ML20245H214
| ML20245H214 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/22/1989 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-1746, NUDOCS 8906290427 | |
| Download: ML20245H214 (147) | |
Text
' ' ' '
MCXJ/-f/TO hub!l\/3l
.mi!TED STATES
) NUcIJuut REGUIATORY COMMISSION c........................................................
In the Matter of:
EXTREME EXTERNAL PHENOMENA
)
Pages: 1 through 116 Place: Bethesda, Ma pj If' Date: June 22, 19 . , L f .
[
,- f -
'n ' L0 *0 j,0@Lj[*g;h.;Egt -
Ij/
a......................................N..o,) [(1D.mm gs.i44 HERlTAGE REPORTING CORPORATION OpkentRepartm .
1229 L Street, N.W., Sades 600
) WanWagtom, D.C. 20005 (202) 628-4888 sco6290427 A50622
_' 7[ PDC
1 PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE
.,.- 2 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S
(.,,, 3 i ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4
5 6
7' The contents of this stenographic transcript of the 8
. proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory 9
Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS),
10 as reported herein, is an uncorrected record of the discussions 11 recorded at the meeting held on the above date.
12 No member of the ACRS Staff and no participant at 13 this meeting accepts any responsibility for errors or 14 inaccuracies of statement or data contained in this transcript.
f-~s 15
-- 16 17 18 19 d j
20 21 l l
22 l 23 i l
24 25 1
1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 v
1 L UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. ym
/t )<
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
- s_J In the Matter of: )
)
. Subcommittee on Extreme )
External Phenomenon )
Thursday
- June 22, 1989 Room P-110, Phillips Building
- 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland The meeting convened, pursuant to notice, at 8:30 a.m.
SUBCOMMITTEE._MEMBERSf RESENT:
DR. CHESTER P. SIESS Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering University of Illinois Urbana, Illinois p
i MR. CHARLES J. WYLIE
'- Retired Chief Engineer Electrical Division Duke Power Company Charlotte, North Carolina i I
ACRS_ COGNIZANT _STAEE ME_MBER:
MR. AL IGNE ACgS_ CONSUL _T ANT :
JOHN STEVENSON Stevenson & Associates 9217 Midwest Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44125 fN Heritage Reporting Corporation
(/)
s-(202) 628-4888 i
-: . _ _ - _ - _ _ _ . _ _ )
- 2 1 EBQQRED1EGE 2
3 DR. SIESS: The meeting will come to order.
g 4 This is a meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on 5 Extreme External Phenomena. I am C. P. Siess, Chairman of 6 the Subcommittee. Sitting on my left is the other ACRS r
7 member, Mr. Wylie and we have as a consultant to the 8 Subcommittee today, John Stevenson. ,
9 The purpose of todays meeting is to review the 10 resolution of A-40, I guess they have got retitled " Seismic 11 Design Criteria", right? The original name of it was the 12 "Short Range Seismic Program," and 10 years into the !
13 program, it got changed'from "Short Range," right"?
14 MR. SHAUKAT: Yes.
15 DR. SIESS: I'm not a USI, is it?
16 MR. SEAUKAT: Yes. I J
17 DR. SIESS: It is a US7?
18 MR. SEAUKAT: Yes.
)
1 19 DR. SIESS: I'll cort back to that. j l'
20 E. Igne is the Cognizant ACRS Staff Member for 21 todays meeting, he's sitting on my right. )
l 22 The rules for participating in the meeting have )
I 23 been announced as part of the notice published in the -
24 Federal Register on June 12, 1989. The meeting is being 25 conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Federal )
1 Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
(202) 628-4888
j 3 l 1 Advisory Committee Act and the Government in the Sunshine j l
c~ 'Ns 2 Act.
J t
'/ 3 We have received no written statements from )
l 4 members of the public arid no requests to make oral !
l 5 statements. -
i i
6 You guys have been here before. Give your name 7 when you first speak, so that the recorder will get it and 8 please use the microphones behind me for the benefit of the 9 people sitting behind me and, for that matter, for my 10 benefit, because I don't hear too well.
1 11 Charlie, have you got anything? l 1
12 MR. WYLIE: No.
13 DR. SIESS: John, to begin with?
1 i
14 MR. STEVENSON: No.
l 15 DR. SIESS: I wanted to ask a general question.
16 How many USIs are left? l 17 MR. MINNERS: It's just 3 or 4.
18 DR. SIESS: That's what I thought.
l 19 Well A-17 is on the way.
20 MR. MINNERS: It isn't officially resolved yet.
21 DR. SIESS: We wrote a letter last month.
22 MR. MINNERS: That's correct.
. 23 MR. THATCHER: Dale Thatcher. The other one that 24 isn't officially resolved, I think, is USIA-47, which you l
25 also wrote a letter on.
,s Heritage Reporting Corporation
[ (202) 628-4888 l %. -
l l
s 4
l' 1 DR. SIESS: What is A-47?
2 MR. THATCHER: That's the Control System one.
3 DR. SIESS: Oh yes, we have written off on that.
4 A-46 wasn't a USIA?
5 MR. THATCHER: Yes, it was, but that--
6 DR. SIESS: Okay. We're getting them cleaned up.
7 We're not going to have any more, are we?
8 MR. MINNERS: We have criteria by which we review .
9 them, so it's possible.
10 DR. SIESS: When was the last USI initiated? l 11 MR. MINNERS: I guess it was A-49. l 12 DR. SIESS: That was a long time ago. I think GIs 13 are enough without the US in front of them.
14 Do you still have to report to Congress on the 15 resolution of it--the status?
16 Okay. The staff is going to give us a history. I 17 don't anybody here that was around when it started. So I 18 won't say anything in the way of introduction on history 19 because the staff is supposed to tell us where this got 20 started and how it got to where it is now. So Mr. Chokshi--
21 that's not--
22 MR. SHAUKAT: I'm Khalid Shaukat.
23 DR. SIESS: You're Shaukat, okay. -
24 MR. SHAUKAT: I am the Test Manager on USIA-40 and 25 I will present a brief history of USIA-40 and how it has Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
1
\ .1 L________________ ._ l
5 i
l' resolved. Later-- i i
i rN 2 DR. SIESS: How long have you been Task Manager? ;
! i !
d 3 MR. SHAUKAT: Since '82.
4 DR. SIESS: Okay.
1 5 MR. SHAUKAT: Later Nilesh Chokshi will present j l
6 some of the technical details of some specific subjects.
7 A-40 originated in 1977 with the following 8 objectives-I 9 Investigate selected ares of seismic design ]
i '
10 sequence and quantify margins, if any, in the design 11 process, and modify criteria in the standard review plans if j 1
12 the changes are found to be justified. i t
13 Our contractor, Lawrence Livermore, completed the 14 study and published the report, NUREG 1161 in May 1980 in
()
\' ')
15 which they summarized all the technical studies done under 16 Task Section Plan A-40 done by various contractors such as 17 URS Bloom, J. Apolonia and Lawrence Livermore people 18 themselves.
-l 19 They developed conclusions and made specific 20 recommendations for changes.
l 21 NRR staff completed review of NUREG/CR 1161 and 22 developed the staff position for reach recommendation.
. 23 DR. SIESS: About what date was that?
l 24 MR, SHAUKAT: This was '81 and '82 time frame.. ]
l 25 DR. SIESS: That was in the '81 - '82 time frame. j l
l l
1 Heritage Reporting Corporation j
("N (202) 628-4888 l ix_ - ) i j
l
1 6 1 1 What's the date of the last construction permit?
2 MR. SHAUKAT: Last construction permit?
]
l 3 DR. SIESS: Yes. 1 4 MR. MINNERS: '78.
1 i
5 DR. SIESS: '78. j 6 MR. SHAUKAT: '79- '78. i 7 DR. SIESS: So really haven't seen a CP since this 8 started, have we because'we have seen a lot of OL's? ,
1 9 I'm just trying to got a little feel for it. l I
10 Okay. q 11 MR. SHAUKAT: We shall discuss the details of 12 future recommendations after about two slides.
13 DR. SIESS: Okay, i
14 MR, SHAUKAT: Staff review of recommendations !
15 resulted in additional technical work. q 16 Power spectral density was developed as a 17 secondary check for use of single time history. This was 18 based on initial Lawrence Livermore recommendations that if 19 somebody uses single time history it should be justified by 20 some means, that it had enough power at all frequency ranges 21 and the development of PSD functions just did that.
22 DR. SIESS: Again, try to give the time frame, if 23 you know it. Was that done immediately following the .
24 issuance of 1161 or was there a hiatus in there?
25 MR. SHAUKAT: This work began in 1982- '83 time l
l 1
l Heritage Reporting Corporation
- (202) 628-4888 l
7 1 frame and it is finally completed in January '89 with the
' ' \['*1! 2 power spectral density function that we have put in the SRP.
'~~'
3 DR. SIESS: That took 7 years?
4 MR. SHAUKAT: Well, it was done in '82 -o '83 time 5 frame and our contractor suggested PSD functions. We made a 6 study on it. It was published--it was sent out for public 7 comment in the proposed version of the SRPs and there was a
. 8 lot of controversial comments about the position published ;
9 in there, so additional work was done after the public 10 comment period and after the additional work, we have come 11 up with a better requirement which takes care of all the 12 public comments.
13 DR. SIESS: Let me explain. I am not being 14 critical of the time it has taken to do this, but as you may (n
w 15 recall, a couple of years ago, the Commission asked us to 16 look at the resolution of generic issues as to why it was 17 taking so long and this one I find particularly interesting.
18 I had a feeling that there was a hiatus in there 19 from either lack of manpower or something else, that it 20 didn't take 5 to 7 years to resolve that power spectral 21 density issue. Am I right?
22 MR. SHAUKAT: Well one thing why this took so long 1 23 is that USIA 40 was not--did not have any pressing need to--
24 l
2S DR. SIESS: Okay. l 1
I l
,_ Heritage Reporting Corporation
[ (202) 628-4888 ;
\
8 1 MR. SHAUKAT: --to come to resolution because it 2 did not really affect the safety of the plants.
3 To begin with, it would have to be categorized as 4 a USI and today that standards, it would have never made a 5 USI. -
i 6 DR. SIESS: Okay. So there was no urgency and 7 there were other things to be worked on?
8 MR. SHAUKAT: Yes.
9 DR. SIESS: That's fine. It wasn't that--I didn't 10 think it was that difficult a problem that it took 7 years 11 to get an answer to.
12 MR. SHAUKAT: No, it will not.
13 DR. SIESS: Or even to get agreement, which may be 14 more difficult. j 15 MR. SHAUKAT: Current staff practice needed to be l 16 included in the SRP, especially this pertains to SRP Section 17 252 which is Laboratory motion and the staff practice has 18 been different that what is spelled out in the SRP since 19 1979.
20 DR. SIESS: And this was the evolution and staff 21 practice that was not necessarily related to the 1161 Reg?
, 22 MR. SHAUKAT: Exactly. Above ground steel tanks 23 were identified as potential concern and Los Alamos made .
24 some study on it and based on their recommendations in NUREG 25 4776 and some additional work, the staff has come to a Heritage Reporting Corporation I
(202) 628-4888 l
I
9 1 positionLfor~above ground steel. tanks which is included in
]; .2 the SRP.now..
\-./ ! , 3 DR. SIESS: Was that identified in the SQUG study-4 .or externally do that?
5 MR. SHAUKAT: Our current proposal for--
6 DR. SIESS: .The problem--
7 MR. SHAUKAT: --the adegnacy--for checking the 8 . adequacy of above ground steel tanks take care of the USIA 9 SQUG program.
10 DR. SIESS: But how was the problem identified?
11- MR. SHAUKAT: We'll come to that.
12 DR. SIESS: Okay.
'13 MR. SHAUKAT: In the soil structure interaction.
14 area, the staff had initial disagreement with Lawrence j
[N_ 15 Livermore and because some other concerns, a workshop was 16 held in June 1986 sponsored by NRC and BML, which focused on 17 A-40 proposed SRP changes and that workshop was participated 18 in.by experts of, not only this country, but also some 19 foreign countries.
20 NRC staff heavily participated and the National 21 Labs participation was in there and expert. consensus on
[ 22 current knowledge of soil structure interaction was achieved
, 23 in that workshop. It's documented in NUREG CP/0054 and that 24 helped us to some extent to arrive at a staff position on 25 soil structure interaction.
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 Q*
l l
i 10 1 Another workshop was held, sponsored by EPRI and 2 Taiwan Power Company in December ' 87 and it considered the 3 results of loading experiment in Taiwan for actual recorded 4 earthquakes as well as forced vibration tests on scale 5 model. -
6 The staff proposed to incorporate these results in 7 A-40 by soliciting answers and comments to some specific 8 questions that were asked during public comment. ,
9 DR. SIESS: Has there been a publication comparing 10 the predictions of the behavior of those models with what l
11 was actually observed? I i
12 MR. SRAUKAT: Pardon me, I did not get your )
i 13 question. l 14 DR. SIESS: As far as I know, leaving out--what's 15 the plant up in Northern California, Humbolt Bay, leaving 16 out Humbolt Bay,. lotung provides almost the only data that i
17 we have on the performance of a structure to an actual '
18 earthquake where there was some instrumentation and, as I 19 recall, somebody made prediction either beforehand or 20 afterwards, as to how those model structures would respond 21 and I am wondering if somebody has written up anything that
. 22 compares the analysis with the physical behavior.
23 MR. CHOKSHI: This is Nilkesh Chokshi, NRC staff. .
24 EPRI just came up with two volumes of the 25 proceedings of the conference which had those companies and Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
11-l~ now they are going backiand the people,who read'the analysis
,cfg7 .2 are. revising theLanalysis. . They' re' still going to, you-
"&f 3
know,.try to--
4' 'DR.-SIESS: Just. roughly speaking, how did the 5 analysis ~ compare--how did the actual' behavior compare with 6 what was predicted?
- 7. MR. CHOKSHI: I think if you--people have made p Il . claims, you know, that most of them, in'some fashion, they.
9 compare reasonably.well. They have to make some ICL ' adjustments, particularly in the area of damping and the 11 .levelLof motion to get some achievement.
12 I think this still needs to be sorted out which 13 l matters are,.you'know, coming close to what was being 14 observed.
/' 15 DR. SIESS: Are the. adjustments justified by ks 16 .anything other than making them-agree with the answer?
