE SOIL E%LUATIONS COMPLETE SYSTEMS WORK BEGIN 2/88 COMPLETE 10/88

! SOIL-STRUCTURE BEGIN 4/88

) INTERACTION COMPLETE 7/88

) PRE-SCREENING ACTIVITIES BEGIN 2/88 i

SEISMIC cal %BILITY MLKDOWN 10/88 m l SEISMIC MARGIN ASSESSMENT BEGIN 11/88 COMPLETE 4/89 m l

ISSUE FINAL REPT1T TD EPRI 6/89 m I ISSUE FINAL REPORT TD NRC 7/89 m

! SER ISSUED BY NRC 10/89 m i

u SUBJECT TO PLANT HATCH OUTAGE SCHEDULE i

J

1 l

3 _AN-~ -

A- C- S SV C 3RWAAV l

1

__ g .m __ __

V Z \ _ _gO ZU

\ LsM _

.Z V Z, _1 , i

)

I i

l l

I

., 3.

4

(

\

3 _AN~~ - A- C- SELSKC 3RCGRAv n 1

~~EC-45 CA_ AC- EVElv EN~~S  !

I

• SELECTION OF SEISMIC MARGIN EARTHQUAKE <

• SELECTION OF SEISMIC REVIEW TEAM ..

• SOIL PROFILES WITH VARIABILITY

• SEISMIC MARGIN ASSESSMENT OF SO!LS

- SOIL LIQUEFACTION l

- SLOPE STABILITY <

• HAVE BEGUN DEVELOPMENT OF THE LIST OF SAFE SHUTDOWN EQUIPMENT AND RELAYS i

e PREPARATIONS ARE COMPLETE TO START '

THE SSI ANALYSIS ,

• HAVE BEGUN PRE-SCREENING OF CIVIL , W STRUCTURES, EQUIPMENT, AND SUBSYSTEMS s

,

• SRT MEMBERS HAVE COMPLETED SGUG TRAINING e' CLASS

/

v I

ff c

h

-.-. _ v.._.-. _ _ . . _ , . _ . - , , _ _ _ _ _ . , , , , , - . _ , , - , , . , _ . , , , , , , , , . _ , , . . , _ . , , . . . . _ . , _ _ _ _ , - , _ . _ . . _ , . ____ _ _ . , - . . . . . , . _ _ . , - _ - . . . , . _ . _

j

'r i

1 3 _AN-~ - A~~C- S SV C PROGRAV

} )

s l

l l

l COV3:\:\G S _

SVLC __ _

VARG NS l A \ J G _..s

-~

_ _ __ R n_7_0 2

~ ~

=OR 3 _ AN -

A~ ~C \  :. .

/

1 l

/' j i

.'4

/

3 _A\~~ -

A-~C- SE;;SV :C 3ROGRAV L RDOSE Or G_ 67-02 AN J 'SVA I

e e GL 87'-02 EVALUATE THE SEISMIC ADEQUACY OF EQUIPMENT NEEDED FOR SAFE SHUTDOWN FOLLOWING A SAFE 5piUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE ISSE) l l

's .

.f

• SMA: DETERMINE MARGIN OVER THE SSE WHICH WILL ASSURE PLANT SAFETY 4@D DETERMINE ANY ' WEAKER LINKS'

( vs"rilCH MIGHT LIMIT THE PLANT '

SHUTDOWN CAPACITY TO SAFELY" l WITHSTAND A SEISMIC EVENT LARGER THAN THE SSE ,

\

)) .

. .. __ .---- ___..__ _ _ ._. _ _ _ E _ _ _ _ .. _ _ _

MAJOR ACTIVITIES FOR RESOLUTION OF GENERIC LETTER 87-02 PLANT HATCH UNIT i I

• SELECTION OF SEISMIC REVIEW TEAM e SWTEMS WORK 1

• SCREENING VERIFICATION AND MLKDOWN 1 l

• OUTLIER IDENTIFICATION AND RESOLUTION

• DOCUMENTATION l

ALL ACTIVITIES TO FOLLOW THE LATEST REVl3t!.M OF SOUG GIP's

v Au OR AC-~ V L ES =OR SELSWC VARG NS ASSESSV EN-~

- A- C - U N ~~ :.

-~

3 _AN

• SELECTION OF SME LEVEL

• SELECTION OF THE SEISMIC REVIEW TEAM *

• SYSTEMS WORK *

• DEVELOPMENT OF NEW FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA

• PRE-WALKDOWN *

• PRE-SCREENING BEFORE WALKDOWN *

• SEISMIC CAPABILITY WALKDOWN *

• SEISMIC MARGINS ASSESSMENT WORK *

• DOCUMENTATION

• REPORT ALL ACTIVITIES FOLLOW EPRI METHODOLOGY

• ACTIVITIES COMBINED WITH GL 87-02

~

i BAS C DIFFERENCES BE- WEEls SEISNIC vAFE NS AND G. L. 87'-02 4

87-02 N A G NS.

ASSUME NO LOCA, SLBA, ASSUME SMALL LOCA

! OR HELB EVALUATE USING SSE SPECTRA EVALUATE USING SMA SPECTRA

)

PERFORM 100% WoLKDOWN OF PERFORM SAMPLE WoLKDOWN OF j RELA'YS, CABLE TRA'YS, AND RELA'YS, CABLE TRAYS, AND 2

EQUIPMENT ANCHORAGE EQUIPMENT ANCHORAGE

DO NOT CONSIDER FLOODING CONSIDER FLOODING CONSIDER EQUIPMENT ONLY INCLUDES CIVIL STRUCTURES, i SUBSTRUCTURES, AND SOIL i

i l

1 l PLANT HATCH WILL MEET REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH PROGRAMS i

i i

l RESO_ ~~ ON Or . NL-~ :. G_ 87-02 AS DAR-~ Or ~~- E SV A 3 ROGRAV i

e COMPLETE SAFE SHUTDOWN EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION

• COMPLETE RELAY EVALUATION TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE BASED ON STATUS OF RELAY GERS e DEFER CABLE TRAY SUPPORT EVALUATION PENDING RECEPT OF SER ON SQUG PROCEDURE 1

i

- . - - ..--, vex- - ----- - , - - - - -r .c n -, e, , _ , ....,..-we,.~,,,..---.,_e--c_.-,,,-ww.---,e,_-e.-ei

4 e

~~

3 _A\ - A- C- S-~ SV C 3 ROG RAV

. N :- 2

• RESOLUTION & PLANT HATCH UNIT 2 SEISMIC TOPICS WILL BE BASED ON RESULTS T UNIT i ACTIVITIES i

l

~ ~

3 _ A\ - A-~C -

SE SV C 3ROGRAv M M M M i 4 m

l l

l l

l

3 _AN-~ - A- C- SELSV C 3 0G:lAv ~~

OV E;lA_ _ :lESU _- S A N C 3A-~ E J

• RESOLVE SEISMIC TOPICS AT PLANT HATCH

• RECEIVE SER OR OTHER DOCUMENT INDICATING NRC CONCURRENCE THAT PLANT HATCH SEISMIC ISSUES ARE RESOLVED e SHOW THAT STRUCTURES AND COMPONENTS IN A PREFERRED SHUTDOWN PATH HAVE SEISMIC CAPABILITY MARGINS SUBSTANTIALLY ABOVE THE DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE

• IDENTIFY ' WEAKER LINK' COMPONENTS HAVING LOWEST 'HIGH CONFIDENCE OF LOW PROBABILITY OF FAILURE' (HCLPF)

• DETERMINE DESIRABILITY OF MODIFICATIONS TO IMPROVE HCLPF OF ' WEAKER LINKS'

, - . . --..__._r_ _ _ _ _ _ - , - - , .

