ML20212J048

Summary of 860618 Meeting W/Util,Mpr Assoc & Bechtel in Bethesda,Md Re Util Review of Seismic Design of Cable Tray Supports.List of Attendees & Presentation Matls Encl

ML20212J048
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	01/21/1987
From:	Rivenbark G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Muller D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8701280075
Download: ML20212J048 (44)

Text

_ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _

l .

January 21, 1987 1 a Dockets Nos. 50-321/366 DISTRIBUTION 6

NRC'PDR/L PDR MEMORANDUM FOR: Daniel R. Muller, Project Director PD#2 Memo BWR Project Directorate #2 DRMuller/GRivenbark Division of BWR Licensing OCG-Bethesda EJordan/BGrimes FROM: George Rivenbark, Project Manager ACRS (10)

BWR Project Directorate #2 NRC Participants Division of BWR Licensing I

SUMMARY

OF MEETING WITH GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, i HATCH UNITS 1 AND 2 l A meeting with representatives of Georgia Power Company (GPC) and personnel from the NRC was held at the NRC's offices in Bethesda, Maryland on June 18, 1986 to discuss the details of GPC's review of the seismic design of cable tray supports at Hatch Units 1 and 2.

GPC discussed the history of its discovering the problems with the seismic design of Hatch cable tray supports and its activities directed at resolving

{ these problems. It described the status of its evaluation and the modifications it has made and the criteria and methodology that it is using to evaluate these supports. A copy of the charts used in GPC's presentation and a list of meeting attendees are enclosed.

G Q !a .; & w l lif George Rivenbark, Project Manager BWR Project Directorate #2 Division of BWR Licensing 4

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/ enclosures:

See next page D 2 DBL:h) ark /cd GRivet D r l /10 /87 ) /u 1 /87 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 8701280075 870121 PDR ADOCK 05000321 P PDR

1 o Mr. J. P. O'Reilly Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Georgia Power Company Units Nos. I and 2 f.

cc:

(

Bruce W. Chruchill, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts A Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037 .

Mr. L. T. Gucwa Engineering Department Georgia Power Company Post Office Box 4b45 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 Mr. H. C. Nix, Jr. , General llanager Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Georgia Power Company  !

Post Office Box 442 '

Baxley, Georgia 31513

!!r. Louis B. Long Southern Company Services, Inc.

Post Office Box 2625 -

Birmingham, Alabama 35202 1

Resident Inspector '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 1, Post Office Box 279 Daxley, Georgia 31513 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, i 101 Marietta Street, Suite 2900 l Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. Charles H. Badger Office of Planning and Budget Room 610 270 Washington Street, S.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Mr. J. Leonard Ledbetter, Commissioner Department of Natural Resources 270 Washington Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Chairman Appling County Commissioners County Courthouse Baxley, Georgia 31513

1 o ENCLOSURE 1 LIST OF ATTENDEES SEISMIC DESING MEETING

-k.

g HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT JUNE 18, 1986 NAME ORGANIZATION D. R. Huller NRC/NRR G. W. Rivenbark NRC/NRR B. D. Liaw NRC/NRR C. P. Tan NRC/NRR R. A. Heman NRC/NRR K. C. Lea NPC/IE/VPB R. P. Correia NRC/IE/VPB J. D. Heidt GPC/ASL L. T. Gucwa GPC/NSL L. B. Long SCS/NSF S. H. Chesnut GPC W. R. Schmidt MPR Associates K. D. Wooten SCS G. A. Kosi Bechtel C. L. Weaver Bechtel E. W. Thomas Bechtel D. P. Moore SCS/ Civil & Arch Design J. C. Tsao NRC/NRR P. Sobel NRC/NRR

I o

j. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY l PLANT HATCH CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS UPDATE JUNE 18, 1986 AGENDA INTRODUCTION LEN GUCWA BACKGROUND ON CABLE TRAY KEN WHITMORE 3 SUPPORT ISSUES CABLE TRAY SUPPORT OPERABILITY KEITH WOOTEN CRITERIA ..