17 MR. CHOKSHI: I think, from what I have seen, most 18 of the issues used up the field data which is lab data on
- 19. soil properties and EPRI was sponsoring some additional work 20 to see how to correlate better with the field and lab data.
21- DR. SIESS: Not very encouraging.
I 22' MR. SHAUKAT: Continuing with the history of A-40,
. 23 the proposed resolution was issued for public comment in 24 June 1988 and we received comments from 6 organizations 25 including Westinghouse, General Electric, Duke Power 1
l Beritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 ]
l
12 1 Company, Stevenson and Associates, Sergeant Lundeen and 2 EPRI.
3 DR. SIESS: Did we look at that when it went out 4 for public comment?
5 MR. CHOKSHI: The EPRI proceedings?
6 DR. SIESS: No. The proposed revisions to the ;
7 SRP.
8 MR. SHAUKAT: ACRS at that time asked us not to -
i 9 send the package and it was requested that--
10 DR. SIESS: We said we would wait--
11 MR. SHAUKAT: Until we got the public comments.
12 DR. SIESS: --until we got the public comments.
13 That's what I thought.
14 MR. SRAUKAT: B&L was contracted to resolve public 15 comments and the staff, with the help of B&L selected a 16 panel of consultants of 5 experts to address public comments ,
i 17 and make recommendations to revised standard review plan 18 sections.
19 These are the names of the members. Professor 20 Constantino, Doctor Robert Kennedy, Professor Shinozuka, 21 Doctor John Stevenson and Professor Andy Veletsos.
22 The results of the B&L contracts were summarized 23 in NUREG CR/5347 which also includes report additional .
24 report by each consultant on their own views.
i 25 DR. SIESS: Excuse me. Okay, that's Phil Her.*.tage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
1
_E.i________._____
13 1; Accopolous report.: ,
27 MR. SHAUKAT: Staff developed final revisions to.
' ?%-d ! 3 Standard Review Plan sections based'on NUREG CR/5347. g i
4 Hence we come up to the final resolution which~is- ]
h , ,
5 the revision of the Standard Review Plan, Sections 3.7.1,-
6 3.7.2 and 2.5.2.-
l 1
'~'
'7 ! Changes resulting from recommendations of 1161 i 1
8 pertain basically to SRP'Section 3.7.1 through 3.7.3 and the 9- changes resulting from incorporation of current staff review 10 practices for basically SRP 2.5.2.
11 -This review also includes changes'resulting from !
12 SSI workshops, which takes both workshops. Some editorial 13' and clarification changes also were made. All the CHARPY 14 changes are forward fit only.
[~' 15 Large above ground steel tanks were identified as
( '
16 a potential concern-and the actions taken on tanks is that 17 we determined, through USIA 46 Program, which include about 18 70 plants, that these 70 plants would be reviewed by a 19 screening criteria.for checking the accuracy of large above 20 ground tanks.
21 DR. SIESS: Why is it only large tanks?
. 22 MR. SHAUKAT: The' concern for the tank is two
. 23 reasons: One is the anchorage at the base and the second is j 24 the flexibility of the wall and the base of the tank taken 25 into the design consideration.
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O
14 1 The flexibility causes--the design forces assumed 2 that--
i 3 DR. SIESS: No. I don't think you understood my 4 question.
5 I said, why is it only large tanks 6 MR. CHOKSHI: I think if I can--
7 DR. SIESS: --that small tanks are over designed.
8 MR. CHOKSHI: The critical problem is the 9 thickness or diameter ratio because buckling is the 10 governing failure mode when the tank starts up lifting so 11 that larger diame er with smaller thickness are more 12 flexible and that is where you see all of these effects.
13 DR. SIESS: The diameter thickness ratio is not 14 necec3arily the function of the size of the tank.
15 MR. CHOKSHI: I think the problem appears in a 16 large metal tank where you expect this problem of buckling, >
17 you know--
18 MR. SHAUKAT: What I was going to say was that the 19 forces--the design forces gets amplified if you take 20 flexibility of the wall into consideration. Most of the old 21 designs were not taking the flexibility of the design--
. 22 DR. SIESS: Why design a tank 3 feet in diameter 23 and 6 feet high and make all the same calculations that I .
24 did for one 30 feet in diameter and 60 feet high, why is the 25 little one not--
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 Iu
.j 15' l' MR.-SHAUKAT:- The affect of. amplification-for the 3
-i
, '"j! '2 ' design forces.for the large' tanks:would be more because of '
l
's- 3' the' flexibility of the wall than the smaller tanks. I think 4
'4 John Stevenson. agrees with me.
5 MR. STEVENSON: Yes. I was goiAg to say'the 6 smaller tanks tend to have a higher' frequency where you ,
I
- 7. . don't get the resident response. /
g 8 DR. SIESS: Okay.
9 MR. SHAUKAT: Thank you.
10 Staff survey of some newer plants--relatively 11 newer plants, from the time frame of 1980 to 1984, confirm 12 that many of those plants were adequate. So the only left 13 plants are about 4 licensees and 6 plants and we issued a 14 request for information to all these plants.
/7' 15 Actually three of them--three licensees have been
('
16- issued a letter. The fourth one is Watts Bar. The letter 17 has been on hold for some other reason. It will be issued 18 shortly-based on--along with some other action items that.
19 need to be sent to Watts Bar.1 20 DR. SIESS: I have a copy of a letter dated June 1 21 of this year that Carolina Power and Light, that would be
. 22 Harris, right?
- . 23 MR. SHAUKAT: Yes.
24 DR. SIESS: That same letter was sent to two 25 others.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4868 m
(_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 16 ;
1 MR. SHAUKAT: Two others, Wolf Creek and--
2 DR. SIESS: Watts Bar you're holding op.because i
3 it's not licensed--it's not operating?
4 MR. SHAUKAT: Yes. And there are some more action 5 items that needs to be sent to them too. NRR decided to send 6 all in one letter.
7 DR. SIESS: Okay.
8 MR. SHAUKAT: These are the broad topics of the 9 recommendations of NUREG 1161 on SRP Sections 3.7.1 through 10 3.7.3.
11 DR. SIESS: These are the 1161 rectemmendations?
12 MR. SEAUKAT: Yes.
13 DR. SIESS: Okay.
14 MR. SERUKAT: Changes in the specification of 15 ground motion for design of structures, basically the 16 location of control motion and the reduction of the motion 17 along the depth, down to the foundation level.
18 DR. SIESS: Now these are general categories?
19 MR. SHAUKAT: These are general 6reas.
20 DR. SIESS: Specifically there are what--okay, 21 fine, go ahead.
. 22 MR. SEAUKAT: Significant changes for soil-23 structure interaction anhlysis. More specific guidelines ,
24 for seismic design of special structures such as buried 25 pipes and above-ground vertical tanks. Specific criteria Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 !
!I J
17 1 for combination of high-frequency modal response. Allowance
<-~s 2 of limited amounts of inelastic energy absorption in the i )
i_ / 3 design response of Category I structures. Revision of 4 damping values for design, base on stress levels. Direct 5 generation of in-structure response spectra for equipment 6 design. Sensitivity studies for uncertainties through 7 variation of parameters, and option to use randomly selected 8 multiple time histories.
9 DR. SIESS: Let me ask you a question that may be 10 rhetorical, more likely I would call it philosophical.
11 The second bullet says, "Significant changes for 12 soil-structure interaction analysis."
13 7 am interested in the word, "significant". A 14 change could be significant because it has a major affect on
/'"} 15 how you make the calculation.
16 MR. SHAUKAT: It does.
17 DR. SIESS: Or a change could be significant 18 because it has a major affect on the ability of the 19 structure to perform under an earthquake without leading to 20 a core melt large release of radio activity.
21 Which reason do you--
~
. 22 MR. SHAUKAT: It is the first one that--the 23 methods that--
24 DR. SIESS: Okay.
25 MR. SHAUKAT: big change in the methods.
i Heritage Reporting Corporation f' (202) 628-4888 f
\~
?
.18 1 DR. SIESS: I just wanted to get the facts clear.
2 MR. SEAUKAT: Lawrence Livermore presented a 3 different philosophical to be included in the SRP rather 4 than the existing SRP position.
5 DR. SIESS: -It's analysis significant rather than 6 risk significant. I think that is something that we need to 7 keep in mind.
8 MR. SEAUKAT: Most of these recommendations were .
9 adopted. Only a few were rejected which we discuss on the l 10 next slide.
11 Seismic design based on performance criterion -
12 probability of exceeding response levels should be 10 -1 for 13 SSE.
14 DR. SIESS: What is the response level? I am not 15 familiar with the term.
16 MR. SEAUKAT: For example, design foresees the 17 displacements. The probability of exceeding calculated 18 responses--
19 DR. SIESS: A calculated response for the SSE--
20 MR. SEAUKAT: For the SSE. Even the SSE--
21 conditional on SSE.
. 22 DR. SIESS: So to say that the probability that 23 there will not be a displacement greater than 2 centimeters. .
24 If you calculated 2 centimeters displacement, you want that 25 probability less that--
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
19 1 MR. SEAUKAT: Less than 9.
f-- 2 DR. SIESS: Now this is the probability that the
-(
\ 3- real displacement will be less than that or the probability 4 that the displacement calculated for larger earthquakes will 5 be less than that? '
6 MR. SHAUKAT: The real displacement will have to 7 take into account. A good probability is another thing.
8 DR. SIESS: You would never know what the real 9 displacement was?
10 MR. SHAUKAT: That's correct. It's just a 11 conditional statement.
12 DR. SIESS: So you just do a calculation including 13 all the variables, with distributions on them and pick a 14 value that says, I don't want to exceed 2 centimeters and
/ 15 this will give me the 90--I guess 90 percent probability of t
16 exceeding it. Boy, that is really gilding the lily, len't 17 it?
18 MR, SHAUKAT: And our reason for prediction is no 19 basis provided for calibration of response levels--
20 DR. SIESS: Absolutely.
21 MR. SHAUKAT: --with past criteria.
. 22 DR. SIESS: It sounds great until you read it 23 carefully. Go ahead.
24 MR. SEAUKAT: As far as soil structure 25 interaction, we require additional work. We initially did Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
20 1 not concur with tha recommendation of NUREG 1161 and 2 additional work based on two workshops helped us to arrive
'3 at a staff position on SSI.
4 DR. SIESS: What you're saying is that you did 5 something about soil structure interaction--
6 MR. SHAUKAT: After their recommendations, yes.
7 DR. SIESS: The original recommendation?
8 MR. SHAUKAT: Yes. Wave passage effects to be 9 included in the seismic design. This recommendation was not 10 generally quantifiable for most of the sites, so we rejected 11 that.
12 DR. SIESS: Is that what we once called the " Tower 13 Effects"?
14 MR. SHAUKAT: Yes. Modal combination of closely 15 spaced modes - methods other than REG GUIDE 1.92 should be 16 included on the authority of the recommendation and the 17 staff acknowledges that REG GUIDE 1.92 has been included as 18 a reference in the SRP even in the present version and we 19 will recommend to revise REG GUIDE 192 through research 20 programs and other methods are already included in the SRP 21 as reference.
, 22 Critical damping values - a range of values were 23 recommended and RSRP current version reference to REG GUIDE ,
24 161 which has some tabular values for the damping and those 25 values fall within the range with Lawrence Livermore Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l'
21 j 1 recommendations. l jr DR. SIESS: I'm not sure--I'm not that familiar.
2 i
' . 'N.
- 3. Has 161 now got a range of damping ~ values which you are.
4 going to make it?
5 MR. SHAUKAT: Currently it's- '
6' DR. SIESS: For piping,.what is it? .There's'a 7 code. case that gives the--
8 MR. SHAUKAT: That's correct.
9 DR. SIESS: And that you're accepting, right?
10 MR. SHAUKAT: Yes.
11 DR. SIESS: But this is for other than piping?
12 MR. CHOKSHI: Most structures.
13 DR. SIESS: Okay. Now, I can't help, my mind, as 14 soon as I hear somebody talking about damping values, to
[
- .15 think about the work that has been done on the Category I 16 structures, the shear wall type things where they're getting 17 cracking and the damping values are, you know, taking off 18 into the wild blue yonder. Is that being recognized 19 everywhere?
20 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes. In the program, that research,
.. 21 the on going program was good looking at all the is latest 22 data and we'll revise 161 based on the data. So that mY be 23 when we make a model different that 1161, but will include 24 much more data base.
.25 DR. SIESS: And on the :. tem just above it, the Heritage Reporting Corporation
( (202) 628-4888
22 1 Standard Review Plan will still reference the REG GUIDE, but 2 then you will try and bring the REG GUIDE up to date?
3 MR. CHOKSHI: Correct.
4 MR. STEVENSON: Can I ask a question?
5 DR. SIESS: 'Sure.
6 MR. STEVENSON: Basically the perception is the 7 REG GUIDE currently has lower bound damping values or 8 conservative " design values." . 1 I
9 The 1161 gave two values, one was i:ke best i 10 estimate values, if you will and the other was a lower bound I
11 value. l 12 Have you changed your philosophy or are you going 13 to use still lower bound or how are you going to test this?
14 {
MR. CHOKSHI: Right now, currently, we refer to 1; 15 161, 16 MR. STEVENSON: Right. But 161 is going to have 17 more than one value.
18 MR. CHOKSHI: 161 is going to look at everything, j 4
19 including 1161 recommendations. There is a lot of new work 20 and then they will come out with what is the appropriate way 21 to do it.
P 22 MR. STEVENSON: There has been no decision made 23 then on how to revise it? -
24 MR. CHOKSHI: The program started about 4 or 5 f
25 months back and Dr. Browsin is here and he is the Program l
l J
Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 L______
23.
1 Manager.
fN 1 ?
2 MR. SHAUKAT: Another recommendation was require I
~k.s/ 3 ' in-situ testing to ensure confidence in' design methods.
4 This is a very vague requirement without any 5 specifics..If we need to_ include this in the'SRP, we have to 6 . spell out many of the specifics and it is not suitable a 7 general requirement, so we did not. adopt this 8 recommendation. 1 9 DR. SIESS: I don't remember that.
10 MR. SHAUKAT: Although it is available as an 11 option. j 12 DR. SIESS: They meant' going out and shaking your 13 plant to check the pipe frequencies? That's about'all you 14 can get by shaking it, isn't it? You can't get any flow
'15 frequencies?
t 16 MR. STEVENSON: Well, you could just get low 17 impedance.