-.,_-,yo--, .,p_,,w ,--.,, ----, , , . - - - fyr-m-m-w-ww---g- .*---w+ ~- - - - -

3 _A\- -A- C- SE Sv:C 3;OG lAv lESL _- S A\- ; C DA-~ E J l

• SEISMIC TOPICS AT PLANT HATCFt l 1

- GENERIC LETTER 87-02 / USl A-46

- FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA PEAK BROADENING ISSUE

- DYNAMIC SOIL PROPERTIES

- CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS

- PVRC DAMPlNG

- REACTOR BUILDING ROOF STRUCTURE I

3 _A\~~ - A- C- SE;Sv;C 3 KJG;lAv

lES J _- S AN-~ C DA- E J

• INDUSTRY SEISMIC ISSUES:

- USl A-40 (SEISMIC DESIGN OF TANKS)

- USl A-17 SEISMIC SYSTEMS INTERACTION ONLY

- EASTERN SEISMICITY

- EXTERNAL EVENTS - SEISMIC

• FUTURE SEISMIC ISSURES I

l l

4 5 3 _AN-~ - A-~C- SE Sv C 390GRAv

\RC COv v u \ CA~~;ONS l

l

)

I 1

i

NRC CE)VV m NL CA~~D\S i

WHAT GROUP WITHIN NRC DOES GPC COMMUNICATE WITH?

e FOR GPC SEISMIC PROGRAM e FOR SEISMIC MARGINS PROGRAM PROPOSE MILESTONE MEETINGS FOR USI A-46 AND SMA BE COMBINED NRC OVERVIEW e GPC SEISMIC PROGRAM

- TYPE OF OVERVIEW

- ORGANIZATION PERFORMING REVIEW e SEISMIC MARGINS

- TYPE OF OVERVIEW

- ORGANIZATION PERFORMING OVERVIEW e SCHEDULE OR PLAN FOR OVERVIEW ACTIVITIES

3 _A\~~ - A-~C- SESV C 3ROGRAV t

Sc VVARY

_ _ _,,--___,-,...~..__-_----..-._,,_,.._----_..-.-,-,-_.-.--<_.___v.,, _ , , _ , . . - _ _ . . - - - _ _ _ .

l SJV V ARY e PLANT HATCH SEISMIC PROGRAM

- RESOLVE SEISMIC TOPICS AT PLANT HATCH

- RESOLVE APPROPRIATE PRESENT AND 1 FUTURE SEISMIC ISSUES l l

• NRC PARTICIPATION

- WORK WITH GPC IN IMPLEMENTATION OF  !

PROGRAM  :

- PROVIDE SER REFLECTING WORK PERFORMED IN PLANT HATCH SEISMIC PROGRAM I

1

I 3 ;: ES E N X~ O \ ~~O ~~

\UC_EA;l lEGU_A~~O N COV V SS ON  !

l 3 _A\~~ - A- C- SE:Sv.C DE;lAv 1 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY l

MAY 10,1988

~ ._

3 AGENDA EPRl/NRC SEISMIC MARGINS MEEllNG NRC HEADQUARTERS ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND MAY 10, 1988 OPENING REMARKS D. M. CROWE BACKGROUND R. P. KASSAWARA PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF MEETING R. P. KASSAWARA PROJECT TASK DESCRIPTIONS D. P. MOORE PROJECT SCHEDULE K. D. WOOTEN DISCUSSION OF PROJECT /NRC INTERFACES R. P. KASSAWARA STATUS OF PROJECT EFFORTS 10 DATE:

SELECTION OF SEISMIC MARGIN EARTHQUAKE I. M. IDRISS S0ll LIQUEFACTION 1. M. IDRISS SLOPE STABILITY I. M. IDRISS S0ll PROFILES 1. M. IDRISS S0IL STRUCTURE INTERACTION J. J. JOHNSON GENERATION OF IN-STRUCTURE SPECTRA J. J. JOHNSON DISCUSSION OF ACTION ITEMS AND NEXT INTERFACE D. M. CROWE 0687N I

E3R:/\ RC SE SV:C VARG:\ ASSESSV EN~~

BACKGRCL \ ]

EPRI-NRC Seismic Margins Interactions Methods NRC review of methods Review Panel Merging of different approaches Success path vs. fault tree / cut sets CDFM vs. fragility Basic agreement on success path /CDFM Plant vulnerabilities -- severe accident policy NRC Seismic Design Margins Working Group endorsement of methodology BWR Review Programs merge EPRI does plant evaluation NRC reviews, does substantiating research Schedule Methods document to NRC April 87 Review completed June 87 BWR Review Starts Jan.88 NRC Kickoff Meeting May 88 Complete Mid 89

Research Efforts on Seismic Margin NRC SOUG Panel SSRAP A-46 1r Ruggedness Screening & EPRI Guidelines Project v l Methodology Methodology NRC  % Procedures Fault Trees Review Success Path Fragility Panel CDFM v ,7 l NRC Maine Yankee Catawba Peer --> Margin Margin Review Assessment Assessment v

" NRC WG l SER Review and .

Endorsement of Methods v

v V NRC/EPRI Programs Merge NRC  !

Peer i Review l Plant l Hatch l Review I i

i OUTLIERS NEEDING UPGRADE OR JUSTIFICATION Maine Yankee Catawba Lead Antimony Several Seismic Interactions Batteries Diesel Generator Day Pipe Support Thermal Failures Tanks Station Service Valve / Adjacent Pipe Transformers Supports Block Wall Slack in Armor Cable to Valve Chillers Diesel Room Battery Racks

EDR:/\ RC SE SV C VARG \ ASSESSV E\~~

3 c RDOSE A\ J O3u EC- LVES O= V EE-~L\G l

l _ _ _ . _ _ _

Meeting Objectives Convey Project Schedules, time constraints Discussion of Interfaces Summarize Project Efforts to Date Results  ;

- Status  ;

l i

)

l l

l

, - . . . - - - - .,,,-.-----,n,.- ,, , , -- -- - - -, - - - .-mm,,, ---,, , _--_--- , ,m- -,y,---, ---- ,--,

E3;L/\ RC '

SESV:C VA;G:\ ASSESSV EN--

3 RCL EC-~ ~~AS< JESC R: D-~ O \

_ - - - - - - . - - . . __.__y _-. -.-___w,y,we, rw,--e, ,m---r 4--Nw- w --7wrww --rw Tv- mN'NwN-'M - ,e-'v'*---T*=vv7C " w t WPPF-MP"v-"W"MC--

MAJOR AC- V - LES =OR SE;SV C VARGLNS ASSESSV E\--

D _A N - A- C J N L- :.