S00G AND OTHER INDUSTRY BILL SCHMIDT, ACTIVITIES MPR ASSOCIATES FUTURE CABLE TRAY SUPPORT LEN GUCWA ACTIVITIES OTHER SEISMIC ISSUES /0UESTIONS LEN GUCWA LOU LONG 1

1

i -

i OUTLINE i

i p

1. BACKGROUND j-L 11. INITIAL INVESTIGATIONS h

L l

0 lil. PHASE I WALKDOWNS

! IV. PHASE ll WALKDOWNS .

i

.,_m ._.

) V. STATUS OF PROGRAM l

i

BACKGROUND l FEBRUARY-SEPTEMBER,1984

1. Review FSAR commitments l 2. Review original cable tray support calculations

3. Obtain field data .

_m _

l

! 4. Comparison of field data vs. calculations

j i

ISSUES

l. Cable tray supports with attached conduits II. Cable in some trays in excess of design loads t

',Jea$ emmaa 4

.o 1

l -

INITIAL INVESTIGATION SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER,1984

! l. Analysis of supports with as-builts II. Formalized program to prevent loads being added to cable tray supports without engineering approval lli. Informed NRC about on-going investigation T123-0670A 5 l

l n -.

l

RESULTS OF INITIAL INVESTIGATION (d"e#N ?

Supports w/ stresses

1. Of Supports Higher Than Allowables (one4d MU Unit Reviewed Number  %

1 258 114 44 %

2 194 61 32 %

Tl23-0670A 6

',.a, E. w

PHASE 1 WALKDOWN NOVEMBER,1984 (UNIT 1) j APRIL AND JUNE,1985 (UNIT 2) 1 L 1. Every support for class 1E cable trays l

2. Chose supports most likely to be overstressed during a seismic event

3. Supports chosen by a team of engineers J

t

4. Enveloped all configurations and parameters

5. Walkdown was documented and audited '

i  :- 6. Results were presented to NRC Tl234670A-7 l

I

--_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ __ w

l s

ee sl  %  %

sba%

e r

7 5

5 7

t w so

/l wlA s n4 t

r a oh pT p r S u r e

- T eb Sh gm 4 4 L f 3 3 U OiuHN S #

E R

1 s t

r E od pe S pw 0 5 _

A uei 6 4 H Sv e

P f OR _

t i

n 1 2 U ~.

i u..

II I '

CABLE TRAY SUPPORT ANALYSIS PROJECT -

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART ALTERNATE FOR civil SR. PROJECT ENG. ----------

AND K. L. WHITMORE ARCHITECTUAL I

l PROJECT LEADER K. D. WOOTEN I

I I I I Group Leader Group Leader Group Leader Group Leader J. J. Smith J. Tehranchi T. B. Lantrip J. P. Reynolds j J. Mascoll P. Foley J. Grabowski D. Skridulis I I I I K. McClain D. Amick T. Chau S. Barnett 1

I I L. Daniels D. Gendreau J. Harrill i I I H. Yeroushalmi J. Glanzman R. Chumney i

M. Kayhan

,.~w l

T. Nunnelly I

P. Buckley I

M. Oblalor

'O PHASE 2 WALKDOWN l UNIT 1-SEPTEMBER,1985 i

i 1.

Included every support for Class 1E cable tray except i

A. Supports reviewed in detail based on as-built for design changes B. Supports located in areas where all Phase 1 supports met design

' requirements (g,;;iu,uf ama2&Cy "E)

II. Calculated a conserva(ve load on each individual support due to all attachments lil. Computed a conservative stress on each component of each support IV. Compared computed stresses to allowables based on FSAR commitments

" ' ~

V. All calculations were performed by a team of engineers with an independent verification VI. All work was documented and audited T123-0607A-9 i

A - - -.__ _______ - -________-_ - - ___ .- _. _ _ . _ _ _ .