18 DR. SIESS: Well ambience though. They tried that 19 on, what was that, CVTR 20 I like the idea of insuring confidence in design 21 methods, but I am afraid if you went out and shook some of
[ 22 these things, you would be so far from what you assumed it 23 wouldn't give you much comfort.
24 MR. STEVENSON: Well that unfortunately is the
! 25 case. I l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(
l I
'I,
24 #
1 DR. SIESS: Sure.
2 MR. STEVENSON: For piping systems anyway.
3 MR. SHAUKAT: Reduction in number of OBE cycles 4 required for design. I 5 DR. SIESS: What was that, the fatigue issue?
6 MR. SHAUKAT: Yes.
7 DR. SIESS: What we know now from the E-Tech and 8 other test outfits, are we still gong to be worried about ,
9 whether there are 3 or 4 or 5 OBE cycles?
10 MR. CHOKSHI: I think you are correct. They are 11 coming up with, you know, what are the 2 - 3 year modes of 12 piping and I think eventually lessons learned from that will 13 be the criteria. I think this should not be on here in this 14 section.
15 DR. SIESS: I mean those pipes out there went 16 through hundreds, some of them, at very high levels.
17 MR. STEVENSON: There is still a lot of work being 18 done. The concern is that they are going to come up with a 19 ratcheting fatigue criteria, but that could permit strains 20 up to as high as 5 percent and when you do that, then those 21 numbered cycles become important.
22 DR. SIESS: Oh yes.
23 MR. STEVENSON: And I suspect that will all have .
24 to be revisited when they do that.
25 DR. SIESS: I can't visualize the OBE taking you Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 '
r
(. }
E 1
25 l i
it 1 up ta) 5 percent strain on that.
/"'i 2 HR.. STEVENSON: For the QBE that is correct. The i )~
3 number of cycles at very high strain level, now, even in the 4 10 to 60 cycle range that we have discussed in the past i 5 becomes important. - j 6 DR. SIESS: I may be digressing for a moment, but 7 wasn't there some kind of recommendation about OBE versus 8 SSE and this nonsense of OBE governing the design. Is that 9 anywhere in this thing?
10 MR. SHAUKAT: Yes. It will come up after 1 or 2 Il slides.
12 DR. SIESS: Okay.
13 MR. SHAUKAT: This one here is actually regarding 14 plan life should be designed for one SSE and 5 OBE cycles
(
\
15 and Livermore recommendation was to release the number of 16 OBE cycles to 2 cycles and not enough justification was 17 provided and it had no major impact, so we still retained 5 18 OBE cycles and 1 SSE cycle for the life of the plant.
19 DR. SIESS: With what you know about piping now, 20 it really wouldn't make much difference, I don't think.
21 Now, I am trying to get organized in my mind. The 22 revisions in 3.7, essentially all relate to the dynamic
. 23 analysis of the structure?
24 MR. SHAUKAT: Yes.
25 DR. SIESS: And 2.5 relates to the ground motion, Heritage Reporting Corporation
[,_ . (202) 628-4888 t
. \s
!i
.1
26 1 is that right?
2 MR. SEAUKAT: Yes.
3 DR. SIESS: It's not an over simplification.
4 MR. SEAUKAT: We shall now discuss the highlights 5 of each individual SRP section.
6 2.5.2 was revised to reflect current staff review 7 practice since 1979. The preferred had RT of ground motion 8 specification is that the most desirable one is site .
9 specific spectra in records suitable for site condition.
10 The next preferred one is site specific spectra 11 using scaled records.
12 Others are NUMARC spectra of NUREG CR/0098 and REG 13 GUIDE 1.60 spectra.
14 DR. SIESS: What is the criterion for 15 desirability, closeness to reality or least subject to 16 argument? From where I sit, I can see different criteria 17 for desirability.
18 Do you understand the question, Leon?
19 MR. KEITER: Yes. Essentially this approach has 20 been done even before 1979, came about, particularly in 21 1979, with the Sequoia review was that particularly 22 standardized spectra do not reflect reality and push come to 23 shove, creates a great deal of problems when actual -
24 earthquakes occur because actual earthquakes are not at all 25 like that which we assume and the idea is--
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
27 lI DR. SIESS: 'One of them are like--
2- MR. KEITER: Excuse me.
'.{
>g
'- .3 DR. SIESS: -There is no earthquake ever. produced a 4 REG GUIDE 160 response sector.
5 MR. KEITER:- No, but I think it was based on a j 6 suite of records. It was based on a family of records. We 7 have some additional amplification--
8~ DR. SIESS: It's an envelope. No one earthquake 9 could--
10 MR, STEVENSON: There are some that come 11 reasonably close.
12 MR. KEITER: There are some, yes, but essentially 13 what we have seen, you know, the records of the earthquakes 14 that we have seen, particularly in the eastern United States 15 do not have the shape of it.
16 DR. SIESS: Okay.
17 MR..KEITER: Don't have the shape of it. The idea 18 really was to bring the ground motion specification closer 191 to that which earthquakes are being recorded these days.
20 DR. SIESS: John, did you have a question?
21 MR. STEVENSON: I had one before we left this idea 22 of suggested changes in reasons for rejection.
23 I seem to remember that both 0098 which was the 24 forerunner 1161, the Mark Hall recommendations and 1161 25 suggested the use of limited elasticity at various classes Heritage Reporting Corporation
/
r (202) 628-4888
28 1 of structures and I see no recognition that that 2 recommendation was made and or rejected.
3 DR. SIESS: That's a good point.
4 MR. CHOKSHI: We had it at one time.
5 DR. SIESS: Well actually that first bullet could 6 be interpreted that way, performance criterion.
7 MR. SHAUKAT: I can explain. We allocated--
8 % MR. STEVENSON: That's right. That was a .
9 recommendation and I don't see it. Obviously it doesn't 10 show up today as part of 3.7 and presumably it was rejected.
11 MR. CHOKSHI: No. We accepted part of it. EPRI 12 said that it is accepted for the situations--certain 13 situations. When you're looking at existing structures or 14 you are evaluating margins or spent fuel pools, but not 15 necessarily in the design process.
16 DR. SIESS: And that is the design criteria.
17 MR. STEVENSON: That was the decision, but I 18 didn't hear a reason.
19 MR. CHOKSHI: The reason was that we did not feel (
20 that we had enough experience. For example, if you do an 21 analysis in a work spectra to be used, they are so sensitive !
~
\
22 to minor perturbations, in the models, in the ground motions 23 and there are a lot of unresolved questions. -
24 MR. STEVENSON: And the recommendation was not to 25 do an elastic analysis. The recommendation was to modify the Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 ;
i wh%_m--m_____._ __.__
. 29 1 response spectrum.and that just simply says you going to
}' -s 2 use--
- b. \~ 3 -DR. SIESS: That was what NUMARC said--
4 MR. STEVENSON: That was what 1161 had in it and 5 that simply'is-a change in the shape of theLspectrum..It g 6 doesn't change the methodology of analysis.
7 DR. SIESS: Yes.
8 MR. STEVENSON: And I guess my:real question was, 4
'9 I have never seen that succinctly discussed as'to why those 10 two recommendations, in both those documents were--I mean 11 I'm not saying they had to be followed; but I have never 12 seen a specific reason why they were rejected.
13- DR. SIESS: That's a good point, John. There is 14 definitely a distinction between making an inelastic
'15 analysis and basing criteria on the realistic' assumption 16 that you're going to have inelastic behavior.
-17 MR. STEVENSON: As you know, in normal 18 conventional construction, this is a very common assumption,-
19 the R factor that we-use in todays code, in the Uniform 20 Building Code is based strictly in inelastic response.
21 So I guess I was a always curious to know--I know
. 22 it was rejected, but I never' understood exactly why.
. 23 DR. SIESS: I know why it was rejected because 24 they don't know how to make an inelastic analysis.
25 MR. STEVENSON: I'm not suggesting--
Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
% (202) 628-4888
30 1 DR. SIESS: I know,.
2 MR. STEVENSON: The specific recommendation was '
3 not to make an inelastic analysis--
4 DR. SIESS: No.
5 MR. STEVENSON: --but to modify the loading 6 function that the responsible contractor was to consider.
7 DR. SIESS: But you see that came from NUMARC.
8 MR. STEVENSON: But it was reiterated in 1161. .
9 DR. SIESS: Yeah, but it's like somebody said 10 yesterday at the meeting, that judgment is fine, but I want 11 a rationale. When I came on NUMARC's judgment, I don't 12 think they ever had a rationale that would satisfy some of 13 the people.
14 MR. STEV1;NSON: REG GUIDE 1.61, the standard 15 deviation was in N'JMARC' S--
16 DR. SlESS: Sure 17 MR. STEVENSON: --justification was that one was 18 enough, you know, whatever.
19 DR. SIESS: The fiction of elastic behavior is 20 convenient, but it is not at all realistic and as I recall, 21 there was never anything in the regulations that prevented 22 somebody from doing an inelastic analysis or in some way 23 considering inelastic behavior at the SSE level. -
24 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes.
25 DR. SIESS: The SSE level had a criteria of no Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
)
g 31 l loss of function and unless it's high cycle fatigue, the
<x
( }. 2 function is going to be measured in deformations.
Q' 3 MR. CHOKSHI: You're absolutely correct.
4 DR. SIESS: But there are considerable 5 difficulties in taking inelastic behavior into account 6 without an inelastic analysis, if you think like an 7 analyst, John.
. 8 MR. STEVENSON: I understand the philosophical 9 reasonings.
10 DR. SIESS: I think it ought to be pointed out 11 more consciously, more obviously somewhere just what the 12 situation is because we're going about merrily doing elastic 13 analysis on things that aren't going to be elastic, that we 14 know are not going to be elastic. We know are not going to
/m 15 fail while they are elastic and it's not a bad way to design (q )
16 things.
17 What you're saying is that if we're down to the 18 nitty-gritty, like Diablo--and some SEP plants, 19 DR. SIESS: Then solaebody could do the turbine 20 building and say all eight, it will be over stress, but it's 21 not going to fall down.
~
22 But somebody told me recently that ;1ve them a lot 23 of problems because--
24 MR. STEVENSON: It also suggests, you know, thbt 25 it's not a safety issue to inelastic because you do allow it fg Heritage Reporting Corporation l ) (202) 628-4688 mj I
_-_ -__ __ _ 1
32 1 and so now you end up with two competing philosophies and 2 they ought to be brought into some kind of rational 3 agreement.
4 DR. SIESS: Well the old idea that was sort of in 5 there that you stayed within some reasonable allowable 6 stress levels for the OBE and within no loss of function for 7 the SSE is a philosophical approach, but it is almost 8 impossible to do and have somebody accept it or approve it.
9 MR. STEVENSON: The important thing to me is that 10 you had two different sets of consultants make a 11 recommendation that achieved limited inelastic should be 12 considered and I have never seen an explanation of why the 13 staff has chosen not to do that. I mean there are good 14 reasons, but I haven't heard them.
15 MR. CHOKSHI: I think in this division we 16 acLenowledge that there are occasions when one can use, but 17 we haven't accepted it as a general design, you know.
18 MR. STEVENSON: Right now, if you were coming in 19 with a CP and suggested inelastic analysis or use of 20 inelastic spectra, it's highly unlikely that the sta:ff would 21 approve it.
. 22 MR. CHOKSHI: You are right.
23 DR. SIESS: Highly unlikely that anybody would ,
24 stick with it very long after the second round of questions.
25 MR. STEVENSON: Not withstanding your consultant's Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
i
l 33 1 recommendations.
'~x 2 MR. SEAUKAT: Public comments received on SRP
)
\- / 3 2.5.2 are these two here.
4 The first one is do not consider OBE as a design 5 event and let the utilities define the design event. This 6 would require a revision to 120 CFR, Part 100, Appendix A.
7 It's not an SRP issue.
8 DR. SIESS: That's not impossible. But I don't 9 quite understand that.
10 Appendix A said the OBE is half the-- j l
12 DR. SIESS: The SSE. Was that an absolute? !
13 Because we have accepted OBEs that are less than half the j 14 SSE on a recurrent basic.
(]' ~ '
15 MR. KEITER: Right.
16 DR. SIESS: How did we get around Appendix AU 17 MR. KEITER: Well we sort of made use of another 18 part of Appendix A which says the OBE is that ea.rthquake 19 which is likely--which is reasonably expected to occur 20 during the lifetime of the plant.
21 DR. SIESS: But I thought that we had the floor in
. 22 addition to that.
. 23 MR. KEITER: Well, we have been successful some 24 how for some plants in getting around that.
25 But the fact that you--and in some places we have l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 f)N i
\m
i 34 1 done that and there are a few plants out there that have i
2 that, but the fact that I think the statement is absolutely )
l 3 clear, that this is an Appendix A requirement and would !
4 require Appendix A. l l
5 If you want to do it on a abroad scale for every )
i 6 plant, then you would have to modify the regulation. !
~
7 DR. SIESS: And we have been trying to revise j l
8 Appendix A for longer that we have been working on this-- I l
9 MR. KEITER: .The first complaints about Appendix I I
10 came out in 1979 and have been coming out since then and we 11 had a conference. But it is essentially on hold now.
12 DR. SIESS: It's been on hold for God knows how 13 long because I got a stack of paper that high.
14 MR. KEITER: That's right. You could start from 15 here to tomorrow with all the things wrong with Appendix A 16 and you wouldn't be finished.
17 DR. SIESS: And again what, there is just no 18 urgency?
19 MR. KEITER: I think there is, on the one hand the 20 Commission is not faced with a long line of plants that come 21 in to be licensed--
. 22 DR. SIESS: And the other is--
23 MR. KEITER: But on the other hand, industry is ,
24 not particularly anxious, as I would say, to change the 25 devil they know to the devil they don't.
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
35 1- DR..SIESS: As I recall, there was a meeting when W .2 that came out.
I )
' \s s/ 3- MR. KEITER: Although-there are some people, in
'4 industry, who.also support the provisions of Appendix A.