• SELECTION OF SME LEVEL

• SELECTION OF THE SEISMIC REVIEW TEAM

= SYSTEMS WORK i

• DEVELOPMENT OF NEW FLOOR RESPONSE  :

SFTCTRA

• PRE-WALKDOWN

• PRE-SCREENING BEFORE WALKDOWN

• SEISMIC CAPABILITY WALKDOWN

• SEISMIC MARGINS ASSESSMENT WORK

• DOCUMENTATION  !

l

• REPORT j ALL ACTMTIES FOLLOW EPRI METHODOLOGY l

i SE_EC DN Or SVE _ EVE _

i l

• PGA 0.3g l

• FOURTH ALTERNATVE OF T-E SMA METHODOLOGY l

SE_EC ON 07 -E S E S V C R EV EW EAV TEAM #1 TEAM #2 DON MOORE PHILLIP GARRETT SRT KEITH WOOTEN BILL GOFORTH MEMBERS BOB KENNEDY

• BOB KENNEDY

• SUPPORT SYSTEM ENGINEER SYSTEM ENGINEER >PERSONNEL PLANT OPERATIONS ,

PERSONNEL

• BOB KENNEDY'S RESPONSIBILITIES:

- ASSURE THE SCREENING IS FOLLOWING THE EPRI METHODOLOGY

- ASSIST ON BOTH WALKDOWN TEAMS

\ l SYS- EMS WOR <

1

• IDENTIFY PREFERRED SUCCESS PATH AND ONE ALTERNATE PATH TO BRING.THE PLANT TO SAFE SHUTDOWN AND MAINTAIN THAT CONDITION FOR 72 HOURS

• LEAD SYSTEMS ENGINEERS:

FLUID-MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL TOM BARR RON BAILEY

• ROLE OF PICKARD, LOWE AND GARRICK:

- REVIEW SUCCESS PATH LOGIC DIAGRAMS

- REVIEW COMPONENT LIST FOR REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM -

- REVIEW RELAY LIST AND RELAY EVALUATION FOR REPRESENTAT!VE l SYSTEM

- PROVIDE ASSLIRANCE FOR: / i e TECHNICAL ACCURACY

• ADHERENCE TO EPRI METHODOLOGY

+

• CONSISTENCY WITH CATMBA SMA . ,

1 4._ '__,.._....,.._.__..___.

JEVE_O3vEN-~ Or N EW

= _ OOR RES3ONSE S3EC-~RA

• ORIGINAL UNIT i SEISMIC ANALWIS IS VERY CONSER\/ATIVE, THEREFORE, SCALING PROCEDURES ARE NOT APPROPRIATE

• NEW FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA WILL BE DEVELOPED REQUIRING NEW SOIL- s STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALWIS SSIL

• SSI ANALWIS WILL INCLUDE:

- ENHANCED BUILDING MODELS

- STRAIN-COMPATIBLE SOIL PROFILES }

$ SSI ANALWIS TO BE PERFORMED BY EQE, INC. a i

/

s

\

l

\ \ ,, . ,: .- ,

s ,

3RE-WA_<JCJWN Y

/

( ,

• PURPOSE IS TO ORGANIZE FOR THE SEISMIC CAPABILITY MLKDOWN

(

• PRE-MLKDOWN INCLUDES:

- LOCATING EQUIPMENT IN THE PLANT

- IDENTIFYING ANY AUXILARY EQUIPMENT MOUNTED SEPARATELY

- EVALUATING RADIATIOS' LEVELS, LOGISTICS, SPECIAL F,. GUIRMENTS NEEDED FOR INSPECTIONS, ETC.

l 3

\ ., .

,l f /

f a

}

\c

.1

'~ ,' 1,

)

DRE-SCREE \;\G 3R:OR ~~O WA_ COW \

• REVIEW OF PLANT HATCH SEISMIC DESIGN DOCUMENTS

• PREPARE

SUMMARY

REPORT OF PLANT HATCH SEISMIC DESIGN BASIS

.

• OBTAIN DATA NEEDED TO SCREEN OUT CIVIL STUCTURES, SUBSYSTEMS, AND EQUIPMENT

• PRE-SCREEN CIVIL STRUCTURES, SUBSYSTEMS, AND EQUIPMENT USING TABLES 2-3 AND 2-4 OF THE EPRI  ;

METHODOLOGY

• ORGANIZE INFORMATION ON EACH ITEM OF EQUlPMENT 5 OR THE SEISMIC i CAPABILITY WALKDOWN l l

)

l l

i

_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . - _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . ~ . _ _ _ _ , _ . . _ _ _ . _ . - - _ . . , _ . , , . . _ , . . . . . . . . . - - . . . , _ _ _ _

S SV C CADAB _!-~Y WA_<JOWN

• TWO SRT's FOR APPROXIMATELY TWO WEEKS

• 100% ' WALK-BY' OF ALL ACCESSIBLE EQUIPMENT

• INSPECTION OF SUBSYSTEMS ON A SAMPLING BASIS

• ANCHORAGE

• SEISMIC SPATIAL SYSTEM INTERACTION:

- POOXIMITY EFFECTS

- II/I

- FLEXIBILITY OF ATTACHED LINES

- FLOODING FROM RUPTURED TANKS OR PIPING l

l

SE:SV C vARG N ASSESSVEN-~  !

I l

• ALL ITEMS WHICH CAN NOT BE SCREENED l OUT DURING THE WALKDOWN WILL BE RESOLVED IN THE SEISMIC MARGIN ASSESSMENT PORTION OF THE PROJECT l

• POSSIBLE APPROACHES: 1

- GENERIC EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION

- CONSERVATIVE DETERMINISTIC FAILURE MARGIN

- IN-SITU TESTING

- SHAKE TABLE TESTING

- EXPAND EARTHQUAKE EXPERIENCE DATA BASE

• DR. ROBERT P. KENNEDY WILL PARTICIPATE I

JOC V EN A ON l

• SAMPLE OF ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED:

- BASIS FOR SME

- LISTING OF EACH ITEM OF THE SUCCESS PATHS

- NEW FRS

- LIST OF RELAYS FOR WHICH CHATTER MUST BE PREVENTED

~

- SRT DOCUMENTATION OF EACH ITEM REVIEWED

- COMPLETED Wo.LKDOWN FORMS

- ALL SMA REVIEWS DOCUMENTED l

i

-__-------m,,.-'--..s-.-.3%._- .- ,--w--,.,,-3.y,,m - %-c..-----.mmmf.,e,%<-wwyw-.-p*,,p-g-v-.-ywye .-=-p.v.,,,--y-

N A_ REDOR~~

l 1

• SAMPLE OF ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED:  !

- PLANT DESCRIPTION  ;

- ORIGINAL PLANT SEISMIC DESIGN BASIS

- SELECTION OF SME .

l

- DEVELOPMENT OF FRS l

- WALKDOWN RESULTS .

1

- ASSESSMENT OF ELEMENTS NOT SCREENED OUT

- EVALUATION OF RELAYS

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS l

l l

E3R:/\ RC SELSV :C VARG:\ ASSESSVE\~~ '

i l

3RCL EC-~ SC- EJ _E

lu J

n u _

J u

p r _

p _

A _

r o

M b

e F

9 8n -

9o 1J c

e D_

v _

o _

N .

t c

O T

C _

E _

J p O e .

R _

P T

S_ _

N _ _ _

E g _

M u _ _

S A, .

E S

SSA S

AuS lu, 1

J -

N; I

1 Ct c e Re - g Aj a

Mro n_

u - P C P u

S l

J_

I y E o S

u_

H C

T A r H p T A N

A L

Pt r r o

a u h

C t

t n b o e C F 8

8n 9a 1J c

e D

v o

N 7

8t 9c ,

1O

- -e p

e S

77 7 7 78 88 8 8 88 78 77 88 88 88 88 88 8 8 9 9 99 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 N889 99 99 99 99 99 99 E-199 1

E1 1 N11 L 1 H919 T1 N1 1 11 1 11 W9 B T P- -- L y-I

- L A O1 1 Wpc I pt

- O- - - E - - -

F TI t n At n Rvc bn Erg T r y yg g D-See SD Oec SO Cca T ca Soe e u R o u Soa Sa u Aa u Kl g uu T - - R A

F OJ SOJ T

ND S S FJ CWA LM RMA IW F - -VMA E L

AJA C11 E23 P5 L2 1

E58 U 1 E -

P54 EC32 E6 C9

- S-

- 14 Y11

&11 Y64

- - W-51 -

L I Q O L C1 E A23 I11 A12 E 2 E O L E U R L

E S L

E R S S I

L S S S P R S R P l

' l l 1.

lu J

n _

u _

J y

a M

r p

A r

a M

b e

F 9

8n 9o 1J c

e D

v o

N t

c O,

T p -

C e E S J

O R

P g T u N A E

M5 -

SA , 1 SU tu - -

ES S J, 1 2 S: t Ac e g

Cj e a 1

o n P ur u J -

sP l

E S

y H a C --

T M A

H T

N r A p L A P

t r r a a M h

C t

t n b o e C F 8

8n 9o 1J c

e D

v -

o N _

7 8t .