PHASE 2 WALKDOWN UNIT 2-MAY,1986 1

l l. Included every support for Class 1E cable tray except A. Supports reviewed in detail based on as-built for design changes l B. Supports located in areas where all Pnase 1 supports were shown to -

j . remain functional C. Supports located in the drywell (these supports will be reviewed in the upcoming outage) 1 l

II. Calculated a conservative load on each individual support due to all 4

attachments

lil. Computed a conservative stress on each component of each support F

4 IV. Compared computed stresses to allowables based on the operability

,  : ; criteria V. All calculations were performed by a team of engineers with an independent verification

) VI. All work was documented and audited

b PHASE 2 RESULTS

Approximate # # Of Supports Of Supports w/ stresses Higher l

Unit Reviewed Than Allowables las($"'h 1 1200 11 2 700 7*

i 1

These 18 supports are still being evaluated in detail to demonstrate their

- functionality in their as-found condition. All 18 have already been modified to bring j calculated stresses to within allowables contained in the operability criteria. ,

i l

t-j 1

)

i

I t

SUMMARY

1. Issues A. Conduit attached to cable tray supports B. Cable weights in excess of design weight

2. Review of Supports A. Initial Review B. Phase 1 Walkdown C. Phase 2 Walkdown i 3. Upgrade of Supports A. For on-going design changes j

- - Supports being evaluated against the requirements l

of the operability criteria

.l Tt23 0670A 12 I

S Z

O D '

]

O  :

Z O

O 1

1

.i i

i I

Every cable tray support for Class 1E cable trays at Edwin I. Hatch Unit 1 and 2 has been inspected by a team of structural engineers familiar with seismic analysis of cable tray supports.

I

'l I

in their present configuration, stresses have l been shown to be less than the allowables l contained in the operability criteria for every

[

i cable tray support at Plant Hatch.0)

The Phase 2 Walkdown of the Unit 2 drywell will not be conducted until the upcoming scheduled outage.

'je.eee W

i 1

a I

A program is in place which insures that all cable tray supports are evaluated prior l to adding any new loads to the support.

4 l

1. M M 4

l i

1

't I

l No conditions adversely affecting public health or safety have been identified.

e AM M 1

o

PLANT HATCH UNITS 1 & 2 CRITERIA USED TO EVALUATE CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS FOR OPERABILITY

! e Detailed support as-built developed e Finite element model j e Response spectra modal analysis based on DBE floor response spectra e

Damping based on Bechtel/ANCO test program o Modal response combination per FSAR commitments and Reg. Guide 1.92

e Earthquake components combined per FSAR commitments

a- e Dead load + DBE l

i Tl23-670A 21 l

1 LOWER BOUND DAMPING AS A FUNCTION OF INPUT ZPA 24 50% TO FULLY LOADED TRAY 20 A

O 16 _'")

g ___

n.

g 12 O

8 UNLOADED TRAY yy .. L.-. -

4

/ .

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 INPUT FLOOR ZPA ,,,,_,,,,_,,

I l

! e Structural steel allowable stresses used:

l - Flexure, tension:

1.7 X code allowable 4F y 1

- Shear:

1.5 X code allowable:ss.57 F y e Weld stress allowables used:

1.7 X code allowable Embedded anchor bolt allowable stresses used

I 1.7 X code allowable e

Factor of safety of 1.5 against ultimate was used for globe strut connection bolts

e Expansion anchor bolt allowable loads are in accordance with manufacturer's published data and used a minimum -factor of safety of 2.0 against ultimate

~

e The combination of force components (i.e. shear and tension) for expansion anchor bolts are be based on a circular interaction l relationship i

Tl23 470A-22

._ ~

~ ..