5 DR. SIESS: But this whole thing gets,back to this 6 state of the OBE governing, you know, when it set it at a 7 half and--
8 MR. MINNERS: 1 thought you could fix that by just 9 taking different stress levels.
- 10. DR. SIESS: Yes, but they're set by the code. The 11 stress levels in the concrete structure are set by ACR-349 12 or-- '
13 MR. STEVENSON: 359, 14 DR. SIESS: 359, div 2 and for steel piping,
(N 15 they're set by Section 3.
\'--)' 16 MR. MINNERS: You know, you.know you can pick your 17 stress up--
18 DR. SIESS: Not if you say you're going to meet--
19 MR. KEITER: If you read Section 392 and 393 you 20 don't get a hell of a lot of latitude in review planning.
21 There are just some very specific limitations.
~
. 22 DR. SIESS: It's just more fundamental, but it 23 always bothered me the way we were doing it just ignored 24 what happens in reality and then we get into an analysis 25 situation and a design situation where we're dealing with Heritage Reporting Corporation f 'g (202) 628-4888 1
i 1
36 i 1 fiction and if the designer had any concept of structural j l
2 behavior when he was designing it, he's lost it by now. l t' i f 3 It's just funde~entally bad and I'm not talking l
, 1 4 about the OBE - SSE leve , I'm talking about the fact that l 5 whatever level you pick ends to be governing.
l 6 Is this the place you were going to talk about OBE 7 versus SSE or does that still come further?
8 MR. SEAUKAT: Yes. This is OBE versus SSE. .
9 DR. SIESS: No. Warren is right that the people 10 that are working the codes put different load factors in for i
11 OBE and SSE and they could have modified those load factors 12 to make the SSE govern.
13 MR. STEVENSON: Well they could have, provided 14 they could get an agreement.
15 DR. SIESS: Well yes, it could be done in the 16 codes except that the codes aren't, you know, free of NRC 17 influence.
18 MR. STEVENSON: And there was a major effort, 19 frankly, in the containment to do that. It did not receive 20 acceptance by the regulatory.
21 They tried to, in effect, take the OBE and take it
. 22 out of the service condition category.
23 DR. SIESS: Containment would have been a good .
24 place to start because it's--
25 MR. STEVENSON: We just couldn't resolve that.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 o
37-1- DR. SIESS: But I think you're right that changing
(y 2 the OBE isn't'the issue, it's changing the criteria--the IN- 3 design criteria, the other end of the process.
4 I think that is something that the staff ought to-5 keep thinking about. ' Designing things on an unrealistic 6 basis is.just not the way to go.
7 I mean, we do it in lots of things, we put two 8 fictions together to get the right answer, but sooner or 9 later it comes back to haunt you. If somebody decides one i
10 of them ought to be more realistic and didn't realize that 11 the two were so related, it's just not good engineering.
12 But for the time being, OBE is still Appendix A 13 and whatever you can get away with. Is that right, Leon?
14 MR. KEITER: Yes. I might point out that in some
/~'\ 15 of the standardized plants, they have come in and requested
'\j 16 -staff approval for one-third of the OBE. We have told them, 17 from the context, we have allowed less than a site specific 18 basis, but for generic basis, we will not allow less, 11 9 however, we told them that since the standardized plant has 20 to go through rule making, that is an issue that they might 21 pursue and I think some utilities--some of the standardized 22 plants are upset.
... 23 DR. SIESS: If it is site specific--
24 MR. KEITER: We can't--
25 DR. SIESS: --then how do you approve a standard Heritage Reporting Corporation f (202) 628-4888 v
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ . _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ - - ~
38 1 plant?
2 MR. KEITER: They would come--what we are saying ;
i 3 is the regulation exists out there. If you have another j 4 regulation, in other words, you essentially have to go 5 through rule making to do a standardized plant, that is one 6 way to get around the regulation.
7 DR. SIESS: Don't the EPRI improved LWR 8 requirements also go for less than half?
9 MR. KEITER: I'm not sure but again, what we're 10 telling the standardized plants, so that we can't, from a 11 generic standpoint, approve it, because of the regulation.
12 However, they can and if they don't--and since it 13 looks like there is no great impetus to change the 14 regulation, since they themselves are going through 15 regulation, that is one way to bring up the issue in that 16 rule making and then say, hey, we are doing it for less than 17 one-half, here is the basis and then we could look at it 18 then.
19 DR. SIESS: Now, how many plants have actually 20 been icoked at on that recurrence interval basis?
21 MR. KEITER: I would guess something like a half 22 dozen. I'm not, you know--
23 DR. SIESS: And they all come out less than half? ,
24 MR. KEITER: Nobody is asking to increase it, as 25 far as I know.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
39 1 DR. SIESS: No, but I mean when they actually.
-FN 2 looked at recurrence intervals--
):
'!A-M . 3 MR. KEITER: Yeah, look if you--
4 DR. SIESS: You're saying that if it didn't come 5 out less than half, they wouldn't ask?-
6 MR. KEITER: That's right. It's obvious that--if 7 you're. talking about something which is likely--reasonably 8; likely to occur during the life of a plant, so something 9 that is reasonably likely to occur during the life hood of a
~10 _ plant of 40 years, one interpretation is that the smaller 11 the: recurrence' interval, with the higher the probability the 12 more reasonable it is likely to occur.
13 But typically the way we have interpreted that is.
14 something on the order of several hundred years return fN 15 period.
16 DR. SIESS: I thought it was 2 or 300 years.
17 MR. KEITER: Yes, something like that. Because of 18_ the analysis, if it's not off the wall, we usually accept 19 it.
20 DR. SIESS: Okay. How low have they gotten?
21 MR. KEITER: Probably the lowest is Diablo, the 22 lowest ratio there, they decided on an SSE of .4 and the OB
.. 23 was .2 and they jacked up their " design basis" to .75. The 24 rationale was still allowing them to have an OBE of .2, so 25 that is probably the largest--usually it's like one-third or Heritage Reporting Corporation
(N (202) 628-4888
a 40 l
I 1 something like that. They have a seismic SCRAM.
2 At this time, I think the OBE, the basic thrust is 3 first, for all of us to sit down and decide, do we want an 4 OBE and if want it, what are we going to do with it, what j 5 role should it serve and define the criteria.
6 We may want to separate, you know, the shutdown I
. l 7 criteria from fatigue criteria. We have to think it out, l 1
8 decide what we want and do it. . j 9- DR. SIESS: That's an excellent point because 10 right now the OBE is an earthquake--in practical operational l
l 11 terms, it's the earthquake beyond which you have to shut 12 down the plant and inspect it and although the staff has 13 tried a couple of times to decide what kind of inspection 14 they would make.
]
15 I still think, you know, it's not going to be a 16 lot different than a lot of other plants that get shut down 1
17 for 6 months while everybody argues it out. l 18 And even that approach is subject to some 19 question. I 20 MR. KEITER: You know that we tried to put some 21 shutdown criteria and we had interesting discussions with j 22 the lawyers and they pointed out that because of some 23 changes that we weren't aware of in the regulation, -
I 24 utilities, unless it's in a Tech Spec, the utility by 25 itself, is not a limiting condition of operation. The Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 i
n
41-
~ 1' -utility does not have to shut'down after exceeding an OBE.
j] :2 ~Now the staff may take action required in the L(j 3 shutdown--
4 DR. SIESS: They can always do it.
5 MR. KEITER:- And as it happens, originally there 6 'was a note, I think in Part 50, that said, we shut.down and 7 then they modify that regulation because of--it's bizarre.
8 DR. SIESS: Well, what experience have we had?
9 Has anybody see--Perry exceeded the OBE at certain 10 frequencies.
11 MR. KEITER: We've had a bunch of plants that 12 exceeded it at certain--probably the most significant one 13- was Humbolt Bay which was say twice during the time that it 14 has been there.
A l 15 The plant was not exactly operating but it was
( 16 -operational and after the plant was shut down permanently.
17 Those would be the most significant exceedances.
18 The other exceedances have been high frequency kind of 19 exceedances. Now the sub plants, of course, in which 20 conveniently their instruments don't operate when 21 earthquakes occur, so we don't know whether the OB has been 22 exceeded.
. 23 We had that case in Yankee, we had an earthquake 24 near the plant and the instruments were down.
25 DR. SIESS: If they didn't know the earthquake Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 (s
l f
42 I 1 occurred, they wouldn't be too--
2 MR. KEITER: They knew, but the question is 3 whether instrumentally it was exceeded. That's another 4 issue and-- I 5 MR. MINNERS: What's the presumption then, what it 6 exceeded?
7 MR. KEITER: Well, in that case, we presumed it 8 didn't exceed it. -
9 DR. SIESS: Ycu know, what I was trying to get at 10 was that if I'm running a plant and I really get an OBE at 11 .1 - .12 - .15 level, that's what most of the eastern plants 12 have, I would think that you would want to shut down, 13 assuming that it didn't shake the turbine enough to shut you 14 down in the first place.
15 Any turbine that's got vibration trip on it 16 probably would go.
17 MR. STEVENSON: Some of those have filters though.
18 DR. SIESS: About half of them don't have it.
19 iney have indications, but not trip. We went through that 20 back in the days when we talked about seismic trips that 21 some of you may have went through.
. 22 That is still an issue that bothers me. It's just 23 not good engineering to have the wrong thing governing the .
24 design.
25 MR. MINNERS: Why c' ssn't the committee give some Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
F t
43
'l impetus to the staff to' change it? ~
.. Lf 'i .2 DR. SIESS: Which committee?.
4 DR. SIESS: We just haven't been looking at it in 5 awhile. Maybe we will.
6 MR. MINNERS: I don't think that without some 7 advocate--
8' DR. SIESS: It's not an easy thing to say what's 9 wrong with it, you know. I'll think about it and maybe I 10 can come up with.a paper sometime that the committee would 11 endorse. Get ASME and ASCE and ACI, but.that is not--
12 MR. STEVENSON: IAEA has come-out rather strongly 13 on the subject and you might take a look at their position.
~
14 The take the position that it is not a safety
[
. r, 15 related earthquake.
\- 16 DR. SIESS: But again, you need to relate the 17 earthquake and its allowables and the other factors and get' 18 things on a more realistic basic.
19 You got a point, Warren. You guys aren't going to 20 do anything because there is no push for it.
21 MR. MINNERS: The industry, if they think there is
[ 22 e big deal, they can always participate.
23 DR. SIESS: Industry got into a little bit of the 24 darn thing and they got so tired of pushing it, I guess--I 25 don't know. They used to make a big deal out of it.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
'N (202) 628-4888
- s_J 4 l
j i
44 1 MR. KEITER: There is a lot of action in the area 2 of shutdown. The industry is--the industry has made some 3 proposals, which we're trying ask for a ruling by the 4 lawyers and we're trying to come out with interim criteria.
5 We're trying to reviser--essentially get the shutdown 6 criteria out of Appendix A, which is the citing criteria.
7 So we're trying to do certain things but I think 8 that Warren is right. .
9 DR. SIESS: What's coming is that the whole issue 10 of the OBE, of specifying something called an operating 11 basis earthquake. There are many angles.
12 I'm fussing about the fact that the design 13 allowables and the design assumptions, the analysis 14 assumptions are such that it governs.
15 What Leon has brought up is that industry is 16 concerned about that requirement to shutdown after and I 17 guess what needs to be done is to go back and look and say, 38 why are we interested in anything but a safe shutdown 19 earthquake, something at that level.
20 If we are interested in something else why, and if 21 multiple reasons, can we come up with a value or a process
. 22 that takes into account that reason, whether it's shutdown 23 and inspect, collect data or whatever, whether it is .
24 probabalistic or deterministic, but the idea of two 25 earthquakes is not unique to this country. The Japanese use Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
I
45 ;
1 'two earthquakes.
, -'s 2 MR. STEVENSON: Actually they use 5. They have S- i 4
)
\m / 3 1, S-2, A, B and C.
4 DR. SIESS: I knew S-1 and S-2. I 5 MR. STEVENSON: That's for nuclear plant design.
6 DR. SIESS: I knew S-1 and S-2, but what's A, B, 7 and C7 8 MR. STEVENSON: They have five classes of safety 9 classes and they have a different review for each safety 10 class.
11 DR. SIESS: All right, but for given safety 12 classes, they don't use two earthquakes?
13 MR. STEVENSON: They do. The have a safety class 14 called AS and AS is kind of a sub set of what we call Class
[~'T 15 1 and for certain, like reactor cooling systems and 16 containment, they design for both or they evaluate for both 17 earthquakes.
18 DR. SIESS: They evaluate for both.
19 MR. STEVENSON: Well actually design for both.
20 They design for S-1 and then they evaluate for S-2.
21 DR. SIESS: That never bothered me like designing
. 22 for the OBE and evaluating for the SSE.
, 23 HR, STEVENSON: But that essentially is their 24 position.
l 25 DR. SIESS: But what we have is almost, if you Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 4
/
l t
_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
46 1 have designed for the OBE, you don't have to evaluate.
2 MR. STEVENSON: Except for operability, obviously.
3 DR. SIESS: Yes. It's an issue. I got your 4 message. If the industry wants to do something about it or 5 we want to raise the issue--
6 MR. STEVENSON: Chet, you have got to understand 7 that the industry has already spent their money on the OBE, 8 they really don't care anymore. ,
9 So unless you're in a construction mode, it's no 10 longer an economic issue. Their only concern now is 11 operability. It's only an issue if you're ever going to 12 build another plant.
13 DR. SIESS: And to what extent is it an issue of 14 the standard design--
it MR. STEVENSON: And to that extent.
16 DR. SIESS: --ought to be settled.
17 MR. MINNERS: Maybe the Canadians will contribute.
18 MR. STEVENSON: With an SSE set at .08 9, that's 19 highly unlikely.
20 DR. SIESS: Okay.
21 MR. SHAUKAT: The second comment is conservative 5 I
22 response spectra for a number of sites for standard plant be
{j 23 allowed. For this, there is really no comment because this l 24 provision already really exists in the SRP. l 25 DR. SIESS: Now that I don't understand. j i
i Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 I I
1 l
l L______________ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ ._ _ _ . __ ._ -_ _ L
i 47 1 MR. KEITER: Again, what we said is that we're 2 applying as a minimum a site specific spectra. If you want 9 3 to come--if a plant wants to come in and before convenes 1 4 analysis, use comething more conservative, that's fine and, 5 in fact, that's the approach used in the standardized plan.
6 They're coming in at .3g of Reg Guide and we're saying fine, 7 we have got to do a site specific analysis for that B particular site and you have to justify that. So they can 9 do that.