9c _

1O S

p 88 89 89 88 99 88 88 88 88 88 99 99 99 D11 99 99 11 11 11 11

- - T pb- - -- W-vv N pt t r cp Poo yn _

WSO ec Nee au _

O E SF OA uNN w- SMJ T R .

D76 M/ O41 r'17 e 77 A21 A 12 L12 O1 1 L L P A

W O u O E D S F R

!I I ,

f 5 EDR/\RC SESV C MARG l\ ASSESSVE\~~

i 3RCL EC-~/\ RC \ "E r ACES ,

i l

I l

1

. - . _ _ _ - . . . . . - . - . . . , . . . . . . . . . - . - _ . - . . , - - . - . . . ~ . . . . . , - - . . . - ,

Discussion of Interfaces i

1 Paths of Communication i l

Role of the NRC Peer Group Project Interface with the Peer Group Mode of Interaction

- Schedules (times to interface)

Information Requirements Plant Outage Schedules and Requirements NRC Studies

i Peer Group Interfaces Mode of interface

- Information packages -- by mail

- Peer Group review

- Peer Group consensus

- Peer Group response -- by mail

- Meetings,if resolution required Milestones ,

l

- Soil /SSI May 10,1988

- Success path decisions June 6,1988

- Floor response spectra Aug 11,1988

- Relay chatter Aug 24,1988 (systems screen)

- Walkdown Oct 1988

- Postwalkdown assessment April 1989

- Final report June 1989

.- . . _- 9 - w -.---- - - --, e,------yte -W ' -'r-'e- -N - -'-T-F 'r-

8 t

SEISMIC MARGIN ASSESSMENT (SMA)

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY'S E. l. HATCH NUCLEAR POWER PLANT APPLING COUNTY, GEORGIA Issues Related to Soils and Earthquake Ground Motions Presentation to NRC 10 May 1988 Woodward-Clyde Consultants

General Philosophy of the SMA Methodology i

= The Seismic Margin Earthquake (SME) is conservatively specified.

= The response of earth structures (eg, soil profile, slope ...) to the SME is median centered.

= The capacity (eg, shear stress required to cause

) liquefaction ...) assessment for a given response is selected conservatively.

1 WCC - 05\10\88 l

O General Philosophy of the SMA Methodology i

(Cont'd)

\

= The Trial SME Level should be set sufficiently high so that some plant components in the success path are found to have HCLPF SME capacity levels

, less than this trial SME level.

l

= Then both the components which control the HCLPF SME l capacity level of the plant and the plant's HCLPF SME

capacity level can be established.

4 l = On the other hand, the trial SME level should not be i set so high as to result in a substantial increase in the workload for the SMA.

l wcc - ossiossa i

l Selection of Earthquake Ground Motions for use in a Seismic Margin Assessment in accordance of the methodology developed by EPRI and approved by the US NRC, there are four alternate ways by which these ground motions can be specified.

1. A Selected PGA (or ZPA) multiplied by the 84% non-exceedance probability (NEP) response spectral amplification factors (eg,NUREG 0098, RG 1.60).

2. A spectrum is selected to have essentially uniform hazard throughout the frequency range.

(Cont'd)

WCC - 05\10\88

Selection of Earthquake Ground Motions for use in a Seismic Margin Assessment (Cont'd) 1

3. The hazard is specified in terms of l a specific magnitude range and a l specified distance from the site. Using l a sufficient number of appropriately I scaled real (and possibly synthetically derived) time histories, the 84% NEP spectrum is obtained.

4. A staridard (non-site specific) trial SME spectrum may be negotiated with the NRC. For example, the median NUREG 0098 spectral shape may be selected and anchored to the desired PGA (or ZPA) .

WCC - 05\10\88

alip E. I. HATCH NPP --

SMA Earthquake Ground Motions - Plant Area SEISMIC MARGIN EARTHQUAKE (SME) :

1

. Magnitude of about 6-1/4

. Nithin Distance of about 25 km of the Site CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SELECTED SME :

. v/a = 100 cm/sec/g (39.4 in/sec/g)

.ad/v2 - 5 WCC - 05\10\88

HATCH NPP -- SMA Spectral Ordinates for Target Ground Motion -- ZPA = 0.3 g Pseudo-Relative Velocity - inch /sec i

10 --- - - - - - -

i

~

1 -

l Damping = 0.05 Based on NUREG 0098 0.1

' ' ' W O.01 0.1 1 10 i Period - sec

! WCC - 05\10\88 I

I l

l

i i

s 4 CD 522 o

Dit St t 0( 4 { {

OLOG j57 92)

O

-e. > l(l s460 l

l

,, 8 6 k y=it 1 443 0

$59 tv e dih(

C 660G. s 4g .o4H 444 <>448 o C0=0tatatt vai t e na ci' a s,tg 98' TTOsa ct o Taha

.e tD, $4) 44g 4 4 o 362 561 4 ,

,g 6 3 W-Unit i A I ACTC A O L O G.

4e%

4d4 gil

~

,,...n

,f.0

>. g3

., r SuitoimC h_ 465, 4 6 ), tt) 555 I,C a

,$e g f3gyru8st! 2 Al A C104 GLDL. '

g,. ,68i;'V2, y o ( e ita E E

597. 88M 'c's ;(

t f 4

'514 AfI '58 9 )

ari t Iaq t. g" I'#p isq ll $* $33' Unit 2 * 'bSO ' 544 Conct=ta ( i

)

5'l %9tS M8,s u N$0+00 C

+ 4.

w "f s,i 4C vhat 2 t u A liNE E L0f.

D o it7c 8 h YD in Q CD W LEGEN0 0 ps t CC= %T&vCTIC =

1851 soaimo e sv tiou tugegetio.

From: HNP-2-FS AR-2 Supplement 2 A 5(att 200 Q) _!F t

p,9 F'r ojec t HATCH NP BORING LOC ATIONS - PL ANT ARE A 1 Proieet No 8743076A

1 l

l i

l l

l 130 -

0 Cemented Sand or Fill l

90 -

40 - p

~- 1 8tity/ Clayey fine Sand , l i

50 -

T 80 -

3 f

, a C E e 10 - m 120 -

2 e ,

E E

C Very dense, fine Sand and hard Clay o

I B 2 2 w e m 160 -

E o

e o

-70 -

200 -

//AVAW Rock

-110 -

240 -

?

i i

-160 -

280 I

Project HATCH NP GENER AllZED SOIL PROFILE - Fq l Prole:1 NO 8743076A PL ANT AREA 2  !

HATCH NPP --

SMA Ordinates Based on NUREG 0098 Spectral Shape & Those for Stiff SSC & M = 6-1/4 Pseudo-Relative Velocity - inch /sec

_ ___ ' ' ~'

10 e- -

~ -

1 -

Damping = 0.05 f

NUREG 0098 i

-- Stif f SSC; M = 6-1/4 i 0.1 O.01 0.1 1 10 l Period - sec 1

WCC - 05\10\88 1

i - -

i 0.4 f,"

n 0.2 3 -

z  !