OUTLINE 1 INDUSTRY EFFORTS - SEISMIC QUALIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT / CABLE TRAYS

[

A. INDUSTRY PROGRAMS APPLICABLE TO PLANT HATCH 0 SEP AND BECHTEL/ANCO CABLE TRAY TESTS 0 SEISMIC QUALIFICATION UTILITY GROUP (SOUG)

PROGRAM B. SEP CABLE TRAY TEST PROGRAM C. SQUG PROGRAM (USI A-46) 0 BACKGROUND / PURPOSE O EARTHQUAKE EXPERIENCE DATA BASE O SCOPE OF PROGRAM O CABLE / CONDUIT RACEWAY SCOPE O STATUS / SCHEDULE O APPLICABILITY TO PLANT HATCH il 1

1

SEP CABLE TRAY TEST PROGRAM O C NDUCTED IN 1982-1983 BY A GROUP 0F NINE SEP UlILITIES. .

O INCLUDED OVER 100 TESTS OF FULL SCALE CABLE AND CONDUIT RACEWAY SYSTEMS TO SEISMIC SPECTRA WHICH BOUND MOST EASTERN PLANT SSE'S.

O TRAY SYSTEMS TESTED INCLUDED ROD-SUPPORTED, STRUT-SUPPORTED, BRACED AND UN-BRACED CANTILEVER-SUPPORTED TRAYS TYPICALLY USED IN SEP PLANTS.

O NO SYSTEM FAILURES OCCURRED.

. 0 OVERALL CONCLUSION: THE CABLE / CONDUIT RACEWAY SYSTEMS PRESENT NO SIGNIFICANT SEISMIC SAFETY CONCERN AT THE LEVEL OF EXCITATION SPECIFIED BY THE SSE'S FOR THE PLANTS.

0 FURTHER ACTION DEFERRED TO SQUG/USI-A45 RESOLUTION. ,

l l

[ALL PLANTS COMBINED E m.o HORIZONTAL FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRAb p N0 0*3 _ . . . . .. . .... . _ .

J s.o  :  :-

s.o -  ; 4 VERTICAL FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA

, .3 s.o - ;

7

,(

- 4.o - ; _

i en .

E

-- s.o - 5

/ 3

\ E

! /  ! j -----7 - dD g

,". /

__ g,o = a ./ 'w  :

:= f 'y 8  :

j  %\

[ / p-TEST RESPONSE SPECTRA' '

~-

/ / ,

{

)f /

J / - -

,/ ,

/ \ -

- I.o =-

J ,. , , ,

n , \,

x, , wi

-~;t--/\ ,1 -

o,,

- , , , , .- x x x x .

F \ \  ;' /.r r aF \ \ \

/ J'  ; 'L *

~

/

/ f' ./ \ \ h ~ ~

.f a / / j \ 't t 0

/ // / _ \ 'N im H Z'_ ./

u

, / / s e x x S.5%

• ' U ggg~ // \\ "' t

' ~

/ // M N N 5

r

/ //3' \- M,rnu iE --- o,3 -

g 5

]

/ -

// /

\'3o)-

i i

/ Sns  : ,/

/

i i

= f / > n: o,g - = /  :

5 / ,r Mos 5 / 5 i // E i / i

//  :  :  :

,c 1.o ... 2 . . . . ........ .... . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . - ..m .a o,, ro. _

. . . . m.oom - - - -

m. . . . . . o m me ,mm 2 3 4 ssan 20 (4 s s .a to a a4ss e io zo so 40 .4 s s .a to so 4p FIGURE 2.11 PERCENTILE ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR ALL PLANTS, 4% AND 5% DAMPlNG

i.

l SOUG PROGRAM ,

1 BACKGFp0ND 0 INITIATED IN 1982 BY A GROUP 0F UTILITIES TO j DETERMINE FEASIBILITY OF USING ACTUAL EARTHOUAKE EXPERIENCE IN INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES TO DEMONSTRATE THE SEISMIC RUGGEDNESS OF CONVENTIONAL POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT USED IN NUCLEAR PLANTS.