10 DR. SIESS: Let's come out and discuss, here a
(' 11 minute, something I talked to you about personally 12 yesterday.
13 Within a C Standard plant designs, that will have 14 some criterion or some seismic relation parameter for the I 15 design and then when somebody tries to build one of those, 16 they're going to have to get some parameter for the site to 17 compare with the parameter in the design, right?
18 Now, is what you're saying is that a spectrum--a 19 response spectrum will be the parameter? We'll say that the 20 plant was analyzed for this response spectrum and you can go
- 21 in at the site now, the site specific spectrum, preferably, 22 right, that was your first choice?
. 23 MR. KEITER: Right.
24 DR. SIESS: And if they can then show that, their 25 design response spectra envelopes the site specific Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9
1
7__-
48 j h 1 MR. KEITER: Yes.
2 DR. SIESS: Now where was that response spectra 3 movement applied, in the design at the base mat? i 4 Because now I've got different sites, different 5 embedments, different sources and-- i 6 MR. KEITER: If I remember correctly, each one of )
7 the standardized plants assumed a suite of various site 1
8 conditions--they looked at certain site conditions and said, .
]
9 we have x, y,. z and they look at those site conditions.
10 DR. SIESS: Now the structure gives design for 11 some input motion to the base mat, right?
12 MR. KEITER: Yes, I think.
13 DR. SIESS: Taking into account after soil 14 structure interaction, embedments all taken into account, 15 the structure now sees what you have put in at the base mat, 16 right?
17 Is that right, John?
18 MR. STEVENSON: You mean if it's an error in soil 19 structure or action, it's not what's at the base mat, but at 20 the foundation level--
21 DR. SIESS: At the foundation level, okay.
22 MR. STEVENSON: --not necessarily the mat itself.
23 DR. SIESS: But to get to that input at a given -
24 site,you have to know the ground level acceleration or 25 series of ground level time history, you got to know the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 49 1 embedment,Jyou got to'know the soil structure interaction-
. [S ~ 2: and all that. 'But'the parameter, for comparison, would be
- .f 3 the foundation input ' to the structure?
4 'MR. STEVT.3 SON: Not'in the context of the ground 5 motion. The whole idea that we talked about, one of the key 6 changes here is that we're talking about defining ground 7 motion at the surface and then--in other words, we're trying 8 to find the pre-field ground motion to surface and then do a 9 logical--if it's necessary, do a logical soil structure 10 interaction.
11 So our comparison, in terms of the motion, would 12 be to look and see what you have assumed at the surface and 13 then compare that to site specific spectra and then see how 14 it goes.
[ '\ 15 DR. SIESS: So the standard plant has 6 sites, 16 whether they were real or imaginary, different embedments, 17 rock, different soil properties and for each of these sites, 18 they put in a defined ground surface time history, right?
19 Then they have translated that to foundation 20 level, the affect on the structure and analyze the i 21 structure, the piping and so forth for that.
22 Now all they got to show there is a licensee comes
. 23 to a particular site, all they have to show is that ground 24 motion at the surface falls within the range of the standard 25 that the plant was designed for.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
50 1 MR. CHOKSFl: I think you have to compare the l 2 input motion, which is the basic ground motion. Also to 3 compare the dead soil properties embedment, how to maintain 4 the radiations of the 6 sites.
5 But there is a series of parameters which are 6 generally spelled out as the condition.
7 MR. STEVENSON: Yes.
8 DR. SIESS: But if the motion here on the ground .
9 falls within a certain range, if the soil properties fall 10 within a band that they find, then you're not going to ,
11 MR. CHOKSHI: No. It's like a check off list, you 12 know, and if you compare these 8 - 10 items and it's all 13 within an envelope, then you can use the design as it is.
14 MR. KEITER: I think --what are they called, 15 interface?
16 MR. CHOKSHI: Interface conditions.
17 MR. KEITER: They usually have a standardized 18 print and it's an interfaced package, and we sort of lay out 19 what they have to do with that interface package.
20 DR. SIESS: We're having enough trouble with 21 standards. We don't have standardized plants in the first 22 plant, let's get that straight. All we have is standardized 23 designs. -
24 MR. KEITER: Right.
25 DR. SIESS: We haven't got anybody proposing Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3
51-1 standardized' plants, turnke'y or anything else. .All we have-b (( -- 2 got is.a standard set of FSAR documents, that would be about
~
3 this, big that the-staff has approved once. And that is a 4 standard design.
5 At whatever-level it.goes, the plant is going'to 6 be designed according to that standard design. That does not 7 make it--that doesn't mean that the second one that is built L
, 8 is going to'look exactly like the first one.
9 Okay. I understand what your approach would be, 4
10 and you're satisfied that if the ground motion spectra is 11 enveloped and that the soil properties fall within a given 12 demand, that you are enveloping the foundation input?
13 MR. KEITER: I think--I usually assume they have 1
14 made certain assumptions and we want to reke sure that when 15 we come to look at the site they picked, both in terms of.
16 the ground motion soil properties, that those assumptions 17 ;are included in the various options they have picked.
18- That's the essential thing.
19 DR. SIESS: So the interface criteria then will be.
20 soil properties, depths, embedments, layering, rocks, 21 whatever and the ground surface motion.
22 MR. CHOKSHI: Any site specific features which 23 might alter the responses.
24 DR. SIESS: Oh yes. Obviously they're going to 25 pick sites that say within the parameters.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
l, 52
, 1 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes.
2 DR. SIESS: If they possibly can.
3 MR. STEVENSON: Is it clear it.is still a mean 4 plus one sigma spectrum or'a mean plus one sigma variable 5 spectrum or a best estimate.
6 You see, where I am confused is you have like 7 NuReg 0098. 0098 has both--
8 MR. KEITER: In'252 it's spelled out that the aim ,
9 is an 84 percentile spectrum across the board included PGA.
10 MR. STEVENSON: That means then you're going to 11 ratchet up the current requirement 12 MR. KEITER: No, we're not going to ratchet up the 13 current requirements.
14 MR. STEVENSON: The zero pre ground acceleration 1
15 was not defined at the--
16 MR. KEITER: Well that is because you had a 17 spectrum which was asymmetric. It had 84 percentile at 18 frequencies 9 hertz and greater.
19 MR. STEVENSON: I understand that, but I am saying 20 that implies that now we're going to have a higher zero 21 ground acceleration since it was a mean value in the past.
. 22 MR. KEITER: Yes. It implies that at the high 23 frequencies the response will be higher than in the past. .
24 MR. STEVENSON: Okay. So it's a change in 25 regulatory--
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l d ,
53 1 MR. KEITER: No. That is exactly what we have done i j>^%J. 2 in site specific spectra and that was the cause for many in
+ .l
\- 3 .the operating! license reviews,.that many of the plants which 4 did not assume that, even' plants that assumed Reg Guide 160, p 5 they had to go back and show why they were still okay at l 6 high frequency.
~
-7 MR. CHOKSHI: The PG arelles were. picked, I think,
.8 without that. The amplification factors are a million at 9 the high frequencies,.but the way that PG was selected, I 10 don't know really--
11 MR. KEITER: I guess my point is if I look at Reg 12 Guide 160 sp.ectra, as was origina31y determined, at the 33 13 ' hertz, it was a best estimate value of pure ergronics at--
14 MR. STEVENSON: That's right. And as you have 15 just pointed out, it was a variable cephus possibility 16 between 9 hertz and 33 hertz. Now, you have eliminated that 17 by saying--
18 MR. KEITER: It's a fourth option, the use of Reg 19 Guide 160 and then using the Reg Guide 160, if somebody 20 wanted, you know, if we had absolutely no site specific 21 information and we used Reg Guide 160 to make a judgment
[ 22 becauce there's an in balance in the conservatism at 33
. 23 hertz versus conservatism at the other frequencies.
24 MR. STEVENSON: All right, but you resolved that 25 inconsistency by saying, in the future, zero perogramic Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 (s
54 )
1 -acceleration will be selected at ths 84th percentile. I l 1' j 2 MR. KEITER: Putting Reg Guide with 160 aside, in 3 the future we are going to aim for uniformity at both the 1 4 cheral period and other frequencies.
5 For example; we have a uniform, a site specific l
6 spectra. We don't scale the spcatra to one peak l
7 acceleration and then use that. We scale the spectral 8 ordnance if we used the Nu Reg 0098. ,
9 We' re going to try and use the PGA, PGV and, if 10 necessary PGD, at a constant level, say the 50 percentile I i
11 peaks and then you say 84 percentile amplification factor j i
12 for the acceleration level--I'm sorry, it's the other way 13 around.
14 We would probably take 84th percentile peaks and )
15 then use 50 percentile amplification factors.
16 MR. STEVENSON: I understand this. But do you 17 recognize that as a change to former licensing policies?
18 MR. KEITER: That is what we have been doing since 19 1979, in evaluating operating--
20 MR. STEVENSON: But you haven't had a CP7 21 MR. KEITER: No , we haven't had cps.
22 MR. STEVENSON: But essentially then this is a 23 change to what you have been doing in the past? .
24 MR. KEITER: Well because if a CP came in, we 25 would have evaluated it that way.
1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l-1
55' 1 DR. SIESSt- Yes, but it hasn't happened.yet.
L(}
2 MR. KEITER: We have lots of OL's.
3' MR. STEVENSON: Okay.
4 DR. SIESS: How are you going to get site 5 specific-- .
~6 MR. KEITER: Excuse me, just probably if I--in 7 Clinch River, I think, it was coming in. When they were 8 .considering about it, I think it was about that status.
9 DR. SIESS: How do you get site specific spectra?
10 MR..KEITER: The way we started out, typically as 11' we get a suite of records, which we think match the source 12- distance and site conditions that we're tryi.ng to--
13 DR. SIESS: You mean the map? Your map, EPRIs 14 map or--
15 MR. KEITER: No, not a probabalistic spectra.. The 16 suite of--let's say we have--most of the plants in the 17 United States, eastern United States, is controlled by--
18 DR. SIESS: Then you're not going to do the 19 probabalistic thing?.
20 MR. KEITER: Well probably keep the probabalistic 21 as sort of an insight and look at that, but the main, i 22 according to our regulations and our Standard Review Plan, ,
. 23 the main trust is deterministic. That would take suites of 24 records, of actual records, which we think match the 25 situation we're trying to duplicate. Take those records and Heritage Reporting Co poration (IN (202) 628-4888 o
4-56 1 take an 84 percentile of those records.
I 2 DR. SIESS: You say, we take them.
3 MR. KEITER: The utility takes them and we review 4 them.
5 DR. SIESS: And you review them?
6 MF. KEITER: Right.
7 DR. SIESS: If the utility wants to build a plant 8 on a particular site, can they come to you and say what is 9 an acceptable suite of records or do they have to go out and 10 research it?
11 MR. KEITER: Usually up to now, it's been an 12 interactive process and the utility--
13 DR. SIESS: I know. Can't we after a 110 plants 14 have criteria that people can come in and get it the first 15 time?
16 MR. KEITER: We have criteria, but I.ike everything 17 else, there is this record, there is that record, new t 18 records are occurring. j 19 DR. SIESS: The thing that you're saying is that 20 you have criteria, but the industry can't understand it? ,
I i
21 MR. KEITER: The industry understands it. But when j
, 22 they go out sometimes they selectively choose to ignore 23 certain records. We gently remind them that these records .
24 exist also.
l l 25 DR. SIESS: Why would anybody do that if they Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 0
57 1 understood clearly what you wanted
. /~' '2 MR. .KEITER: Well because they're trying--they
' 3 'will try and. argue'that sometimes those records--they don't-
'4 like those records, they seem too high.
- 5. ,But we usually--we have been successful in working
- 6. _together, in industry, with consultants and coming to 7 agreement on what the site specific spectra are. It just 8 seems to me that there ought to be a better way.
9 We build buildings to have a lot of people in them 10 and if they fall down, it's going to kill 20,000 people and 11 we don't have to have a year negotiation between the 12 regulatory agency, a board of consultants on each side and 13 the structural engineer in order to decide what the scismic 14 design is for that building.
[' N 15 MR. KEITER: I don't think it's a year b
16 negotiation. I think that it's pretty well understood and 17 except for some minor problems, it usually works out pretty 18 well.
19 DR. SIESS: It just seems an ungodly way to go 20 about it.
21 MR. KEITER: It's been pretty good in the past.
. 1
+
22 DR. SIESS: And we really don't know what it is,
. 23 site by site we have to go out and get a pool of experts j 24 and--
25 MR. KEITER: No, no, it doesn't work like that.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4d88 u
a
.i is 58
! 1 It's not a group of experts. I'll give you an example. ,
2 Many of the sites that are on rock essentially use 3 the same sort of spectra because they're essentially j 4 controlled--in the United States there are many sites that 5 are controlled by a magnitude of 5.3 within 25 kilometers on 4
6 rock.
7 So unless there has been an explosion of new 8 records, they can go out and use those ones that have been .
9 used before and utilities often do that, I j
10 They were referred back to a particular site or we 11 would have a NuReg that asked Livermore to come up with some 12 sites with respect to that. They can use that and they have 13 used that.
14 The problem comes when you have certain site 15 conditions which are not standardized or else when you have 16 a lot of new records come which give you new information.
17 Those are the issues.
18 DR. SIESS: Likc the merest fault.
19 MR. KEITER: Well the merest fault--that's not a 20 new record, that's a new fault. I'm talking about ground 21 motion recorda.
~
22 DR. SIESS: But when--
23 MR. KEITER: When we started getting eastern -
24 ground motion records, we had to take a look at what our 25 assumptions were based on western and Italian records to Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
59 1 make sure.that the kind-of site. specific spectra seems to be 2'- consistent.
,I p\
\m-[ 3 DR. SIESS: When,TVA was going for, what's the 1
4 eastern most plant,' Yellow Springs?
5 MR. KEITER:- Well Sequoyah was the one that we 6 started from.
'7 DR. SIESS: Their western most plant, I'm sorry, 8 Yellow Creek.
9 They went through a tremendous amount of-effort to 10' define the southern and southwestern limits of the new 11 matter. Do we still have to go through all of that?
12 MR. KEITER: Not for that, not for new matters, i l
13 no. j 14 DR. SIESS: You know the limits on new matters?
