ML20236C625
Text
g e,
-i i
e December 27, 1974 i
i l
Mr. Olan D.
Parr, Chief l
l Light Water Reactors Project Branch 1-3
)
Directorate of Licensing Office of Regulation U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Re:
Dockote 50 275-OL 50-323-OL
]
Dear Mr. Parr:
1 In response to your request for additional information dated December 6, 1974, the seismic reEponse Of typical Design
~
Claco I structures, systems, and components at Diablo Canyon' has i
been determined using the modified input response spectra speci-l fied in your letter'and damping values given 'in AEC Regulatory Guide 1.61.
l The modified input spectra were derived from the ac-J celeration time histories for the Parkfield - 5,1966, N85E component and the Castaic,1971, S69E component, each normalized to a peak ground acceleration of 0.5g.
The, spectral content of these records is considered representative of the vibratory ground motion expected at a site with foundation material similar to Diablo Canyon and generated froen a nearby sourca.
A comparison of these modified spectra with the spectra' and damping used in the Diablo Canyon design confirms the seismic
)
design adequacy of typical class I structures, systems and compo-nents at Diablo Canyon.
The detailed results of this work are included in the' attachment to this letter.
Very truly yours, Attachment (15)
F. T. Searls l
I CC w/ attachment See Page 2 JBHoch/ PAC:TC-9707300134 070721 _
PDR -FOIA CONNDR87-214 PDR q-J
I'.'.
o' t
Mr. Olan D. Parr 2
December 27, 1974 CC w/ attachment:
Mrs. Elizabeth B. Apfelberg Richard L. Black, Esq.
Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.
Mr. Glenn O. Bright Mr. William P. Cornwell Mr. Frederick Eissler Mr. John J. Forster Mr. Lonnie Valentine Mr. Angelo Giambusso Nathaniel H. Goodrich, Esq.
I Dr. William E. Martin Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.
Secretary - Attn.:
Docketing and Service Section Mrs. Sandra A. Silver Andrew Skaff,.Esq.
James R. Yore, Esq.
l 4
S
.___m_._._.m_u_--
y g, s
DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 AND 2 INVESTIGATION OF EFFECT ON SEISMIC DESIGN USIPC PARKFIEI.D-5,1966, N85E AND CASTAIC,1971, S69E RECORDS (SCALED TO 0.5G PEAK ACCELERATION) AS INPUT l
1.
INTRODUCTION i
The time-histories of the Parkfield-5,1966, N85E component and the Castaic, 1971, S69E component are plotted in Figures 1 and 2.
The time-histories are scaled to have a peak acceleration of 0.5g.
These components (normalized to f
0.5g) will hereaf ter be referred to as simply Parkfield-5 and Cac taic. The Double Design Earthquake (DDE, as defined in the FSAR) response spectra for 5% damping is compared with 7% damping response spectra for the Parkfield-5 and Castaic records in Figure 3.
The particular choice of damping values fer spectral comparison is based on the damping value used in the DDE analysis (5%) aad that recommended by AEC Regulatory Guide 1.61 (7%) for reinforced concrete structures such as the containment structure.
j Table 1 provides information on the period ranges where the various spectra envelope the others.
It is apparent from Table 1 that for structures, sys-tems, and equipment having significant natural modes with periods in the ranges: T < 0.08 see and 0.34 < T < 1.0 sec, the Parkfield-5 or Castaic ground motions may induce a greater response than the DDE. All of the i
Category I concrete structures, viz., the entire containment structure, i
including the interior structure, and the auxiliary building, have significant periods in the range 0.08 < T < 0.34 see and thus their seismic design is not likely to be governed by Parkfield-5 or Castaic ground motions.
The steel structure above sae fuel handling area in the auxiliary building has periods in the range of 0.35 see to 0.52 see and its seismic responae could possibly be governed by Parkfield-5 or Cactaic ground motions. However, as discussed in Section 5, 2% damping was used for bolted steel structures in the DDE analysis whereas Regulatory Guide 1.61 recommends 7%.