O PILOT PROGRAM WAS SUCCESSFUL AND, WITH NRC SUPPORT, l

HAS BEEN EXPANDED TO PROVIDE THE TECHNICAL APPROACH FOR RESOLUTION OF USI A-lis, SEISMIC QUALIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT IN OPERATING NUCLEAR PLANTS.

0 SQUG NOW INCLUDES 33 DOESTIC UTILITIES REPRESENTING THE MAJORITY OF OPERATING NUCLEAR PLANTS.

l

SEISMIC QUALIFICATION UTILITY GROUP

{ American Electric Power Co.

Arkansas Power & Light Co.

l Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.

Boston Edison Co.

f Carolina Power & Light Co.

CGEB ,

Commonwealth Edison Co.

Consolidated Edison Co.

Consumers Power Co.

Detroit Edison Co.

I Duke Power Co.

i ENEL ctn Florida Power Corp.

Georgia Power Co.

GPU Nuclear Corp.

INTERCOM Iowa Eectric Light & Power Co.

Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co.

Nebraska Public Power District New York Power Authority i

Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

Northeast Utilities Service Co.

Northern States Power Co.

l Omaha Public Power Dist.

Philadelphia Electric Co.

Public Service Electric & Gas Co.

Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.

Sacramento Municipal Utility District Southern California Edison Co.

Tennessee Valley Authority Toledo Edison Co.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.

Virginia Power Co.

Wisconsin Electric Power Co.

Wisconsin Public Service Corp.

Yankee Atomic Electric Co.

THE GOAL OF THE SQUG PROGRAM HAS BEEN TO MAKE THE3BEST POSSIBLE USE OF ACTUAL EARTHQUAKE EXPfRIENCE DATA TO RESOLVE USI A-46 e DEVELOP A HISTORICAL DATA BASE ON THE PERFORMANCE OF EQUIPMENT IN CONVENTIONAL POWER AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES DURING AND AFTER STRONG EARTHQUAKES.

e SHOW THAT THE EQUIPMENT IN THOSE PLANTS IS THE SAME AS EQUIPMENT FOUND IN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.

e SHOW THAT THE DATA BASE EQUIPMENT WAS SUBJECTED TO STRONGER GROUND MOTION THAN SSEs FOR PLANTS OUTSIDE CALIFORNIA.

e DETERMINE WHAT EQUIPMENT PRESENTS l SIGNIFICANT RISKS IN AN EARTHQUAKE.

I

TABLE I j, NON-NUCLEAR DATA BASE FACILITIES i

Recorded cr Earthauake Facility Estimated-PGA*fa)

(

San Fernando 1. Sylmar Converter Station 0.50 1971 2. Rinaldi Receiving Station 0.40

3. Valley Steam Plant 0.40

4. Saugus Substation 0.40

5. Burbank Power Plant 0.35

6. Glendale Power Plant 0.30

7. Pasadena Power Plant 0.20

8. Vincent Substation 0.20 Point Mugu 9. Ormond Beach Power Plant 0.20 1973 10. Santa Clara Substation 0.10 Ferndale (Eureka) 11. Humboldt Bay Power Plant 0.30 1975 Santa Barbara 12. Ellwood Peaker Plant 0.35 1978 13. Goleta Substation 0.28 Imperial Valley 14. El Centro Steam Plant 0.51 1979 15. Magmamax Geothermal Power Plant 0.25 Humboldt County 16. Humboldt Bay Power Plant 0.27 1980 Coalinga 17. Main Oil Pumping Plant 0.60 1983 18. Shell Water Treatment Plant 0.60 and Aftershocks 19. Shell Tank Farm 0.60