'll 4 f!' [l 9 'ab N S M A --

kcr 0'0 - hfil ' 1 l I i I. l .-

l i

b ,)0 i  ; j

$i f 4 Gh- 'j'V i VW V T "'Y

!, I ,

g w _

a w

o -0.2 0

4 _

- 0. 4 . i 0 10 20 30 40 TIME (SEC) f opoct No 74307 wooownpO- CLYDE CONSUL TA N T9

HATCH NPP --

SMA Spectral Ordinates for Target Ground Motion & for Synthetic Time History Pseudo-Relative Velocity - inch /sec

..~. - - -

10 ,. ',

~

/

1 -

.- Damping - 0.05 Target Spectrum Synthetic TH 0.1 1 ' ' ' 'l ' ' ' ' A ""- ' ' * ' '

O.01 0.1 1 10 Period - sec WCC - 05\10\88

.I l

S T

N A

1. T_

t f

r q

N O

C M

/

]

F D

Y L

C v 8 O

d D

g A W

O n Y O

n

, w _

[ f 0 i

l3

( ' _

\

i _

I

,f v ,

i

)

C

\

E _

0S 2(

M l E

D[ j h

M I

T V c h e _

h t T i m

c 9

6 _

l t 1

~ _

a\ 'O U

l 3

t l _

I

i iL ' i a ' 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 3 3 1 s0x=yEoOJ_y 5 -

l r,

r u _

1 m t

u _

0 r.

4 n _

o _

- c

- a _

a c n

c y o t e

a n e o t n -

v e w _

^~

c n o

c o a w b c i

T

,0 e 3 a T -

=

v _

f s -

a _

" o _

V ,

r _

r

^ a .

e _

) - _

C e c _

E a .

A 0S e t .

i2( s V i o

E 5

m c

g M I

T o

e T

a 3

1 i

u c

t a

d c 0

O1 i

1 _

b y _

^v V 1"

^

" e

" 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 1 1 1 1 -

C28 d7'dO cg n ,

s l?

I

1 Turbine Reactor 150 -

Fill EL 130 g

en iSINi  :::1:::!;k m  ; wqy

% 100 -  !!!!P?.;?

-g. -

e --

-- ~ _ .

g f

.E Native Soil z

E 50 -

m w

0-O 100 200 ft Section entresponds approximately with section E - E' shwn in Fig.1.

Info.matroa regarding extent of fill from flatch Nuclear Plant 2-FSAR-2 Figure 2A-3.

APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF FILL IN .

Fig.

Project: HATCH NP PLANT AREA L- '

l 3 p P,oiect No. 874 YO?6A WOofWrAnD-CLYDF CONSULTANTS

./

m

Low Strain Shear Wave Velocity Profiles Plant Area --

HATCH NPP Depth Below Ground Surface - f t 0 - - - -

R --- -~

Profile i Profile 11 50 -

i 10 0

~

150 -

200 -

~

w 250 -

O 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

-i Shear Wave Velocity - fps WCC - 05\10\88 s -

M

e . .

p s ,.

e l- "s i wt u

-[ .

Wi 3 o* 3aI ga 8

- <a :* :

\

$Y  ?

'; o 35 /g

• =

l 1

, o< l

-> I.

gy. i l -

f'o,I ,

1. . '

I - 3 1[ '

3 11 l

\

l l i 1 g .

l

, . . t . t f ..

y

^/

l 0

l.. a c .i

] >

/

• I t 1 I t t t i _

g I N [

aI 6

(l i t i f I t I e e i.......t,....... ..i.. .i..o

' t  !  ! t t  ! I a

i... n e m . ...a 0

1 I

O i i i i i i i

l O i i

Max Shear Stress induced ~

to - by the postulated SME (IPA = 0.3 g) f s 1

l 1

~

to -

O \ l l

1 30 -

l 4

. O V

3 Eculvalent Uniform l

• 40 -

Shear Stress induced

~

l 7 by SME l 8 'I I

3 O 3 i 0 '

E 60 - ~

s O .

E o l O i l 60 - -

l l l

C  !

l 70 - Equivalent Uniform Shear - -

Stress used for evaluating liquefaction in Plant Area O C 80 _ _

l go  !  ! I I L 1 l,

O 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Shear Stress - psf i Proje:1 HATCH NP M AX AND EQUlVALENT UNIFORM STRESSES F ig  !

USED IN LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION- 1 Pro'e-t Ne 8743076A ,,, _ ] PL ANT ARE A i 14

0.6 -

037 en ,3e Pement Anes = 35 15 s5 3 I I I O.5  :

3 I I I I I j i i g i I l l I

' I Alo g l OA ( ,l l l' I I l I l ' '

I I T. M n l t l o (, j' ,

l tc / i ,

l g1o+ p y' O

t,'.'.=.,, .m.,/P,/ / i

c. ' -

C, ' 2 g

'c / .e Mg g 8 @o,C2

<25 4'2 22

% / i) C ,

gny'r ,

el, l

er

x FINES CONTENT 25%

Modified chinese code Proposol(cloy contents 5%) 6._

0'I .so C %0 27 0 cs hbrQi nct No L!QJefoction Liovetocton Liouefoch:n 3' Pon Americon dato e o Japonese doto , e e Chinese dato 4 6

0 O 10 20 30 40 50 (Ni ko F rom Seed e' a' (1980 F ig Project HATCH NP CYCLIC STRESS RATIO VERSUS (N3 )60 Project N C- 8743076A M : 7 1/2 15

. S _

T _

7 N A

Fig 1 T -

L 1 U 1 _ _ S N

N-O C

E D _

Y L _

C _

0 ' D 1 , R E A R W _

U D _

S O O

S W E _

R N

9 , dt '

PO I te ec GT _

po j NA _

_. or dP I

NR I

A s FS eh i

NS -

vt r

u ro OE _

Cf '

CR T 8 g e LS _

f g

a A .

a r I

C _

k e TI v

I L _

e A NC I -

r u

~

F Y _

s O

C s '

e r 7 g '

S N __

P T O n C e

d E ._

r F _

. u F b

r e E v

O _

e 6 i a

i v - l r

t e c t Nt e a f

f M E I I

B F

s

_ s 5 g e)6 I

- l n

i o89 s 1 e

h .

or Ced r r oa f H I 4 i er ge nt af PA R (a N6 7

H0

. C3 T4 A7 3 g I H8 o

2 N 0 8 6 4 2 O  :

t t 1 0 O O 0 c c e e j j J' or or P P

1 l

6 O Y >

E" $ l

$ I o w

$U a

e  ! I o

= 3 a.

O i O F E

o O O O [] [E CE BE EEEDOEI O b o h 3 auD $ $  !

3 0 El o g l

g D }

p n,

0 O th O 6 qh u.

o O o O a U

• E "I IhU a C D n IJ

• C D o n mC1nn o a z$ g E O UD 30 0" $

2i 2 0 8'6 g? 8EF' I  !

C O @ O s s j g'gy>

ersW%

g r, O C30 , h1 '

E fl -

r C ,.K ,mb o l

~ c@oss rc f

@ Td gul~f 6 O

,% 'a w sfka b  !

CD gi 8 t O o

D Ng O Z e N

• C tPO 88 ze o

$ $ $ k $ $ O $ $ 3 0

2 leel - (1sn) WOlle Ael3 hC ho Ot,

E. I. HATCH NPP --

SMA SPT Blowcounts -- Plant Area Elevation Mean Blowcount Standard Deviation 65 to 80 17.3 5.6 45 to 65 15.3 4.7 40 to 45 20.3 5.2 30 to 40 23.5 7.0 20 to 30 23.9 6.4 0 to 20 25.5 6.3 WCC - 05\10\88

e

, @ 3E ea-(

tJ "ti p a

EE

2.