In the next section, the results of a dynamic analysis of the containment structure with Parkfield-5 as input ground motion are compared with those from the DDE analysis.
Section 3 gives a comparison of floor response spectra for selected points in the containment structure.
Section 4 discusses the i
_______J
o ',
effects cr. NSSS components.
Section 5 compares analysis results from Park-field-5 and DDE on the auxiliary building.
Section 6 discusses Design Class I tanks located at grade elevation.
2.
f 0NTAINMENT STRUCTURE The same analysis procedure as described in Section 3.7 of the FSAR was used.
The axisymmetric finite element model of the containment structure and the foundation rock mass is shown in Figure 3.7-5 of the FSAR. The input boundsry motions corresponding to Parkfield-5 free field ground motion are derived by the saae deconvolution procedure described in Section 3.7 of the FSAR. The comparison of the response spectrum of the original free field motion and that of the recomputed curface motion is made in Figure 4 Natural mode periods and mode shapes were found to be identical as in the previous DDE analysis. These are given, respectively, in Table 3.7-1 and Figure 3.7-6 of the FSAR.
In computing the responses for Parkfield-5, damp-t ing of 7% of critical was used for the concrete structure vs. the 5% used in the DDE response computations.
Table 2 through 5 compare the analysis results using the Parkfield-5 motion with corresponding responses obtained using the DDE motion. The responses compared are maximum absolute accelerations, displacements, total shears and total overturning moments.
Except for the acceleration at the base slab, the Parkfield-5 responses of the containment structure are much less, or in the case of nodal point 38, only very slightly greater chan the corresponding DDE responses.
The higher acceleration response at the base slab for Parkfield-5 is to be expected since the peak acceleration in ground adjacent to the slab is specified as 0,5g for Parkfield-5 comparef to 0.4g for DDE. The natural periods of the containment structure are all less than 0.25 sec.
Noting from Figure 3 that for T < 0.30 see the Parkfield-5 and Castaic response spectra are in approximately similar relation to the DDE spectrum, and that the natural mode peritds of the containment structure are all less than 0.30 sec, one may also conclude that the Castaic t asponses of the containment structure would be generally in the same proportion to the DDE responses as are the Parkfield-5 responses.
l,
3.
FIDOR RESPONSE SPECTRA - C0tTIAINME?Tr STRUCTURE Acceleration time-histories at several r.odal points of the containment structure model were derived. Acceleration response spectra for Parkfield-5 t
using 37., and in some cases 4% damping were calculated at the following nodal
)
1 points (see Figure 3.7-5 of the FSAR for the location of nodal points).
j i
I Nudal Point Elevation Remarks 14 231.0' Dome spring line 19 140.0' Top of interior structure 32 111.0' Interior structure 34 120.5' Exterior structure 47 88.5' Base slab Figures 5 through 11 compare these response spectra with DDE floor response spectra for 1/2% and 1% damping, respectively, at corresponding nodal points.
i Damping of 1/2% was used in seismic (DDE) analysis of piping systems vs. the 37, damping value suggested by AEC Regulatory Guide 1.61 for large piping systems under SSE.
Similarly, 1% damping ws: used in seismic (DDE) analysis of NSSS components vs. 4% damping now accepted by AEC-DRL for the Westinghouse NSSS. The DDE ficer response spectra given in FSAR section 3.7 are smoothed versions of the corresponding computer generated plots used in Figure 5 through 11.
It is immediately apparent from Figures 5 through 11 that except for T < 0.075 see at NP 47, the Parkfield-5 floor response spectra are always much lower than the DDE floor response spectra.
Making the same argument as made at the end of previous section, the above conclusion can be assumed to be valid for the Castaic component also.
i 4.
NSSS COMPONENTS l
The nuclear steam supply system is supported in the containment (interior) structure and applicable response spectra are those at NP 47 and NP 19 for the steam generators and reactor coolant-pumps (Figure 3.7-5, FSAR). The following are the fundamental period ranges of some of the important components of NSSS.
' i
e Component Period Renge, sec.