20. Union-76 Butane Plant 0.60

21. Coalinga Water Filtration Plant 0.60

22. Pleasant Valley Pumping Plant 0.60

23. San Luis Canal Pumping Stations 0.35

24. Gates Substation 0.35

25. Kettleman Gas Compressor Station 0.25 Morgan Hill 26. IBM Santa Teresa Facility 0.45 t

1984 27. United Technologies Chemical Plant l 0.45 {

28. Metcalf Substation 0.40 1

29. San Martin Winery 0.35 I

30. Wiltron Facility 0.35 l

31. Evergreen Community College 0.20

32. Mirassou Winery 0.20

33. Gavilan College 0.12

3 5 1 i

g CHILE EARTHQUAKES 5

8 h MARCH 3,1985 M '= 7.8 APRIL 8,1985 M = 7.2 5

t

~5 I

.1

{3 i

1

b / g ,

{

., 30MMARY OF STRONGER PEAK ACCELERATION RECORDS (g)

'l l {. AVE LOCATpON H H V H t

1

1. MEllPILLA 0.67 0.68 0.34 0.67

2. PELDEHUE 0.64 -- --

0.64

3. SAN PEDRO (S.S.) 0.60 0.57 0.38 0.58

4. LLOLLEO 0.43 0.67 0.86 0.55

5. LLAYLLAY 0.34 0.49 --

0.41

6. SAN FEllPE 0.35 0.43 0.21 0.39

7. PICHILEMU 0.43 0.23 0.14 0.33

8. PAPUDO 0.13 O.47 0.11 0.30

9. VINA DEL MAR 0.23 0.36 0.20 0.30

10. ZAPALLAR 0.28 0.26 0.18 0.27

11. RAPEL P.P. 0.31 0.14 0.11 0.23

12. VALPARAISO (1) 0.16 0.29 --

0.22

13. QUINTAY -

0.20 0.18 0.13 0.19

14. LAS VENTANAS P.P. 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.18

15. VALPARAlsO (2) 0.17 0.19 0.12 0.18

16. SANTIAGO 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.11

e I a t-1 1 MEXICO EARTHQUAKES 1

1 l SEPTEMBER 19,1985 M = 8.1 SEPTEMBER 20,1985 M = 7.5

l .

6.

)

.]

1 l I

)

1 il 1

1 . - -

i THE GROUND MOTIONS FOR BOTH EVENTS WERE VERY LONG AND STRONG. THE CHILE EARTHQUAKE RECORDED VERY HIGH A{CELERATIONS.

I f

GROUND MOTION COMPARISONS CHILE MEXICO RECORDS OBTAINED 31 18 PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION (g's) 0.68 0.28 PEAK VERTICAL ACCELERATION (g's) 0.86 0.15 HIGHEST AVERAGE HORIZ. ACCEL. (g's) 0.67 0.24 DURATION (0.10g OR GREATER; SEC.) 42 40 ENVELOPE NRC RG1.60 SPECTRA PGA (g's) 0.40 0.17 I

e OS g WE VISI ED 10 SITES IN THE AFFECTED AREA, INCLUDING:

1 2 POWER PLANTS

} 1 SUBST TION 1 VERY LARGE STEEL MILL 1 FERTILIZER PLANT

_j 1 CONCRETE PLANT 1  :

1

)

THE 2 POWER PLANTS AND THE STEEL MILL HAVE 11 UNITS:

)

I LA VILLITA 4 UNITS

$ EL INFIERNILLO 5 UNITS SICARTSA 2 UNITS 3

5 g

8  !

R _

THE LLOLLEO RECORD AVERAGE HORIZONTAL I RESPONSE x SPECTRUM SUBSTANTIALLY ENVELOPS .

AL " PREVIOUS SQUG DATA BASE RESPONSE SPECTRA IN THE HIGH FREQUENCY RANGE 2.0 - r

,si , AVERAGE OF TWO HORIZONTAL COMPONENTS 83 5% DAMPING RESPONSE SPECTRA 1.8 ll 8 i 8i LLOLLEO,1985 CHILE E.O.

Ii 1.6 - ii ------- PLE AS ANT VALLEY PUMPING PL ANT,1983 CO ALING A E.O l! ----- EL CENTRO STE AM PL ANT,1979 IMPERI AL VALLEY E.O.