, 15 MR. KEITER: I think we have put out our position l \'
16 on that. ;
17 DR. SIESS: Charleston. ;
18 MR. KEITER: That's a much more difficult issue. l 19 DR. SIESS: Are you saying you weren't going to do 20 it probabalistically, but isn't that the only way to handle 21 Charleston?
, 22 MR. KEITER: Yeah. I must say that what we can do 23 in resolving the Charleston issue and how we would apply 24 that if a plant came in for a site near Charleston is a 25 different sort of a problem.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 60 1
1 DR. SIESS: I'm not saying near Charleston.
2 MR. KEITER: Or somewhere where it might be -
I 3 affected by the Charleston plant. l 4 DR. SIUSS: Suppose I wanted to build one a 5 quarter of a mile out-here?
6 MR. KEITER: Hopefully by the end of this year, 7 we' re going to resolve, at least temporarily, the Charleston 8 issue and give some guidance on that. .
I 9 DR. SIESS: Could you write a real good spectrum 1
10 to define One White Flint North or Two White Flint North?
11 MR. KEITER: We're not involved in the process.
12 DR. SIESS: But you're in that building. Don't 13 you ever worry about that building?
14 MR. KEITER: We were once in, I think we were 15 touring Mexico City and .e looked at all these buildings 16 that were deformed and Bob Kennedy and I said, Bob what are 17 the lessons of this for nuclear power plants. It doesn't 18 mean anything about nuclear power plants but I have to worry 19 about the Phillips Building.
20 DR. SIESS: I've been worried about the Phillips 21 Building. I've been worried about the Phillips Building 22 ever since we moved in. I'm used to those 24 inch square 23 columns on the 10th Floor of the Mutomi Building. I come -
24 here and see these little spindly steel things.
25 MR. KEITER: No question but what is the basis for Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
61-1 the' emergency response center. That really has to operate Ljh 2 during--
- i
\- 3 DR. SIESS: Well, at one time I was worrying about
- 4. the West face of the Capitol Building that it was being held 5 up by 12 by 12s. -
6' Okay.- But you see--
7 MR. KEITER: Chet, you're raising all kinds of 8 important problems here and--
9 JR. SIESS: But I am not sure that you guys have 10 thought rec as far as you ought to, not write out, but-11 thought out, what you're going to do about these standard 12 plants.
13 MR. KEITER: I'm not so.much concerned about that.
14 I think the problem you raise about the Charleston issue,
/ 15 there are a whole bunch of problems out there that 16 essentially our hands are, if not tied, they're restrained 17 by using modern approaches the way Appendix A is written.
18 And this Standard Review Plan reflects our attempt 19 in the past 10 years tas bring some reality, based on the 20 conditions, that we live in, which is Appendix A an I think 21 that this is what that reflects.
. 22 DR. SIESS: And damn it, Appendix A is causing all 23 the trouble.
24 MR. KEITER: Well there are some problems 25 associated with it.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t
(
\
l 62 !
1 1 DR. SIESS: When Appendix A was written, the main 2 thrust originally was to define the extent of the geological 3 investigation. That was really one of the big issues in ,
1 4 those days. How far out do I have to go and what do I have 1 5 to do and that was one of the main thrusts, but it didn't I
6 stop there and they put a lot of stuff in there that belongs 7 in a Reg Guide, at best or Standard Relief Plan.
l l
8 Have you guys just given up entirely on a plan? ;
9 MR. KEITER: No, we--
10 MR. MINNERS: Yes. I 11 DR. SIESS: Let's see, who was working on that, o l
12 for years?
13 MR. KEITER: We had a meeting--Research called a 14 meeting and we went over--
15 DR. SIESS: Industry was, you know- you don't care 16 whether you call them tectonic provinces or something else, 17 you know.
18 NR. KEITER: As far as I know, it's officially on 19 hold.
20 DR. SIESS: You know, if we're going to do 21 anything, this is the time to do it, when we don't have any
. 22 site reviews.
23 MR. KEITER: That point has been made. .
24 DR. SIESS: And then you wouldn't have to spend 25 all your time working on Diablo Canyon to keep busy.
i 1
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
J
, i
'63 1 MR. KEITER: I'm not going.to comment on that.
2l DR.~ 1 SIESS : Just kidding. f hd~')'
\~'
3 MR. KEITER: It's because of the ACRS, you 4 remember that was one of the reasons we put the license 5 conditions was because of the ACRS let.ter in 1978.
6 DR. SIESS: I know. I'm not particularly proud of 7 . it .
8 Now, do you remember where you were?
9 MR. SHAUKAT: Highlights of SRP 3.7.1.
10 DR. SIESS: Let me get on the same page that you 11 are.
12' MR. SHAUKAT: Slide 8.
13 DR. SIESS: Okay, we' re off of 2.5 now.
14 MR. SHAUKAT: These are the three highlights,
[ \ 15 Control Motion Location Either at the Surface or at Rock
. ij 16 Outcrop.
17' Power spectral density requirement to demonstrate-L 18 adequate power at frequencies of interest when single time 19 history is used.
'20 If you want to discuss any details on. power 21 spectral density, Dr. Chokshi will present a little later.
22 Option to use multiple time histories.
. 23 .These are the public comments that we received and 24 this is the disposition of the staff position after B&L's q 1
25 recommendations through public comment resolution.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 s
64 1 Comments received: Design response spectra 2 vertical should be two-thirds the horizontal.
3 DR. SIESS: That was what we used to do all the 4 time.
5 MR. SHAUKAT: But this is not justified for all 6 sides.
7 DR. SIESS: Yes, but in the draft, they were 8 commenting on that had been changed and they said, let's go ,
9 back to two-thirds.
10 MR. KEITER: I think you're right. I think 11 originally the recommendation by NUMARC western sites. Reg 12 Guide 160 does not--has the same PGA for both vertical and 13 horizontal and NUMARC had recommended that the western sites 14 would use two-thirds and I guess what we're saying is that 15 we find that is really a very site specific argument and, 16 indeed, for many of the western sites, the verticals are 17 higher than the horizontal.
18 DR. SIESS: What were the commenters commenting 19 on?
20 MR. CHOKSHI: I think at one time, in SRP , there 21 was a sentence, basically for western sites who can use two- {
l 22 thirds horizontal and that was deleted from the SRP.
23 DR. SIESS: And that is what they commented on. -
24 MR. SRAUKAT: That was the comment.
25 DR. SIESS: The fact that it had been deleted?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
]
F , 65
,1 MR. SHAUKAT: ;That's right.
,f-% 2' DR. SIESS: So what is the position now, that--' f m- 3 MR. KEITER:. Well you're site specific or do.you 4 :use Reg Guide'160, you use Reg Guide 160, which is the same 5 'PGA-- '
6 .MR. SHAUKAT: For both' vertical and horizontal.
- 7. DR. SIESS: Did that 160 say two-thirds?
8 MR. KEITER: No .- 160 says--160 actually--the 9 term, "to shape," is really not,a bad response, it's that 10 the PGA is the'same .4d.then as the frequency gets lower, 11 the period increases and the vertical response. starts to 12 . decrease compared to the horizontal.
13 We're saying that if you don't go site specific, 14- then that's--
15 DR. SIESS: Okay.
('%
16 MR. SHAUKAT: More definite criteria for duration T17 of seismic input is needed. We adopted this for RegGuide 18 1.60 type spectra.
19 DR. SIESS: Well if you'rs using site specific 20 ' spectra, this is how long'they have to be tc. be used or what 21 portion of them you use?
.' '22 MR. CHOKSHI: This is for when they use artificial 23 motion.
24 DR. SIESS: Okay.
I 25 MR. SHAUKAT: Power spectral density requirement i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I 1
, 1 l
L _1______________-____ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ __
66 <
t l l questionable and need more detailed guidelines.
2 This is a comment from the public comment version ;
i 3 of the SRP which had a different requirement than 16 in the ]
4 final SRP now. I have already mentioned that and the 1 5 current position is based on the work done after public 6 comment. Detailed guidelines are provided in Appendix A to 7 the A to SRP 3.7.1 based on efforts of Doctor Kennedy and 8 Professor Shinozuka during public comment resolution. ,
9 DR. SIESS: Now the disposition you have in the 10 right hand column, is that the disposition recommended by 11 Philokopolis--
12 MR. SHAUKSHI: By B&L.
13 DR. SIESS: Or the one finally adopted by the 14 staff that might be different from Philokopolis?
15 MR. CHOKSHI: I don't think we defer in any, you 16 know, to any significant way.
17 DR. SIESS: I know what he recommended. I got 18 that in writing and I haven't done a concordance with the 19 standard review plan. I just couldn't bring myself to--
20 MR. CHOKSHI: However, I think discussion with you 21 yesterday, I will check that we are--
22 DR. SIESS: Well, if there are any differences, I 23 would like them pointed out. .
24 MR. CHOKSHI: I can't think of anything which is--
25 there may be some small detail difference, but they are Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I J
67.
1 basically the same.
j e 2 DR. SIESS: John may have.found some of these. o iN/ 3 you have Philokopolis'--
4 MR. STEVENSON: Yes, I do. As far as I can 5 determine, there are no major differences 6 MR. CHOKSHI: I double checked ours--the way we 7 'did this revision, we sat down with Mike, Carl and Paul to 8 consider.the-reports, so I think we.are very. consistent.
9 DR. SIESS: Okay.
10 MR. SHAUKAT: I have already pointed'out that this 11 position is actually the position of B&Ls recommendations as 12 well as the staff, so they are virtually the same.
13 MR. STEVENSON: There are differences between what 14 the consultants recommended and Philokopolis.
/ 15 DR. SIESS: Yes. Well there were differences 16 between what the consultants recommended and what the 17 consultants recommended and the consultants didn't all 18 agree..
19 MR. KEITER: That's correct.
l 20 DR. SIESS: And so in some cases he was either 21 siding with one or the other or tried to compromise. Okay. )
1
. 22 MR. SHAUKAT: Multiple time histories requirement
. 23 of minimum 5 is too high. This was a comment on the SRP 1
24 because this requirement was in the SRP for using multiples 1
25 of a minimum of 5 time histories.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
[}
\~ /
(202) 628-4888 i
i iI
>l
7- -- _ __
l 68 .
l 1 Some consultant suggested a value of 3 minimum and 1
l 2 some suggested 5--let's retain 5 and the concensus of the !
3 chief to have a minimum of 4 time histories and that is what I
4 was included in the SRP. I 1
5 DR. SIESS: -Now keeping in mind that I am really 6 ignorant, that means they can pick any 43 time histories )
l 7 they want, you buy it or you have to prove the time I i
8 histories. , f 9 MR. CHOKSHI: If you are on a site specific basis, 10 then the time histories will be reviewed in the review of 11 the site specific spectra.
12 DR. SIESS: But only 47 13 MR. CHOKSHI: Four is the minimum, yes.
14 DR. SIESS: Suppose they got 10 for that site, who 15 gets to pick the 47 16 MR. CHOKSHI: I think the way we would do that is 17 if your spectra is based on a suite of 10 records, leave the 18 4 records still or match that spectra and that will be the 19 one basis for accepting that sub set of 4 out of 10.
20 DR. SIESS: And if it doesn't match it, you would 21 add another would add another one.
22 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes, until you come to the, you 23 know, the reasonable suite with the spectra. -
24 DR. SIESS: Suppose one matched it, unlikely, but 25 possible.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
_ _ _ _ l
69 l
1 MR. CHOKSHI: If you go to one, then you still 2 have to meet the PSD criteria. One is acceptable when the 3 average is 2.5, that there is enough for energy at the 4 frequencies of interest.
5 DR. SIESS: I guess I understand. Go ahead.
6 MR. SHAUKAT: Damping values used should correlate 7 with stress levels and this recommendation was based on ASCE
. 8 4-86 also and we have included this as guidance in the SRP.
9 DR. SIESS: Now what does it mean, " included as 10 guidance"? Damping values are rather crucial in dynamic 11 analysis. You mean you reference A-4867 12 MR. SHAUKAT: Yes. The reference is 486 in the 13 SRP.
14 DR. SIESS: Okay. I remember those things--4-86.
rm 15 MR. SHAUKAT: Highlights of SRP Section 3.7.2.
(d) 16 Soil structure interaction. Reduction of control motion 17 with depth limited to 40 percent and enveloping requirement 18 of results of two methods eliminated.
19 Detailed discussion of soil structure interaction 20 may be presented by Nilesh Chokshi, if you are interested in 21 discussing any technical details.
~
22 DR. SIESS: Let me ask a couple of questions.
23 Didn't NUMARC have a recommendation way back on reduction 24 limited to so much?
25 MR. STEVENSON: I don't know that NUMARC did.
7s Heritage Reporting Corporation
,' ) (202) 628-4888 L/ 1
_____m___.
70 1 MR. CHOKSHI: I think for the SEP review 2 guidelines, they did make some recommendations along the 3 line that was 25 percent as I recall.
4 Doctor John Stevenson cited that position. He was 5 involved in the development of that position.
6 DR. SIESS: Okay.
7 MR. STEVENSON: News to me.
8 DR. SIESS: Am I right, what you used to say was ,
9 to complete the soil structure interaction using one method 10 twice a year or whatever it was and another one using flush 11 and if they agreed, it was all right.
12 That always amused me except it really wasn't 13 funny. I know--
14 I had a professor once that told me, he said if 15 you got to be approximate, be approximate by the simplest 16 possible method. I have modified that to say if you're 17 going to be wrong, be wrong by the simplest possible method.
18 When I looked at your soil structure in action I 19 couldn't say it was wrong, but I couldn't say it was right 20 either because nobody could ever point to any data.
21 MR. SHAUKAT: Lotung experiment threw some light
. 22 on this one--
23 DR. SIESS: Which direction? Did Lotung say what .
24 we were doing was good or-25 MR. 3HAUKAT: Lotung said if the analysis is done l Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
_ . _ __ ~ - - - . . __ _ _ -_ __ _ _ _
71
..t 1 by either method, th'e prediction is'very close toTthe actual y ~~x.
2 response.
'3 DR. SIESS: If you know what the actual response 4 is.
L5 MR. .SHAUKAT: If you'know the method is done.
6' correctly.
7' MR. CHOKSHI: I think we discussed that in that
- 8. 'SSI' workshop. .The problem is with implementation, not 9 matters'or methods. The matter, if you use the right 10 parameters and right models, depending on the modeling and 11 selection of parameter rates.