Steam Generator 0.11 - 0.12 Reactor Coolant Pump 0.13 - 0.14 Reactor Vessel 0.06 1% damping was used in the NSSS seismic analysis for DDE. However, 4% damp-in the SSE seismic analysis has been accepted by AEC-DRL for the Westinghouse l
NSSS. Thus, using the spectra in Figures 10 and 11, it may be concluded that the Steam Generators and Reactor Coolant Pumps are likely to see smaller seismic forces under Parkfield-5 motion than under the DDE motion. The reactor vessel is supported on the interior concrete structure at elevation 102. Comparing maximum absolute accelerations for Parkfield-5 and the DDE (see Table 2, NP 38) indicates that seismic forces on the reactor vessel are l
essentially the same for either seismic input.
Similar conclusions may also be made for the Castaic component on the same basis as the conclusion made in the previous sections.
5.
AUXILIARY BUILD 1!C The sace analysis procedure as described in Section 3.7 of the FSAR was used.
The model for the auxiliary structure is shown in Figure 3.7-13 of the FSAR.
The natural mode periods and mode shapes of the structure were found to be identical to those obtained for the DDE analysis.
The natural periods are given in Table 3.7-8.
In the DDE analysis, 2% damping was used in the steel portion of the structure (Mass No. 6 in Figure 3.7-13 of FSAR) and 5% damping in the concrete portion of the structure.
In the present analysis, Parkfield-S ground motion is used as input and 7% damping is used for both the concrete and steel portions of the structure (the steel structure has bolted connections) in accordance with AEC Regulatory Guide 1.61.
The results of the present analysis are compared with those from the DDE analysis in Tables 6 through 10.
The DE analysis results are given in Tables 3.7-9 through 3.7-13 of the FSAR and the DDE responses are simply twice the DE responses.
The results presented in Tables 6 through 10 show that at no point in the structure does the Parkfield-5 ground motion govern the seismic design of 1
the auxiliary building. This is explained by the fact that the dominant r
l
natural mode period of the concrete structure is 0.105 see whnre Figura 3 j
and Table 1 show DDE response spectrum controlling.
The steel structure periods are in the range of 0.35-0.52 sec, in which either Parkfield-5 or i
Castaic s pectra controls. However, 2% damping was used in the DDE analysis and if the 2% damping DDE response spectrum is compared with the 7% Parkfield-5 respot.se spectrum, the DDE response spectrum is found to be controlling.
Noting that the steel structure's dominant period in the E-W direction is l
0.516 and observing from Figure 3 that the Castaic response spectrum is substantially above the Parkfield-5 response spectrum, it was felt that the steel structure's response in the E-W direction may be controlled by Castaic.
An approxieste modal analysis, using the intermediate results (periods, mode shapes, and modal participation factors) of the Parkficid-5 computer analysis, was made for the Castaic ground motion.
It was fcund that the Castaic responses were almost equal to (actually 5% smaller) the DDE responses.
For example, the absolute acceleration of Pbss No. 6 (see Figure 3.7-13 of PSAR) was 1.03g for Castaic compared to 1.10g for DDE.
Thus one may conclude that neither Parkfield-5 nor Castaic governs the seismic design of the auxiliary building.
6.
DESIGN CLASS I TANKS The Design Class I tanks located at grade respond at periods greater than 3 seconds.
Therefore their scismic design is governed by the DDE (see Figure 3).
e I
l
)
1
+
'1
- i; I
?
i TABLE 1.
COMPARISON OF RESPONSE SPECTLA
{
l S,(P-5) or S,(C), 7% Damping Period (T) range Governing Spectrum S (DDE), 5% Damping
(
a max T < 0.08 see Parkfield-5 1.39 0.08 < T < 0 34 DDE
<1 0'.34 < T < 0.41 Parkfield-5 1 34 0.41 < T < 1.0 Castaic
't.30 i
4 e
6 e
l
i s
TABLE 2.
MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE ACCELERAT10!43, CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE Maximum Absolute Structure Nodal Elevation Acceleration in g Point
- ft PARKFIELO-5 DDE Analysis 2
301.64 1.207 2.083 l
i 8
274.37 1.069 1.736 10 258 27 0.985 1.567 E
i 3
14 231.00 0.789 1.177 i
S b
17 205.58 0.637 1.358 m
E 23 181.08 0.558 1.369 l
1:
26 155.83 0.523 1.292 d5 34 130.58 0.545 1.080 l
37 109.67 0.537 0.793 19-22 140.00 0.762 1.19E g
o ti 24 127.00 0.709 0.982 E
$(
27-30 114.00 0.657 0.773
$5 32 110.00 0.645 0.726 b
t!
38 102.00 0.608 0.601
~~
i Base Slab 47-58 88.58 0.556 0.483
- See Figure 3.7-5 of FSAR JOHN A. DI.U M C IL AGGOCI ATIM. C Nt".aN t.i 6.
TABLE 3.
MAXIMOM DISPLACEMEllTS,
CONTAlflMENT STRUCTURE Maximum Displacements Structure Nodal Elevation in inches l
)
Point
- ft PARKFIELD-5 DDE Analysis 2
301.64 0.734 1.063 8
274.37 0.657 0.967 10 258.27 0.618 0.911 f
14 231.00 0.522 0.807 17 205.58 0.425 0.695
[
23 181.08 0.348 0.587 o
26 155.83 0.263 0.459 5
34 130.58 0.185 0.327 t
L 37 109.67 0.121 0.212 g
19-22 140.00 0.124 0.139 i
nf 24 127.00 0.109 0.114 27-30 114.00 0.095 0.090 32 110.00 0.091 0.084 38 102.00 0.080 0.068 Base Sl&b 47-58 88.58 0.063 0.050
- See Figure 3.7-5 of FSAR
.JO H N A. O L U M I. tk ASOOCI AT (* G. C NCL_Ntl1 * **
I e-
{:
i TABLE 4.
MAXIMUM TOTAL SHEARS, i
I CONTAINiiENT STRUCTURE S
I 9
Structure Associated Elevation fiaximum Shears-kipsx103 Nodal Points
- ft i
PARKFIELD-5 DDE Analysis 2
301.64 0.19 0.66
)
8 274.37 6.04 9.38 10 258.27 9.01 13.91 14 231.00 12.97 19.55 c) bb 17 205.58 16.92 25.02 It 3P 23 181.08 19.74 29.98 t5 M 26 155.83 22.28 36.66 34 130.58 24.24 44.18 37 109.67 26.67 49.42 57 88.G8 27.49 51.39 u [>.
.19&22 140.00 8.94 13.23 33 bg 27&30 114.00 13.07 16.87 Eb
~"
49&54 88.58 25.71 30.96 Total Base Shear 49,54&57 88.58 37.64.
59.99
- See Figure 3.7-5 of FSAR Y
s
~
. au,;,i.: m m,.m. 2..,..
.v..>
"~
I'
m TABLE 5 MAX 1 MUM TOTAL OVERTURflING MOMENTS,
4 CONTAlflMENT STRUCTURE Maximum Overturning Structure Associated Elevation Moment - kip-f tx106 Nodal Points
- ft PARKFIELD-5 DDE Analysis 2
301.64 0.00 0.00 8
274.37 0.II 0.18 10 258.27 0.27 0.41 14 231.00 0.63 0.97 I
l
,g J7 205.58 1.10 1.67
)
i o3 1: 0 23 181.08 1.68 2.50
$E dj e?
26 155.83 2.08 3.08 34 130.58 2.79 4.07 i
37 109.67
'3.18 4.58 l
57 88.58 3.76 5.48 19&22 140.00 0.05 0.10 jjy 27&30 114.00 0.19 0.33 WD Eh 49&54 88.58 0.81 1.24
-m Total 0.T.M. at Base 49,54&57 88.58 3.85 5.62
- See Figure 3.7-5 of FSAR JOHN A. Mt.LJM(; t( A *, '.OCI ATt?. 4 i. N C.*.i
.*O i
s' TABLE 6.
MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE ACCELERATIONS, AUXILIARY BUILDING
'l
,~
Maximum Absolute Accelerations N-S Direction E-W Direction Mass Elevation Horizontal Rotational Horizontal Point *
(ft)
Acceleration Acceleration Acceleration 2
(g)
(rad /sec )
(g)
It 2t 1
2 1
2 6
188.00 0.80 1.38 0.010 0.018 0.77 1.10 1
163 00 1.09 1.96 0.074 0.180
. 1.17 2.40 2
140.00 0.85 1.16 0.063 0.158 0.89 1.60 3
115.00 0.70 0.84 0.045 0.108 0.72 1.08 4
100.00 0.61 0.62 0.034 0.084 0.61 0 7,4 5
85.00 0 56 0 54 0.018 0.044 0 55 0.54
- See Figure 3 7-13 of FSAR 1
TABLE 7.
HAXIMUM RELATIVE olSPLACEMENTS v
Maximum Relative Displacements N-5 Direction E-W Direction Mass Elevation Translation Rotation Translation Point *
(ft)
(1n.)
fradiant x 10~)
(in.)
1 2
L._
2__
1 i
a 6
188.00 1.524 2.688 1.551 1.814, 1.866 i 2.756 1
163.00 0.137 0.224 2.105
-4 934 0.154 0.276 2
140.00 0.089 0.122._
1.835 4.426 0.101 0.172 3
115.00 0.057 0.076 1*.282 3 096 0.065 0.104 j
4 100.00 0.035 0.044 0 977 2.364 0.039 0.060 5
85.00 0 020 0.028 0.464 1.120 0.019 0.028
- See Figure 3.7-13 of FSAR tColumn 1 gives responses to Parkfield-5 Column 2 gives responses to DDE JOHN A. ULUMC (k ASSOC 8 ATC$. C NGINC t 'if *
- s.
a
)-
]
e-AUXIL ARY DU L i Maximum Story Shears 3
I (kips x 10 )-
Member
- I N-S Direction E-W Direction It 2t 1
2 5
2.08 3i50 2.00 2.78 I
10.65 20.72 13 90 27 06 2
,64.05 90.70
'61.04 115.18 3
110 37 142.84 111.05 184.82 4
69.62 98.84 62.13 96.56 l
- Sce Figure 3 7-13 of FSAR f
J TABLE 9 MAXIMUM OVERTURNING MOMENTS 1
Haximum 0.T. Homents (kip-ft x 10 )
]
6 Hember*
1 N-S Direction E-W Direction
~
1 2.
I 2
5 0.100 0.168 0.094 0.134-1 0.250 0.486 0.327 0.636 2 (top) 0.237 0.472 0.276
,0.646 2 (bottom) 1.818 2 740 1.802 3.526
'3 3.444 4.882 3.447 6.298' 4
4.488 6 366 4.355 7.746
- See Figure 3.'7-13 of FSAR t olumn 1 gives responses to Parkfield-5 C
Column 2 gives responfes to DDE JOHN A. FILUMC & AGGOCIATCS. CNGINI.'Clei
E, TABLE 10.
MAXIMUM TORSIONAL MOMENTS DUE TO EARTH-QUAKE IN N-S DIRECTION, AUXlLIARY BUILDING j
l Maximum Torsional i
Member
- Homents 5
(kip-ft x 10 )
It 2t 5
0.088 0.172 1
0.804 1 738 2
34.033 81.782 l
3 52.494 126.034 4
40 333 97.888
- See Figure 3.7-13 of FSAR t olumn 1 gives responses to Parkfield-5 C
Column 2 gives. responses to DDE l
4 JOHN A OLUMC A ASSOCI AT CS CNC.1NCa *f tG
- ~
f
^
V-e 16 A>
G 6
^-
a 1
y 0
[
5 a
^v a
l
^v
/^
O 2
r 1
S y
O N
O M
C o
E r
a t
S RI N
'y I
[
,ii O
I E
a 6
M N
I T
F
{
[
l f
j 0N lj e
S 6
LI os M
EA V
/
e to
/-
l I
W
=
FE c.
e 2
KC c4
/
R ter L
9 R
3 3
7 3
C 3
c M
3 S
3 P
=
3 f
3 S
3 c.