3,,, ,a l \ ,g

-- -- VALLEY STEAM PLANT 19 71 S AN FERN ANDO 'E.O.

lj j 1 g \ ------ - SYLM AR CONVERTER STATION,1971 S AN FERN ANDO E.O.

s I: .

Wj ik j U.S. NRC Reg. Guide 1.60 (At 0.25g).

o 1.2 -

• l ,' i l g

\

l I  ;

.5 *

• I .

A \\

/

j Y.'. i L \'j%.(% 's ii q .

8 .8 - ..

l ll. ' .-

i S

\

\ /%

.6 - f ,, ,

k.

l8 ,

- - ~ ". '

._._ . _. ._ . ' T.---_ .~ v % ._. ,

4-

.i

,: ,I s- .._... X.T:::- . :- ::.-~.;: .:-- . :.--- --- ::::.- . - .

.2 -

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Frequency (hz)

, . - , - - . . - - - - - . , .- ,-e , , , - , , - - - - -- , - - - - ,-

THE, CURRENT SEISMIC EXPERIENCE DATA BASE CON AINS DATA FROM:

e TEN STRONG MOTION EARTHQUAKES e SIXTY FACILITIES 17 POWER PLANTS WITH 53 UNITS e HUNDREDS OF STRUCTURES e THOUSANDS OF EQUIP. MENT INSTALLATIONS e THOUSANDS OF PIPES, CABLE TRAYS, ETC.

. - - - . . - _ - - _ _ - _ - = = _ _ . . . - - - - . - ._ .- - - - . . . _ . -._. - -

...e SCOPE OF EQUIPMENT i

1 INITIALLY s

0 8 CLASSES OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT POST-NRC/CRGR REVIEW 0 ALL CLASSES OF SAFE SHUTDOWN EQUIPMENT UNDER USI A-I46, EXCLUSIVE OF SOME EQUIPMENT UNIQUE TO NUCLEAR PLANT.S.

CURRENT SCOPE D ADDED CABLE AND CONDUIT RACEWAY SYSTEMS.

1 l

\

.~.

EXPERIENCE DATA ON CABLE /CCNDUIT RACEWAYS T

0 SC;UG WORKSCOPE FOR 1986 INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING T/SKS FOR CABLE / CONDUIT RACEWAYS: .  ;

l REVIEW AND

SUMMARY

OF CABLE TRAY DATA FROM l APPROXIMATELY 20 SITES, 8 EARTHOUAKES REVIEW AND

SUMMARY

OF DATA FROM SHAKE TABLE AND OTHER TESTS OF CABLE TRAY SYSTEMS DEFINITION OF BOUNDS OF THE DATA BASE (TRAY CONFIGURATIONS, GROUND MOTION)

DETERMINE ANY RESTRICTIONS / CAVEATS ON APPLICABILITY OF DATA BASE TO CABLE AND CONDUIT RACEWAY SYSTEMS IN A-46 PLANTS 0 TO DATE, DATA COLLECTED FOR 20 PLANTS AND 8 EARTHOUAKES (INCLUDING CHILE AND MEXICO).

ADDITIONAL ALASKAN AND MEXICAN DATA WILL BE INCLUDED.

O AVAILABLE DATA INCLUDES " MILES" 0F CABLE TRAYS, MANY OF WHICH HAVE SUPPORTS TYPICAL OF (BUT WEAKER THAN) PLANT HATCH AND WHICH WERE NOT SEISMICALLY DESIGNED.

O NO FAILURES OF SYSTEMS TYPICAL OF NUCLEAR PLANTS HAVE BEEN REPORTED.

. e. e SQUG STATUS T

0 S$G APPROACH REVIEWED AND ENDORSED BY NRC, ACRS, CER AND AN INDEPENDENT SEISMIC REVIEW PANEL (DRAFT NUREG ISSUED).

O NRC FINAL RESOLUTION AND GENERIC LETTER EXPECTED IN FALL, 1986.

O SQUG GENERIC IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES FOR ALL MEMBERS TO BE ISSUED IN EARLY 1987.