8 t :.

• [I*l gr5 i 21 3.I 2D :

.o Em<

I It' }z gas u

i i

• i a i i i I-l2 l

5 gG 2

{ '. /

t.r 1.

I :. 3 g -: {

5. . , 51 I' 8 l /

. '{11ll e e

. . i e e e s e

[.

I i

i! -

1

[ .

3 .

[-

I t i I I t  ? 1 i... . . ... ....,. ..i. . . . .

1 I 1 I I e t t  ! 1

!  !  !  :  : 2  :  :

! i... n i n i . i. ..

- - - _ ~- - ____ . _ - - _ _ .

W Calculated Margins Against Liquefaction 4

Plant Area -- Hatch NPP Based on ZPA = 0.28 g Depth Below Ground Surface - f t SPT Blowcount Used:

50 - PercentHe 20 _

70 -

84 -

40 -

o

, 1, .i f 4

' E 60 -

i-, u __ r ,

I -

f. I 13 80

! .v

' E _. - C j Water Table e a Depth - 45 f t 100 l

l 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Calculated Margin Against Liquef action l

i l

s YffQQ. ~%c ii:

a3 2 2/c/ rvs s

e Sdb r s

i e n o o, r( I M p w

i g a > 4 o m_ ,

o';. ),,d rg l*P 29 o3 ::p!15 !!

!!H !

, li ij - k s -O

.jpS

'C a

i 1

S

+ f~

" ' < ,"f

-o'tr 8

.f, * . dl e o 5

[ps

. IYY,g 3: 1

~

I I.

3;r '

- E i._ -

!g

$Nw .

IE l"Q N _;

0 ,.

t . ,

-  % N e

e; v p&d - , 2 f

l g ,

ff 4 a

~ s j. , o .

p4. r, u e gl- 3 ^g 5

_._...._...,H  : .. & '% \\ g u/ f

-h.:. ' s.

i; n pa lf s.gf s

u ifL

r

• I . e h 9 ,"

h e

o <

w a e h

' o6 seertio ni .*iisa ei > aa

) - :e ::::::::G

} I* is Ih o

• d a

e i

> a:.:::::.:: Im i

1 i,

I t > c3:s::::::::::c I.

n g 1 ~: .

IIio 5

\

• IEE l

> w .:::: n.:::e f.

i. us..::::o::::::

! :cc: . :::.:B:::

4 n ....:::::::::e i.

I f f f f g g

i.e m e ai .., ...:

9

1

\

s.

. f) N

.?

"n &

=

2 g 5 m v e -

CD _

5  !

i i i i N  ? i 4 T D <

% O E W c e  ! o g g c zE Ez e

• mo o mw w HD

- , _ o ma s<

E 0 ^ m z_ <>

m O N

• e $_ zC o O D wh E C E o

a.

4w _ e

- u) o zi ww o E o c &*

.) -

O w e

• 3 .E u N D $

w i -

, o . _

- _ z m ...

., c _

o e n C'

• u o O d w

o .e .2 e 2 > D e e n

D c J Lt.J gg -

e -

2O 2O -

t O O

+e 1

c. I i

i o

i o

i o o z<

zR o o o o o o  :

o o ?R o

g e_ N_ o e <

z=E! 1 1sd Js 'y;bueals lonp!ses i e

t t iE c e dd l I

30 , i i i For Magnitude 61/21 10 -

~

Range E

2 a

o -

1 -

i 2

E o

e c

e E

o -

_U 0.3 -

I a

0.1 -

0.03 -

e I I I f 0.01 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Ky/Kman (Af ter Mehdial and Seed.19 7 8)

SEISMIC ALLY-INDUCED DISPLACEMENT F ig Project HATCH NP Project No. 8743076A PER CYCLE 24

S 4 T r .5 N ig2 A T F L _

U S

N O

C S E E D L Y 7

C L C

~ - Y -

C D R

F A w

O O O

R o w

I 6 E B 'B g M-0 U

NN HIO TT I

C WE 5

H S I

l T -

a G 4 it n N t

e E O o R N p )D T f

od SR nn oa 4 s R E a

it l e AY D a C c y EA c . HL e oB C c

a l

rA

, f o

SN I f

f o F r s r u e O S 2 e b p

2ca m N

.f ' 3 e i

l gr O a

S i u M I l

F s T e ep A it eil I n Ss e ( R t

o A P V I 2 C B A I 1 g

P A N 6 7

H 0 C 3

- O T 4

- O 0 0 0 A 7 0 0 0 0 H 8 0 5 0 5 5 1 1 2

e" e 5 . *:_ o 5?.j 3ia o .

N _

t t _

c e e c

j j o

r o r P P

n s.. .- o > N yif f

.=

>z

$9 <

i. .. o . . . . . . sG In 2

! 2 3 3 1 . E' ZI

. . . , , . . . 5y 5 o.on l ~<

8 @@ @ h i

\@ B I

1 N l t c.

,b ,

1 i G s s

i s

o

• I ,"

a

• I' l , s b -. ,

3 - s v 8 g

f e. N L

i , , , , i g \,

m .a

/

c+

I I f i 1 p i t i i... neni. ....

l l

STRUCTURAL RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR THE l SEISMIC MARGIN ASSESSMENT OF THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 1 l

1 Presented to: )

i US NRC Presented by:

Dr. James J. Johnsory Mr. Oleg R. Maslenikov i

May 10,1988

l l

SSI/ STRUCTURAL RESPONSE ANALYSES OF THE HATCH UNIT 1 STRUCTURES WILL BE PERFORMED USING THE METHODOLOGY DEVELOPED BY EPRI AND APPROVED BY THE NRC e Median - Centered Analysis Procedures and Parameter Values e Uncertainties in System Properties Accounted for by Varying Soil Properties

THE STRUCTURAL RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR THE HATCH SMA WILL BE PERFORMED USING THE SUBSTRUCTURE APPROACH e Free-Field Ground Motion l

e Control motion defined by ground response '

spectra e PGA = about 0.3g horizontal direction, about 0.2g vertical direction e Three components of motion e Artificial time histories generated to closely match the ground response spectra e Control point on the free surface at finished ~

grade e Spatial variation of motion defined by vertically propagating waves e Provided by WCC M

l 1 l i  ;

THE STRUCTURAL RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR l THE HATCH SMA WILL BE PERFORMED USING THE SUBSTRUCTURE APPROACH (CONT) e Soil Profile e Strain - dependent equivalent linear soil properties specified for each structure e Uncertainties defined by shifting of soil stiffness e Foundation Input Motion e For embedded and partially embedded structures, kinematic interaction effects are included. .

e Foundation Impedances .

e Structural Models e Provided by GPC/SCS T$

ELEMENTS OF THE SUBSTRUCTURE SSI ANALYSIS X -

x Free-field motion Foundation input motion b mzzz

^

= ,

Soll profile Impedances gg, l f/ffff) l Structural model l

l l

SSI/ STRUCTURAL RESPONSE ANALYSES OF FOUR HATCH UNIT 1 STRUCTURES WILL BE PERFORMED e Reactor Building e Control Building l

e Diesel Generator Building '

a Intake Structure O

_N

1 REACTOR BUILDING e Soil Profile e Combination of Soil Profiles I and II e Soil property variation (0.75,1.5) e Soil / Foundation Model e Sensitivity study for embedment effects e Foundation, input motion and foundation impedances calculated with SUPERALUSH e Possible additional soil property variation e Structure Model 1

e N-S, E-W, and vertical models by GPC/SCS 1

l M

l

TYPICAL SUPERALUSH FOUNDATION MODEL OF REACTOR BUILDING Transmitting Boundary -

Backfill ,

'l ,

r

\N\\\\\\\\ \\\'

, \\\N\\\W

\\\\\\\\\\

Rigid Beams > \\\\\\\

\\\\W I \N l

e

REACTOR BUILDING SEISMIC MODEL

.ttc e so .