1 3
3 6
3 c
~
1 G
O O
2o
.awo)tC
v j
Je 18
)
j ju ik p
16
\\
G 4
. 1 0
j r
i yl s
5 1
2 SD N
n O
0 C
o E
q t
S N
M I
f' I
3 E
R 8
M T
OI j
l N
.6 j
y p
p CA 4
I y
I AE
.z TC r
Jf L
I;"
S agn l
f O
A
=
=
3 7
3 g
3 f3 3
C 3
1 W
3 3
3 3
3
=
5 3
G 0
l.
z 3
g 5
0 Cm OT
)
D G
/
E N O Af Z
I I
P L
)
L M T
G A A a S 1
N M D lpA I
R P
O %
xC M
N 7 f
(
ta B
s 3
A 5
0
~
y D
1 I
J 9
E S
4 S
E W
0 T
I E
A O
9 T
6 6 8
I 6 S 0
C D
9 O
E 1
Z 1
S I
7 S
L 5 9 A
1 A
M D
R L
D O
E C 6
N I
I 0
N
(
F A A
K T E
R S D
A A E
D P C M
U 4
L 9
S R
i N
2 H
3 O
J i,
)
0 0
s.
s.
2 S
4 0
2 1
1 C
0 2O w Eg-a&rM=+. E 33,'
l
0N 5O 0C
.E 0D PL ME N
AD O
DO I
S M
E I
V GF D
I H
5M C
.O R
A 0R E
F S
E M
R RN
/
OO NI S
E T
T DO A
LM I
C E
O S
ID S
FN A
KU D
RO N
A AR PG E
M U
L B
h R
N H
k)
O J
)/
3 S
2 e.
4 2
s 2
_5'
1 J
l I
4 l
3
'i l
/
~O CD Q_ O e
i a
ZC g
O
_.)
d z
Lt_i o
~
m LL.
F-2
~>
n O
ZE f
e --e r
Q_
l 1
U Ltj i
e ac f
o CW Z
m LtJ 2
/
O s
1 o
4 HW h
[
gw O
uJ'
~
TO C
n U
F._ O
/
d O
j i
O
[?-
Z LLJ ca E
DO l
N C
tt)
E U
ev si m;
I C
Z I
ei i
O t
7 I
N t
w3 a-9 a
- a n
o y
noutaro:nu urnm,
C 9
3 3
1 P3 0
0 9
8 N
3 AG N
0 0
1 S
TD I
7 V
L I
D NE H
I C
EF R
S.
A K
0 E
MR S
E A
R NP
/
5 3
I S
E 5
T A0 R
0 I
4 C
T 3
O S
0 S
N A
D 0E 3
N 3
A D
CD E
M U
2 L
r B
R N
I H
O O
J C
3 D
5 c
o 1
s
V V
l l
l
, 'd-1 s
e 1
d l
Q_. 07 O
,d Z
z O
l i
1 o
~
l b
0 t
d
__J O
Z LLJ i
l W
l U
Li_J LL e
u l
C W
d Z Od l
l u
uJ d
l 2
Z Q_
l a
a o
d
.-4 G
D U
l p
CO i
4 O
d u
F__
O c,7 L
Z c
h OW h
l E
O UC u
r l
O ev
_J d
CD i
z C
'S o
1
\\
l r1 w
N w
I w
l sn to m
te m
o j
W
,0 e
1 m9 00
- 9~'
'"C
'9 L
sh
.A,,v4 to
' t f' 4, I
IMAGE EVALUATION
/%
O v
\\/// '[
- (k*
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
/
[,ff b,
\\NNNIf e
~2 78 h[d l,Q 4
.- u3?
p=n
- ru l,l f
bb IU1 1.25 1.4 1.6 4
150mm 4
6"
+,, k
. #,,'g (
4 f[;/<Apf 4/f
'*4 4)g.s-[d4 0
.;{s
- p cp
de K,Q':q$>
.A' g
\\[/// ';:[;p
/////g // ); V 4,
,:i'1 %
t' IMAGE EVALUATION O
v tigff TEST TARGET (MT-3)
/////s IW f/>
+
te I
II.z_-
fio=
g c.
ly t.
y, llc 2.0 H
ean l,l t
I! I.8 p=
l 1.25 1.4 l
1.6 i
l 4
150mm 4
So y
A
- 7/>
4+b
/,7s 4
h f.