O PLANT-SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION TO START IN 1987.

l 1

I .

+

1 L

g ee t

_ $g a-E l ~ *

- y a  ;;

E It-  ! =

4 I =k m <

L 3 DI 3 o -

l 1 d2

". k

~

$ h

• R i I e  !

o 3

E g 4 5 $

I- 3 l 2 m>

2 -

u

$ h I-1 5 E o

F

-.- Ia

! I j

In 8' l' 9

5 - t ' =

2 li l l _ i, t. , i-1 I ;I*l

. I

• j l> It l l -l E s e, i

' Ia l -

5 i

j fat' tat +

t 2

13 i.

5 R h

_ e

• l 4 I  ::

1 1 e E l  ? 22 l' l

- 2 2 22 c ,

5 1 . . . .V-1 s

8 k.

-[

J kt i

g.

)

a  %

8 j 5 a .

k.j

-S . g I:: & 2 d -

A S

j g 2 2 -re l.

. 5 3 -l .s t- t  : -

tg-:

m- t -: 3 N tE JJ -[ % 2I.-

E .a*::!]

s e t

g. GI

• g g >

E ga jiI3 l

• EI-.

• g ! :e je 6

I:g !e *E .:!:

atJ g=21.gtf

• 2:ll4

!s .3!- .

; s

..-r a

; {

i:*i2: 1 8:

3 4 . .  :

! j =f j i 5i a m 8 2 8 3: =g.

! )s:2 5- :. ei . .

r- s 4i .te:

ss:

aac 8 a s:16: = ; g ;r i. s. e g a rm. s i, :s ga 3 34g-n-i- i c, e, r  :. z ;. :E : :: -

-- 3 3 23.J. - 3m_g s: .-

pas-.:,cl; t::- ;l3 .!e3 4 _. . s =

s:

g. e a;;;;

i . t e s gas.I*_g s a g e- s ], g. ) - .-.j* e _i g! o U

o -o=s pa" .t sl3_

262.3 gg 5 ". Ah t -I I*

6 2 = 5G **ESA5'**ASAf-J -5 3*E'**S

'g: y .aada af f : aada a*as diadi L aa a

• 3

. .1 . . ... . .. .. . . . .. ~.

PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 0 S SMIC TEST AND EXPERIENCE DATA ON CABLE TRAY SYSTEMS WITH LITTLE OR NO SEISMIC DESIGN (AND SOME WITH MARGINAL DEAD WEIGHT DESIGN) HAVE IDENTIFIED NO SEISMIC SAFETY CONCERNS FOR EARTHQUAKES WHICH B0UND EASTERN U.S. SSE'S.

O THE TEST AND EXPERIENCE DATA BASE INCLUDE TRAY AND

( SUPPORT DESIGNS TYPICAL 0F THOSE AT HATCH.

O THE SQUG PROGRAM APPROACH AND RESOLUTION ARE l l

APPLICABLE TO HATCH.

0 FINAL SOUG RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS WILL BE AVAILABLE IN LATE 1986; IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES WILL BE AVAILABLE IN 1987.

1 i

O v,

s oo T

i.

SUMMARY

r e PLANT HATCH CABLE TRAYS ARE ADEQUATELY DESIGNED AND OPERABLE.

e A CONSERVATIVE OPERABILITY CRITERIA AND PROGRAM TO CONTROL ADDITIONAL LOADS IS IN PLACE.

e SQUG SPONSORED CABLE TRAY TESTS AND REVIEWS OF SUPPORT PERFORMANCE IN ACTUAL SEISMIC EVENTS IS EXPECTED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DEMONSTRATION OF THE CONSERVATIVENESS OF THE HATCH CABLE TRAY SUPPORT DESIGN.

e GPC IS AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN THE GENERIC RESOLUTION OF CABLE TRAY SUPPORT ISSUES THROUGH SQUG AND A-46.

i e

i

.