.12 DR. SIESS: Now what has happened is that through 13 the years, the two methods have got to give the same answer,'
14 haven't they?
15- MR. CHOKSHI: Yes.
16 DR. SIESS: You got data from Lotung that suggests 17 that is the right answer?
18 MR. CHOKSHI: Well we have measured responses,you
.19 know, if that is the right answer.
20 DR. SIE3S: Lotung, the analysis predicted the
[. . 21 response how well--plus or minus 10 percent?
22 MR. CHOKSHI: I think it's. arguable depending on I 23 which ground meter and response you are looking at. In 24 different areas they differ.
l 25 DR. SIESS: What responses are important? {
i Heritage Reporting Corporation g
(202) 628-4888 l
l 1
l[ 72 o
!. 1 MR. BAGEHI: This is Tom Bagehi. Let me just say 2 one thing about the Lotung data. If you looked did look at 3 the blank prediction, you will find that some people didn't 4 do as well as otlers. For example, Classy didn't come out 5 that well. But, if on tne other hand, you look at the post 6 earthquake analysis or post prediction analysis, then you
~
7 will see that they match' fairly closely.
8 DR. SIESS: If you know the answer to Lotung, ,
9 either one of these methods have got enough assumptions that 10 you can make it come out, it's awful difficult.
11 MR. BAGEHI: Agreed. That is why we felt that the 12 SRP needed to change. We would have come to you much 13 earlier than this had it not been for the Lotung experiment.
14 We included some restrictions as a result of that bad match.
15 DR. SIESS: I'm just trying to get a feel. When <
16 you do soil structure interaction, the proposed rule, the 17 old rule, what kind of confidence do you have that you're 18 getting an answer that is realistic in terms of what is 19 important to the health and safety of the public?
20 MR. BAGEHI: We are required a reduction of shear 21 modulous. We required the soil properties to be valued over
. 22 a wide margin. We are fairly confident that the results 23 would bound and-- ..
I 24 DR. SIESS: Now if I went through making 25 conservative assumptions like that, I would have gotten '
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
i I
f[ 73 1 results in terms of'significant responses that were a
- 2. conservative for Lotung. That's the~only' chance we got.
h/n/'
- u a '
3 MR.'BAGEHI: I don't think we can call it overly 4 ~ conservative because we tried to--
5 DR. SIESS: I didn't say " overly conservative", I
.6 just said--you said you got bounds in here.
7 MR. BAGEHI: ' That's right.
8 DR. SIESS: You don't trust the method, you know, 3
9 you don't say the methods are a 100 percent perfect, so 10 -you're making conservative assumptions on some of the 11 properties and I go through--I'm not going to use-the word, 12 " blind,." I got a new plant. coming up and I'm' going to
'13 ' calculate it to design it and I use one of these approved 14 methods and I predict certain things ~are going to affect my
[\ ; 15 design and presumably are going to affect the health and 1 \*,) 16 safety of the public. I'll leave out the plant reliability.
17 How confident are you that I have done that? That 18 when I designed my plant those accelerations or defamations 19 or whatever it is, they will not be exceeded at the design 20 earthquake?
21 MR. BAGEHI: This is my personal opinion. We don't
. 22 have any data to come up with a confidence level, but I like
, 23 to think that we are fairly close to 95.5.
24 DR. SIESS: That you won't--
25 MR. BAGEHI: That we won't exceed.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
/'~ (202) 628-4888
(
!I
I 4
74 l 1 DR. SIESS: To get that level of confidence, are 2 you taking some credit for some seismic margins and l 3 fragility?
4 MR. BAGEHI: Obviously we are.
5 DR. SIESS: Your 95 percent confident that 6 something is not going to fail, not you're 95 percent e
7 confident that you predicted everything right?
8 MR. BAGEHI: Right. I mean-- ,
9 MR. STEVENSON: I think your confidence is that 10 you're not going to fail is higher than 95.57 t 11 DR. SIESS: It probably is.
12 MR. BAGEHI: Right.
13 MR. STEVENSON: It's 95.5 that you've at least 14 enveloped the input level?
15 MR. BAGEHI: At least enveloped the input level, 16 that's correct. I 17 DR. SIESS: Now what basis do we have for that 18 other than Lotung, any?
19 MR. KEITER: There have been other tests, not for 20 earthquakes, but blast tests, blast simulation.
+
21 DR. SIESS: I know--
n 22 MR. BAGEHI: Fukishima is another one.
23 MR. KEITER: There are other test data available. -
24 DR. SIESS: Okay.
25 MR. SHAUKAT: Modal combination. High frequency Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l
["
mL 75 E 1 modes, is one of the areas highlighted in 3.7.2. Option of 2 deregulation of floor response spectra is included.
3 These are the public comments:
4 Soil structure interaction - the comment was:
5 delete alternates 1 and 2. In the public comment version of 6 SRP" 3.7.2, we had a section of soil structure interaction 7 which had two alternatives in there. Those alternatives
, 8 basically included to get the public comments out, so 9 actually we have deleted those alternates and realistic 10 matters- guidance for realistic matters are provided in the 11 SRP.
12 Answers solicited on 4 questions based on lotung 13 experiment also helped us to comment on the basis for 14 detailed guidelines that were added. The enveloping 15 requirements of the two methods have been eliminated.
16 The comment was allow use of ASCE standard 4-86 17 and we have included this in the SRP, but we're saying it 18 will be permitted on a case by case basis.
19 DR. SIESS: What does that mean other than the i
20 fact that sometimes it will and sometimes it won't.
21 I mean, is there something in there that says when 22 it will be permitted and when it won't?
- 23 MB. SHAUKAT: When we say it will be reviewed on a 24 case by case basis, it will be judged on unusual cases by 25 the reviewer and--
Ileritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.!' 76 li-
! 1 DR. SIESS: I thought that the objectise of the l
2 Standard Review Plan was to get some criteria that all 3 reviewers would accept and apply uniformly.
4 MR. SEAUKAT: I think this comes because we still 5 refer to record 1.92 which will be revised eventually.
6 When the Reg Guide 192 is completed--since Reg 7 Guide 192 is already referenced in the SRP, then it will be 8 consistent with that. But up until that time, if an ,
9 applicant comes in, we would have to make use of the 10 exception.
11 DR. SIESS: You mean you're not going to put--
12 there's no rule that permits it. What is there to prevent 13 it?
l 14 The Reg Guide is not a requirement. The Standard 15 Review Plan is not a requirement?
16 MR. CHOKSHI: I think thero is nothing to prevent 17 it, if somebody comes in and after one or two reviews, if it 18 is compatible, I think it will become the practice.
19 DR. SIESS: So what does it mean, "will be 20 permitted"? I think what you mean there--I don't want to 21 fuss about words, but what I think you mean is will be 22 accepted. /
23 MR. CHOKSHI: They will be accepted on a case by .
I 24 case basis, that's what it is. I 26 MR. STEVENSON: Chet, to me that implies that you j
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
(
i I
l T
l!
77 1 got to show them the numbers?
2 DR. SIESS: Yes, yes.
3 MR. STEVENSON: You can't just reference the ASCE 4 and then say we did it in accordance with this and then you j 5 accept that. -
6 DR. SIESS: Accept it on a case by case basis 7 means there is going to be at least one round of quettions, 6 I think. Accepted would mean there would be questions.
9 MR. CHOKSHI: I think John is right, it is by 10 reference or by looking at numbers.
11 DR. SIESS: Okay.
12 MR. SHAUKAT: Another comment was high frequency 13 modes and the comment included other acceptable matters 14 recognized by the industry. Our position is that we have 15 given one method and other approaches are referenced in the 16 SRP and it will be reviewed on a--accepted on a case by case 17 basis.
18 DR. SIESS: I don't understand. I'm not speaking 19 out of a great deal of knowledge, but more out of ignorance.
20 I don't understand all the concern about high 21 frequency modes. Is there enough energy in the high 22 frequency mode to affect the structure or are we just
, 23 talking about things like relay chatter and--
24 MR. CHOKSHI: I think what happens if you have a 25 high frequency system and if you combine by SRSS, you Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
78 1 underestimate responses.
- s 2 DR. SIESS: What is an example of a high frequency 3 system, a shear wall?
4 MR. CHOKSHI: A shear wall. And if you have two 5 modes which are dominant, say beyond 20 hertz, the SRSS says 6 you will under estimate response by--
7 DR. SIESS: Now suppose I have got a shear wall in 8 the uncracked state, if there is such a thing, a hazard of ,
9 25 hertz natural frequency, in the shear mode. Has the 10 earthquake got enough energy at that frequency to crack that 11 wall?
12 MR. CHOKSHI: I think if you believe the Los 13 Alamos data, I think a very small--
14 DR. SIESS: If I do what?
15 MR. CHOKSHI: Los Alamos experiments, I think even 16 a small motion would significantly change the--
17 DR. SIESS: Motion would crack it, but how much 18 energy, how much force does it take?
19 MR. STEVENSON: The answer is probably no, but we 20 don't have an analytical method that permits that to--
21 MR. CHENG: Doctor Sois9--
22 DR. SIESS: As s]on as you crack it, it's no 23 longer 25 hertz. .
24 MR. CHOKSHI: Right, 25 DR. SIESS: It's now 12 hertz, I guess.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
79 1 MR. CEENG: Dr. Siess, I can give you an example 0 ?^N 2 based on my review experience of Sequoyah as to one
('~- ) '
3 allegation, talking about a Delta T time increment, a factor 4 to the steel containment which is free standing containment.
5 You generate the ARS, the Amplified Response 6 Spectra on the steel containment. Sometimes you have a spot 7 in a high peak in the frequency range of between 20 hertz to 8 30 hertz.
9 DR. SIESS: I know we can have things with the 10 high frequency, I am just trying to figure whether the 11 earthquake has enough energy at that high frequency to do 12 any damage.
13 MR. CHOKSHI: I think, Dr. Siess, the problem is 14 not on the high frequency. If the frequency of the reach
/N 15 spectra approaches rigid range. So if you go off the floor,
'-) 16 you might approach, when the acceleration becomes constant 17 at about 7 - 8 hertz, you might have confidence which are 18 beyond 7 and 8 hertz and when you combine them by SRSS, you 19 are--
20 DR. SIESS: So by high frequency, you are talking 21 about something greater than 7 or 8 hertz?
1
. 22 MR. CHOKSHI: Depending on where your zero field i
, 23 acceleration.
24 DR. SIESS: We got a lot of stuff. I thought a lot l
25 of stuff in there is up to 10 hertz I know.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
("'
(202) 628-4888 ;
, )N 1
80 1 MR. STEVENSON: Well there are floor spectra up 2 into the structure that level out at 7 or 8 hertz, so you 3 could have na 8 or 9 hertz component that would be, by 4 definition, in the high frequency range.
5 DR. SIESS: I see. That's what your definition is.
6 MR. CHOKSHI: That's the definition.
7 DR. SIESS: I thought high frequency was above 33.
8 MR. CHOKSHI: I think for like Reg Guide 160, it 9 will be 33 hertz will be the definition, but on some of the 10 floor spectre you see at laser frequency, the acceleration 11 is basically reconstructed.
12 DR. SIESS: Okay. So the high frequency in here 13 doesn't mean the 33 hertz.
14 MR. CHOKSHI: No. In fact in the SRP, it's when 15 you return to the PGA levels.
16 DR. SIESS: We're not talking about Perry type-- l.
17 MR. CHOKSHI: No.
18 DR. SIESS: Okay.
19 MR. SHAUKAT: SRP Section 3.7.3, Category I, 20 buried pipes. Methodology of ASCE 4-86 and NUREG 1161 are 21 referenced in the SRP and tank design requirements are
. 22 discussed in detail.
23 DR. SIESS: Anything that says that pipe has to be ,
i' 24 metal?
25 MR. S7EVENSON: No , not on mind.
4 1
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
81 1 DR. SIESS: One'of the plants is having a lot of kfh./g 2 ' trouble now with some of their buried piping.
kiN /-
). .
3 That's the only reported failure of a-pipe in an 4 earthquake, I believe,'with buried piping.
5 MR.'STEVENSON: Oh there are other failures, but 6 they are, by far, the most prevalent.
7 MR. SRAUKSHI: Yes.
8 DR. SIESS: There was a Chinese' earthquake that 9 had a pipe that crossed the fault and it broke it.
10 MR. SHAUKSHI: At Humbolt Bay, the service water 11 'for the fossil units was also seeking.
12 MR. STEVENSON: Right. And at the Alaskan 13 -earthquake, there were many many pipe failures.
14 DR..SIESS: Where?
-[ \
15 MR. STEVENSON: Alaskan underground pipe.
16 DR. SIESS: Welded pipe.
17 MR. STEVENSON: Welded pipe attached to a power 18 station.
19 , DR. SIESS: Oh, okay. Go ahead.
20 HR. SHAUKSHI: Comments received are buried 21 piping, conduits, et cetera reflect the results of NUREG-
. 2 1061, this is piping review.
, 23 Our disposition is that we are referencing NUREG 24 1161 and there is no need to--
25 DR. SIESS: Wait a minute. What is 10617 i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ')
I 1
i l
'l I
82 1 MR. SHAUKAT: Piping Review Committee.
2 DR. SIESS: Okay.
3 MR. SHAUKAT: Includes the reference of ASCE, 4 Standard 4-86, which we have done. Include preference--
5 include the reference like ASME Section III, Appendix N, 6 " Dynamic Analysis Methods."
7 And we feel that the inclusion of ASCE Standard 4-8 86 is sufficient, so that is what is being done here. ,
9 That concludes my presentation and for detailed 10 discussion Soil Structure Interaction, Power Spectral 11 Density and tanks, Dr. Chokshi will present.
12 DR. SIESS: Thank you very much. That was an 13 excellent presentation.
14 Are there any questions you would like to ask him 15 before we let him go?
16 MR. STEVENSON: No.
17 MR. WYLIE: No.
18 DR. SIESS: Can I assume that this other handout 19 are the other things that you are prepared to talk about?
20 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes. It is more details of some of 21 the specifics. I 1
. 22 DR. SIESS: Okay. We're going to want to heard 23 I about some of them at least, but not right now. .