47777
'Qg$f4b ce h
5,,//
y
- Q;$#
to
+
',' ggp a'
er v
IMAGE EVALUATION
,,<. 4:e, O
~
.\\///p/,, (,. %ff*
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
/
[,l?
~
9 (g
/Q jV V
9,,,/,
s g
+
+
1.0 E M* O i: 1. 11B1
\\ \\' 2.0 r ou lIIsas l,l
~
lL!1 1.25 Il I.4 1.6 h
4 150mm l
4 6"
b %g 4,d6'$g'IS';r 4+ +['4
/
\\
4h i\\
//Fj
- u, w
oy,
4y s
o
a ' A'a
%. Q f, IMAGE EVALUATION 84%
O x
////
'E[ ^
$h
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
/
,fjf2* fg 9,,W R7,,
1.0
- - f E21 l; 1 9 M l.1 [f M ps m.__
!M l
l 4
150mm 4
6" 3> *i,I zz,*g
- it.$6*t 4%
p&,,,>, ff
<geg ff ye
0 1L 5
3 3
0 P3 0
8 N
3 N
0 O
I S
TD 7
I V
0 L
I D
NE H
I C
EF R
6 R
K 3
R NP
/
5
~
O I
S E
5 T
A0 A
0 I
4 C
T O
3 S
0 S
N A
D 0E 3
N 1
A D
CD l
E I
M U
L 2
0 B
R N
1 H
G O
J 3
0 3
1 s
e 3
,5l : !
'g0 3
,7.--
-. -. -. - _ - -. - - ~.
1 f
s,-
i
[,, > 3 4 -,* ;
v ej l
L
- J 4}
l 9
1 y'.
l
.n
.j' O
o_ cc) a, Z
i z
O O
m b) g b--- O d
.I
)
~.
O-Z LLJ f
)
r H
U IWL e..
m n
C d
y Z O2-i u;
E 1
2 Z CL a
N O.
o M
&---1 M
1.tJ LU W
O y
EO O
e o
p_...
O m
z cc ci i
zC O'
J
(_ ) O -
I 11) i M
E, g
o
' fD 1
({
I
'l
. a 1
~~)
85 to w
i fd I
a n
i i
[4 e
u-
.r ed o
-l un o c 6 us-n nn u n,nce...
e "m
V cn e
,o M
O
_ I i
g_ 34 O
Z
=
a z
O o
~
}--- O
~>
o
_]
i
~
O Z LLJ r
H U
LLJ LL.
\\
M a.
l C
d i
i T--. M i
n l
u) 1 2
Z Q_
a 7o x
i e
l L-O W
l s
c~
C l
i O
~
s u
p d
'2 Z
l t_
l c
Q UQ a_,
ED d
l iv d
CO C
Z r
ci O
O M
l N
i C.
cd i
n
.a t
L9 e
N Pe f
U
.m o
.=
q
C
/
5
/
3 4
0 P4 0
6 N
N 0
~
3 O
I S
TD I
?
V 0
L I
O NE H
I EF C
R 5
R K
3 E
MR S
E A
R NP 5
0.