L s' o' D ' Jowr % luna y,,,

a' A Jo,ur L'a.w Mass M"(s) W Mnus, Akte e %msm,u

v. , ,, g i " @ ) m O '"" 'j! a a

o =

a e= em at ex

"@e g il ge m o a

em si e s

d'$ N

!, O h 11 M' 9

@ A Og E 4 ,. - u Lao-E E

e E eNO i

(,Q Lng B une$,9 N@ 1

• @ $ g 8 8

m E e ue@ 'e is r >co-s uao-  ;

AgG@ ,,

e, E

r. se _

8

@ Bsg w g y s uu t- -

0 g l e g --

,s o-g GA f

n- Aw r. i,,,

A:s w , e-

- . R.'.s Wo* [ __

l ,:e \

l l

I

i COhTROL BUILDING e Soil Profile e Soil Profile II e Soil property variations (0.60,1.5) e Soil / Foundation Model i

e Embedded, no sidewall contact with soil e Foundation input motion calculated with SUPERFLUSH or SHAKE e Foundation impedances calculated with CLASSI l

e Structure Model e Three-dimensional model by GPC/SCS EE

OL BUILDING 3-D SEISMIC MODEL ne%e O

16 54 4 MP4 Nr 05 c

l$ .

e t2

'O

' ,5 MP4 su e

6 MP5 4

s MPz E

~ s # sesAw ar48 i [J.,urgoggy j 6

MPl i e <

1 a ,

DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING e Soil Profile e Soil Profile I e Soil property variations (0.8,2.5) e Soil / Foundation Model e Surfaced - founded e Foundation input motion equals free-field ground moti e Foundation impedances calculated with CLASSI e Structure Model e N-S, E-W, and vertical models by GPC/SCS i

O0 , D EK /So' l

D x.

y 7 x k DCK l.50' 6 c,.

1w 4

1 INTAKE STRUCTURE ,

a.

\

e Soil Profile e Profile accounting for excavation and K -

Krete e Soil property variations (0.75,(1.5)

,\

e Soil / Foundation Model e Partially embedded ,

e' Foundation input motion can.ulated with SUPERFLUSH e Foundation impedances calculated with CLASSI and corrected for partial embedment Structure Model e-e Three-dimensional model by GPC)'SCS

TYPICAL SUPERFLUSH FOUNDATION MODEL OF INTAKE STRUCTURE

- Freefield

-Transniitting Boundary Y 'r Freefield--

" Rigid Beams i

Tra'nsmitting Boundary--

' r v i

e 4 w===

.~'y ENCLOSURE 2 DESCRIPTION OF TOPICS TO BE RESOLVED THROUGH THE PLANT HATCH SEISMIC PROGRAM

ENCLOSURE 2 PLANT HATCH SEISMIC PROGRAM PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS TO THE SEISMIC TOPICS I. Generic Letter (GL) 87-02 for Plant Hatch Unit 1 (l/

Georgia Power Company (GPC) will be implementing portions of the Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG) Generic Implementation Procedures that are similar to Electric Power Research Instit9te (EPRI) Seismic Margin Assessment (SMA) program with the Plant Hatch Seismic Program activities for Plant Hatch Unit 1. These combined activities will meet the appropriate requirements of both programs. These combined activities include the following:

a) Selection of the Seismic Review Team, b) Selection of the safe shutdown paths and the development of the Safe Shutdown Equipment List.

c) Preparation for walkdown, d) Screening verification and walkdowr of equipment.

e) Resolution of outliers:

At the completion of the Plant Hatch Unit 1 SMA, which includes the above mentioned combined activities, the seismic verification of the safe shutdown equipment for GL 87-02 will be complete except for the relay evaluation. The relay evaluation for GL 87-02 will be completed to the extent possible pending ,the resolution of outstanding generic relay issues and completion of the relay generic equipment ruggedness spectra.

Upon completion of the Plant Hatch Unit 1 seismic program, GPC  !

will evaluate the results to determine if any are directly l applicable to Plant Hatch Unit 2. If it is determined to be I appropriate, GPC will use the results from Unit 1 to address l applicable portions of the Plant Hatch, Unit 2 GL 87-02 program.

II. Floor Response Spectra - Peak Broadening (2)

A discrepancy in the Plant Hatch Final Safety Analysis Report I (FSAR) commitments for peak broadening of the seismic floor i response spectra curves was identified in December,1983. A 10 i CFR Part 21 evaluation was completed in 1984 in which new Floor Response Spectra (FRS) were generated. The regeneration of the FRS reflected improvements to the original seismic models and removal of excessive conservatism beyond the FSAR comi tments.

The new spectra were broamed to the intended + 10%.

The differences between the origina' and new FRS were compared and the effects of the major exceedances were evaluated. The conclusion was that no reportable condition per 10 CFR Part 21 1063U SL-4688 E2-1 06-10-88

ENCLOSURE 2 (Continued)

PLANT HATCH SEISMIC PROGRAM P70 POSED RESOLUTIONS TO THE SEISMIC TOPICS existed. The NRC was presented the results of the safety evaluation in November,1984. In 1986 these new FRS were made the formal FRS for Plant Hatch for future qualification of subsystems.

The NRC sent a set of questions to GPC in' April,1985 concerning the evaluation, GPC responded to these questions in May, 1985.

The NRC contracted with EQE - in the Fall of 1986 to review the seismic design. of Plant Hatch. and in particular the 1984 10 CFR Part 21 evaluation. EQE completed the evaluation in November, 1987. The NPr has not transmitted any additional questions.

Verbally, the dRC has indicated that they are awaiting the results of the Plant Hatch Seismic Program. The NRC, however, did state that the results of the EQE analysis are acceptable as a short term resolution.

It is expected that the results of the Plant Hatch Seismic Program will show a significant margin over the seismic design bases for the plant. Based on the Plant Hatch Seismic Program results for Unit 1 and the 10 CFR Part 21 evaluation performed in 1984 for both Unit 1 and Unit 2, it is expected that the NRC will issue a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) that accepts the resolution of the Plant Hatch floor response spectra peak broadening topic for both units. This SER would address the acceptability of the newly generated (1984) FRS as the formal FRS.

III. Soil Dynamic Properties (2)

The NRC contracted with EQE in the fall of 1986 to review the seismic design of Plant Hatch. As part of this review the soil profiles used in the soil-structure interaction (SSI) analysis were evaluated. The shear wave velocity used in - the original analysis of Plant l latch was based on a refraction survey of the general site area. The results of this testing was an average composite shear wave velocity of 2450 ft/sec, which is representative of relatively stiff soil. EQE reviewed soil boring data which provided standard penetration test results (blow counts) and soil type infomation. This infomation indicated a softer profile. EQE, therefore, independently developed a new soil profile using the boring data.

GPC has contracted with Woodeard-Clyde Consultants (WCC) to be the soils consultant for the Plant Hatch Seismic Program for Unit 1.

One of WCC's tasks is to review the existing soil information and develop soil profiles for the SSI analysis with appropriate variation to account for uncertainty.