/
I S
E 0
T A1 R
0 I
'4 C
T 0
O S
0 S
N R
D 0E 3
N 0
A D
CD E
M U
L 2
C B
A 1
N l
0 H
O J
3 0
J 3
2 C
m 9
l
l/
6' URS/ JOHN A. BLUME & ASSOCIATES, ENGINEERS I
,(
Sheraton Palace Hotel. 130 Jessie Street (at New Montgomery)
San Francisco, Cahforrien 94105 Cable. BLUMENGRS V
(415) 397-2525 A uns svivems Anw April 12,1973
_FWB RECEIVED JAMci
~MAC Civil Structural OAR
_MWC ABS SMC is i
GFD GAT-Mr. Frank Brady Pacific Gas G Electric Company
--.VJG nPR I G1973 gw 77 Beale Street
--.SAH MVW-San Francisco, California 94105 CML PASS RHW_
I MEL FILE-EPW
SUBJECT:
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Unit No(AEfdO W L m.
- 9. / g j
Tanks on Compacted Engineered Fill 4
1
Dear Mr. Brady:
The purpose of this letter is to summarize data transmitted previously to PGGE regarding the seismic design criteria for the subject tanks at Diablo Canyon Unit No. 1.
The circular tank, 40 foot in diameter and 40 feet high, is founded on approximately 25 feet of compacted sandy clay fill. The fill had an aver-age wet density of 120 pcf (pl) and an assumed shear velocity of 900 fps (ys)). 'Ihe base of this fill surface slopes at an average angle to the
(
horizontal of 20 and is underlain by the typical sandstone foundation rock present at Diablo Canyon.
The sandstone has a wet density of 140 pcf (p2) and a shear wave velocity of 2,000 fps (ys2) as determined by our field 1
investigations and summarized in JABE-PGE-DC-2R.
The dynamic amplification factor (DAF) was then calculated using the equa-tion:
l p2 YS2 /2 DAF
=
pi ysl We determined that the representative DAF at the site will average 1.5 under s
the tank.
Because of the sloping rock-soil interface beneath the tank, the resonant period of the compacted soil layer will fall between 0 and 1.0 sec-onds which we understand is below t%t of the tank.
Therefore, soil reso-nance will not affect the response of the tank, and response spectra perti-nent to the fill surface for the design of the tank can be obtained by multi-plying the sandstone rock spectra by the factor 1.5.
Very truly yours, URS/ JOHN A. BLUME G ASSOCIATES, ENGINEERS
%o R.%4 Fred R. Conwell
~
Chief Engineering Geologist FRC/cj
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-275-OL
)
50-323-OL Units 1 and 2
)
)
Diablo Canyon Site
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document M1 of Pacific Gas and Electric Company has :(hzus): been served today on the following by deposit in the United States mail, properly stamped and addressed:
Mrs. Elizabeth E. Apfelberg Mr. Angelo Giambusso, Director C/o Ms. Raye Fleming Division of Reactor Licensing 1746 Chorro Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Washington, D. C. 20555 James R. Tourtellotte, Esq.
Nathaniel H. Goodrich, Esq.
Office of Executive Legal Director Chairman BETH 042 Atomic Safety and Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Washington, D. C. 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Landow Building - Room 1209 Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.
Washington, D. C. 20555 i
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dr. William E. Martin U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Landow Building - Room 1209 Senior Ecologist Washington, D. C. 20555 Battelle Memorial Institute Columbus, Ohio 43201
)
Mr. Glenn O. Bright i
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.
l U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Landow Building - Room 1209 Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D. C. 20555 Appeal Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Willihm P. Cornwell Landow Building - Room 1209 l
P. O. Box 453 Washington, D. C. 20555 Morro Bay, California 93442 Secretary Mr. Frederick Eissler U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Scenic Shoreline Preservation Washington, D. C. 20555 Conference, Inc.
4623 More Mesa Drive Attn.:
Docketing and Service Sectio Santa Barbara, California 93110 Mrs. Sandra A. Silver Mr. John J. Forster 322 So. Plymouth Boulevard i
l C/o Mr. Gordon Silver Los Angeles, California 90020 l
322 So. Plymouth Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90020 4
Si k
\\
Andrew Skaff, Esq.
Counsel Public Utilities Commission of the State of California 3066 State Building San Francisco, California 94102 i
l 1
/
r
)
A W,Y Philip ~A. Crane,(Jr.
Pacific Gas [and Electric Cor..pany Attorney Dated: July 18, 1975 i
i m_