1063U

, SL-4688 E2-2 06-10-88

ENCLOSURE 2 (Continued)

PLANT HATCH SEISMIC PROGRAM PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS TO THE SEISMIC TOPICS It is anticipated that the NRC will agree that the current soil modeling methodology is correct and adequately conservative.

Additionally, it is expected that the Plant Hatch Seiunic Program results will show significant margin over the seismic design bases fo. Plant Hatch utilizing the new model s. Therefore, it is expt-ted that the NRC's SER on the Plant Hatch Seismic Program will state that the soil dynamic properties topic has been adequately resolved.

IV. Cable Tray Support Load Accountability As part of the 1984 Part 21 evaluation concerning floor response spectra peak broadening a review was made of the seismic design commitments in the Plant Hatch Unit 1 end Unit 2 FSAR's. It was discovered that actual loads, in some cases, exceeded the design loads of the cable tray supports. A walkdown was perfonned of all Plant Hatch safety related cable tray supports. In a meeting with the NRC in June,1986 f t was reported that Plant Hatch cable tray supports are operable. Based on the GPC walkdown, operability evaluation and SQUG's documentation of earthquake experience data that shows the seismic ruggedness of cable tray supports, the NRC agreed with GPC to defer final resolution pending acceptance of the SQUG cable tray support evaluation procedures. GPC plans to resolve this topic as part of the Plant Hatch Seismic Program which will use, where judged appropriate, the approved SQUG cable tray support evaluation procedures. It is anticipated that the NRC SER will indicate this topic is closed.

l V. PVRC Damping (2)

As part of the 1984 10 CFR Part 21 evaluation of the floor response spectra peak broadening, new FRS at PVRC damping (Code 1 Case N-411) were compared to the original one percent damped FRS  !

used to design piping for the Design Bases Earthquake (DBE). The l result of this comparison was that no significant exceedances existed and thus the new FRS were judged not to affect safety in regards to piping.

In order to demonstrate compliance with the FSAR, GPC performed a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation which justified the use of the PVRC damping. This evaluation was sent to the NRC on January 16, 1985 (NED-85-031 ) . The NRC issued a list of questions to GPC un April 2, 1985. Enclosure 3 of that list addressed use of PVRC damping as stated in Code Case N-411.

1063U SL-4688 E2-3 06-10-88

~

ENCLOSURE 2 (Continued)-

t PLANT HATCH SEISMIC PROGRAM PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS TO THE SEISMIC TOPICS The NRC stated' in Enclosure '3 that "the - licensee's use of. code case N-411 dan.,,i ng values in piping seismic analysis as an alternative to Reg. Guide 1.61 damping values is acceptable to .the staff." The NRC further. stated that the licensee should evaluate increased piping : displacements if piping supports were removed and that the use of Code Case N-411 damping was not appropriate with a time history , analysis. The GPC response indicated the intent to

, h.eet those conditions. and to use Code Case .N-411 only on new or replacement piping systems and load reconciliation work. Based on this- NRC position, the Hatch FSAR .was revised to allow the use- of the alternative damping values.

Later, the NRC . revised their position through Regulatory Guide ,

1.84, to restrict the use of the alternative damping values only-to: 1) analyses using NRC currently accepted . seismic spectra and procedures, 2) piping systems not using supports designed 'to dissipate energy by yielding and 3) piping systems not having stress corrosion cracking. Therefore, based on the NRC revised posi tion. Plant Hatch discontinued the use of the PVRC damping valuer, GPC p,'ans to evaluate the results che Plant Hatch _ Seismic Program to determine the margin of the Seismic Margin Earthquake Floor Response Spectra at PVRC damping as compared .to that of the original FRS. GPC n.cy increase their walkdown of piping systems to better support this evaluation. These efforts are expected to show that the use of the original FRS at PVRC damping meets the -

intent of the NRC limitation that states the piping analysis must be based on the NRC current accepted seismic spectra 'and procedures. Based on a successful evaluation, the. SER on the Plant Hatch Seismic program would then allow the use of PVRC damping.

VI. Reactor Building Roof Stiructr.m Modeling discrepancies have been identified in the roof structure -

portion of the Plant Hatch Unit 1 and Unit 2 reactor building seismic models. These models have been revised and the seismic loads recalculated. The roof structure seismic forces are greater than indicated by the original analysis. The results of an operability evaluation show no detr% ental affect on plant safety.

1063U SL-4688 ' E2-4 06-10-88 P

- - . - - - . - .e-- -, ,e.,,,-,,..w-. -.y -n.#,m~- w r m m -v#,e - ,,a ,,--,--,,ww.,,,gw.-,..y,--,4,,,w,<.-w,w.,,,y.,.w,,,,,,,-,,,-9.y,. ,.,,,,.-,w,.,,..--.,-.,, w.m 9 w..y.

1 ENCLOSURE 2 (Continued)

PLANT HATCH SEISMIC PROGRAM PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS TO THE SEISMIC TOPICS

'i GPC plans to determine the high confidence of a low probability of failure (HCLPF) of the Unit l reactor building roof structure as part of the Plant Hatch Seismic Program for Unit 1. No modifications will be done if a sufficiently high HCLPF is determined for the roof structure.

The Unit 2 roof structure is similar to Unit 1, and the increases in seismic forces for Unf t 2 are less than the maximum increase for Unit 1; therefore, the results of the Plant Hatch Seismic Program will be used to address the need for any Unit 2 roof structure modification.

If a sufficiently high HCLPF value results as expected, the SER concerning the Plant Hatch Seismic Program should state that the existing roof structures have sufficient seismic capacity.

VII. Eastern Seismicity (2)

GPC plans to use the Plant Hatch Seismic Program with the estimation of the seismic hazard of the Plant Hatch site now being developed as part of the Eastern Seismicity program to resolve appropriate concerns about seismic design basis for Plant Hatch due to the Eastern Seismicity issue.

VIII. External Events - Seismic (2)

GPC plans to use the SMA of Plant Hatch Seismic Program for Unit 1 where appropriate to address the seismic portion of the external events program now under development by the NRC.

IX. USI A-40 (Seismic Design of Tanks Only)(2)

GPC plans to address the design of above ground tanks and their anchorage using Appendix H of the EPRI technical report No.

1551.05 as part of the Plant Hatch Seismic Program for Unit 1. In addition for Plant Hatch Units 1 and 2, GPC will use, where appropriate, the procedures being developed for SQUG on the design of above ground tanks, and anchorage of tanks and heat exchangers.

1063U SL-4688 E2-5 06-10-88

ENCLOSURE 2 (Continuad)

PLANT HATCH SEISMIC PROGRAM PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS TO THE SEISMIC TOPICS X. USI A-17 (Seismic System Interaction Only)

Spatial seismic system interaction will be addressed for Plant Hatch Unit 1 as part of the Plant Hatch Seismic Program. Response to GL 87-02 for Plant Hatch Unit 2 will address seismic system interaction for that Unit, if required.

Notes: 1) Resolution addresses P1 ant Hatch Uni t 1 and partially addresses Plant Hatch Unit 2.

2) Resolution addresses both Plant Hatch Unit 1 and 2. Plant Hatch Unit 1 and Unit 2 are mirror image units and as such are very similar. The Control building, Diesel Generator Building, and the River Intake Structure are shared structures. Equipment, subsystems, and piping are in most cases very similar. There are dif ferences in the seismic design basis for each unit but comparisons of the floor response spectra show that they too are very similar. Based on the fact that both units are similar and Plant Hatch Unit 1 is the older unit, the margin determined from the Plant Hatch Seismic Program for Unit 1 is judged to be a reasonable lower bound for Plant Hatch Unit 2.

l l

l l

1063U SL-4688 E2-6 06-10-88