J i
24 Right now, we'll take about a 15 minute break. j 25 (A short recess was taken. )
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 <
l i
l!.-
U 83
'l DR. SIESS: We'll reconvene.
F . .
2 The above-ground tanks being handled as part of A-5 /~'} -
1%')" 3
.46, am I right.
4 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes.
5 DR. SIESS: And there is a little bit on that.
6 Are you interested in any of that, what the status is?
4 7 DR. SIESS:
8 MR. WYLIE: No.
9 DR. SIESS: You've been through it--okay.
10 In my view, I don't see really anything the whole 11 package, other than the above ground tanks, where there is a 12 reasonably clear cut implication of safet"y.
13 MR. CHOKSHI: That's. correct.
'14 DR. SIESS: I think that is consistent with your 15 regulatory analysis.
16 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes.
17 DR. SIESS: But first, let me make a couple of 18 general comments.
19 First the presentation that we just heard was 20 excellent, I appreciate that.
21 Second, I think that the report from Brookhaven 22 was excellent. We get a lot of reports that aren't
, 23 excellent. I think the good ones ought to be commended. I 24 thought that really put the thing in perspective and 25 generally, I'm impressed and pleased by the way the staff Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .I
84 1 has gone about resolving this thing. I think the consultant 2 panel that was put up by Brookhaven. These two workshops, I 3 think, staff ran, wasn't it and one that EPRI ran on Lotung?
4 5 FR. CHOKSHI: Yes.
6 DR. SIESS: I think has brought the various views 7 into this thing. This area has probably mad more different 8 interpretations and different sets of views and problems ,
9 than almost anything else we get into, because it is at the 10 frontier of our knowledge.
11 DR. SIESS: And ignoring my comments about how 12 long it took, I think it has been a good job.
13 MR. CHOKSHI: Thank you very much.
14 DR. SIESS: I'm rather pleased.
15 So Mr. Wylie doesn't thinks we don't need to go 16 into the tank issue. That one is about as clear cut as could 17 be.
18 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes.
19 DR. SIESS: I think it evolved and--Of the four 20 that are out there, do you think you are going to have any 21 problem with them?
22 Well, Main Yankee had a problem, didn't it?
{
23 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes. .l 24 DR. $1ESS: What did they do at Main Yankee? j
{
25 MR. CHOKSHI: The problem was its anchorage and j l Heritage Reporting Corporation !
l (202) 628-4888 i
n 85 f1- they went out and fixed the' anchorage.
m
' fN 4 2 DR. SIESS: Okay.
.( -
\- / 3 MR. CHOKSHI: Primarily it was a sitting of the 4 anchor bolts.
5 DR.'3IESS: It would have slid or would it have 6 lifted?
7 MR. CHOKSHI: No, it'would have up lift:.d and then 8 buckled.
9 DR. SIESS: It would have up lifted.
10 MR. CHOKSHI: And I think if I understand 11 correctly, the problem was that there was some anchor bolts 12 that were left out physically.
13 DR. SIESS: That helps, doesn't it?
14 John, do you have something?
/} 15 MR. STEVENSN1: I just want to be sure that it is 16 put in perspective.
17 That anchorage was good for the SSE but it fell 18 short of the so called margin earthquake and it was' four-19 tenths or three-tenths.
20 DR. SIESS: Three-tenths.
21 MR. STEVENSON: And it was upgraded to meet the
. 22 margin earthquake. It was not that it'was unsafe.
23 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes. I think that, yes, that is 24 correct.
25 DR. SIESS: And that was a Heathcliff margin.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
("' (202) 628-4888 A
i-
86 f-1 MR. STEVENSON: Yes.
2 DR. SIESS: The 95-95.
3 MR. STEVENSON: Yes.
4 DR. SIESS: Okay.
5 MR. CHOKSHI: Without fix it was .21g. With fix 6 it was .27g.
7 DR. SIESS: It was the lowest thing for the plant?
8 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes. Governing for the core damage. ,
9 DR. SIESS: And it was good for what, 26 you said?
10 MR. CHOKSHI: .21g.
11 DR. SIESS: .21g. The design g was?
12 MR. CHOKSHI: .1.
13 DR. SIESS: Okay. It was .1, so it was good for 14 .21 at 95 percent confidence of 95 percent non exceedance.
15 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes.
16 DR. SIESS: That ain't bad.
17 MR. STEVENSON: A lot of people thought so.
18 DR. SIESS: And had some bcilts left out too, 19 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes.
20 DR. SIESS: Structural engineers are cautious 21 people, aren't they?
. 22 What was the next lowest ?
i 23 MR. STEVENSON: I don't recall. .
l j 24 MR. CHOKSHI: Well that work compliments, the new 25 mineralized water tank had even lower capacity, but it was l
Heritage Reporting Corporation _
(202) 628-4888 l
- - - _ _ _ _ _ b
U, "07
~
1- not a single failure..
i
/"y 2 DR. SIESS: Okay.
3 MR. CHOKSHI: I think it was characterized 4 . properly because of the resumption meeting margin, RWST, 5 show up so high because of there is LOCA.and other things, 6- so it was not as important as it was from a margin analysis.
c .- 7 DR. SIESS: How did they pick the three-tenths?'
8 That's arbitrary,'isn't it?
9 MR. CHOKSHI: That was in consultation with the 10 staff and we agreed we would use .3g or 98 for two reasons.
11 The margin matter improved the competence by .3g
-12 and .5g based on experience. So that was one of the driving 13- reasons why we selected .3g.
14 Plus it was estimates of the new design basis was hi Q.Y 15 -that of about .18g, taking into consideration the.New-16- Brunswick--it was selected as a convenient parameter.
.17 DR. SIESS: But there is nothing in the rules that 18 says--the seisnic margin is outside the rules, isn't it?
19 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes. In fact, we just finished a 20 study on this and that is the problem, how to come up with a 21 reliable output.
22 DR. SIESS: And when you do that, you sort of got
.. 23 to have a target g value, don't you?
24 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes.
25 DR. SIESS: To do it, to check against.
'l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ]
f
___ _ ___ __ ___ ____ _ _ _ _ - w
88 L
e 1 MR. CHOKSHI: To check against.
2 DR. SIESS: Because of the SQUG--yes, okay.
3 Now SQUG has only got'one value, has it?
i 4 MR. STEVENSON: SQUG is evaluated through the 5 RegGuide. SSE. -
6 DR. SIESS: I thought that they had--if it's not
~
7 more than three-tenths certain, they grouped the components 3 and--
9 MR. STEVENSON: That was margin. l 10 DR. SIESS: Yeah.
11 MR. CHOKSHI: If you use the SQUG data base to 12 come up with those tables, right.
13 DR. SIESS: But you got to have a number to go in 14 and do that, a test number.
1 15 Your slides here--these are your slides?
16 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes. i 17 DR. SIESS: They are sort of grouped by the 18 general area 19 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes. I think beginning with the 20 tanks, SSI and power spectral density.
21 DR. SIESS: I didn't read the Veletsos report.
. 22 You seem to be quite a bit more conservative than the other 23 consultants on how much that ground motion reduction should .
24 be. He was 25 to 30 percent.
25 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes. He felt very strongly about Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
n ~}
.3 1 89 j i
i that. He felt there is nothing to justify more than 30
]
l ys 2 percent.
t
). )
'% / .3 DR.-SIESS: Did he give a reason for wanting to be 4 that low?
5- MR. CHOKSHI He was concerned there was so much 6 uncertainty in the models and the way we counted this.
7 motions that he felt that, you know, having a 40 percent 8 reduction is--all of them agreed that nome limit should-be 9 put on the selections and then we used ASCE 4-86 and most of 10 the panel felt comfortable with that.. So that is what we 11 wind up using.
12 DR. SIESS: What happened to deconvolution?
4 13 MR. CHOKSHI: That is what it refers to, that when 14 you deconvol, you don't go below 40. percent.
[N 15 DR. SIESS: This is still the--
\
16 MR. CHOKSHI: Deconvol. I think, even in the most 17 ' sophisticated analysis, they still use--
18 DR. SIESS: I think this the first thing I have 19 read in a long time that didn't have the word 20 " deconvolution" in it.
21 MR. CHOKSHI: I think you put that word in and
. 22 it's--everybody just--
. 23 MR. SHAUKAT: The SSE standard 4-86 references 24 that--recommends 40 percent reduction.
25 DR. SIESS: And that is essentially what you have Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 V
i l
.. !)
}
90 1 got and if anybody wants more than that, they got be 2 convincing?
3 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes. This was the one area where we 4 had a divergence of opinion with the consultants.
5 DR. SIESS: Are you Chairman of 4-86?
6 MR. STEVENSON: No.
7 DR. SIESS: Who is?
8 MR. STEVENSON: Kennedy. ,
9 DR. SIESS: Oh, Bob Kennedy.
10 You got any comments to make about soil structure I
11 interaction, either questions to staff or sedation to the 12 subcommittee?
)
13- MR. STEVENSON: I don't think so, not on the basis 14 of this reports and the changes to the Standard Review Plan, 15 I've got comments on some other areas.
16 DR. SIESS: Still looks complicated.
17 MR. STEVENSON: I think it is generally considered 18 to be an improvement over what we had in the past.
19 DR. SIESS: It wouldn't be hard, would it?
20 MR. STEVENSON: There are some of us who thought 21 that.
, 22 DR. SIESS: Now on power spectral density, I think 23 I understand it, but I guess I need to understand a little .
24 more because I may be in the position of trying to explain 25 this to the full committee.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9
91 1 Can you give me an example of the kind of
.(f'~y. 2- ' deficiency that this corrects?
. ;\
/
-'s '? 3' MR. CHOKSHI: Yes, sir.
- 4. DR. SIESS: You know, sort of a specific instance 5 where either the Reg Guide 106 spectra would not be good or 6 some--let's see now--let me say what I think I know and you
'd 7 can correct me
- ,. 8 InLthe past you have been able to-use the Reg
? Guide 160 spectra if you were doing a spectral analysis. But 10 if you did a time history analysis, you then had to pick--
11 usually pick an~ artificial time history that would envelope 12 the 160 spectra, is that right?
13 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes. {
14 DR. SIESS: And it was one artificial time 15 history.
16 MR. CHOKSHI: That la correct.
17 DR. SIESS: Is what you are saying here is that in 1 18 that process they could pick a time history that did not 19 have a sufficient spectral density?
20 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes, that's right. One thing, 21 ' theoretically go out and pick a couple of sinucidals and 22 superimpose a 160 requirement. And then we have energy
. 23 concentrated at basically two frequencies, and you will not l 24 have energy distribution which we, you know, we really want.
25 In order to correct the deficiency, there is a Heritage Reporting Corporation
/N (202) 628-4888 '
U uz --
l 92 i
1- supplement power spectral density check was added. It's to 2 late to meet the Reg Guide 160 requirements.
3 So you will operate Reg Guide 160 spectra but.then 4 check that you also have a frequency distribution in that 5 time history, that we'are not systematically under 6 estimating responses at some frequencies.
7 That was--I mean, we went back and checked the 8 time histories used by the industry and that problem does 9 not exist. This is just guard against any future problems.
10 DR. SIESS: I'm ignorant, so just bear with me.
11 If I were dealing with a single degree of freedom 12 system which is what I do when I do a spectrum, and I picked 13 either let my computer find me a time history that would 14 involve the spectrum or found a couple and all I was 15 analyzing was a single degree of freedom system, I wouldn't 16 have any problem, would I?
17 MR. CHOKSHI: No problem.
18 DR. SIESS: The spectral content must be there?
19 HR. CHOKSHI: That's right. Total r esponse is 20 same, you got the right response. Problem comes when you 21 have a multiple history system and equipment, you sub f
, 22 system.
23 So if you have a spectra of the structure response ,
24 pretty carefully, I don't think you have any problem.
25 DR. SIESS: In other words, time histories that Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.93 >
T
.give me a single' degree of freedom responses do not 1
L '
Yi :2 necessarily give. satisfactory multi degree of freedom?
MR.'CHOKSHI:
3 And the.sub system response.
4 MR. STEVENSON: And the intermediate modes.
5 DR. SIESS: And the intermediate modes. Okay.
15 _ MR. CHOKSHI: Right. It's basically a problem 7 with spectra--full spectra but in structural response, you
. 8 really, if you envelope spectra, you have got your 9 structural response.
10 DR. SIESS: Now this is the part that you really 11 had-the most difficulty with? ,
12 MR. CHOKSHI: Most comments on, yes. And I think 13 partly it was because the origin was not very clear and a 14 number of comments were on there about the definitions and
.. 15 that sort of thing.
16 DR. SIESS: Now originally, there was a PSD 17 comment that was some God awful equation--
18 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes, Takishima equation.
19 DR. SIESS: Now that got changed?
)
20 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes.
21 DR. SIESS: You now have something that involves 22 fuel variables or just some combinations of it?
23 MR. CHOKSHI: It's basically a frequency and just 24 numerical constance and I have a slide here.
25 DR. SIESS: Okay, let's see it.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
, (202) 628-4888
\
I 94 1 MR. CHOKSHI: Basically, it is divided into the I
2 four frequency bands and it's--
3 DR. SIESS: Okay.
4 MR. CHOKSHI: And we'll use these frequency 5 argument. This is what it is.
6 DR. SIESS: Okay.
7 MR. CHOKSHI: This is basically a model for 8 absolute 4 year spectrum amplitude divided by duration. ,
9 DR. SIESS: Well, that's simple enough.
10 What will be in the Standard Review Plan, a figure 11 or an equation?
12 MR. CHOKSHI: Equation. These 4 equations are 13 basically in the Standard Review Plan.
14 MR. STEVENSON: Do you have a figure that compares 15 with the original one that you had?
16 MR. CHOKSHI: It's in Appendix B, I believe, and 17 you can compare that, both of them are there.
18 MR. STEVENSON: You don't have a degree that you 19 are reducing?
20 MR. CHOKSHI: No , It was substantial. We did like 21 community energy checks and other things. It showed there
. 22 was a significant difference.
23 DR. SIESS: The bottom one is his equation. .
1 24 MR. STEVENSON: I have made that comparison and it l
I 25 ' is significant.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
95 SIESS: .This'is'the Ken Nakajimi--okay.
-1 .DR.
, f-'s. 2 MR. CHOKSHI: John, did you' correct for that 6.2
,; i
\-[. 3 by factor?
4' ,
'MR. STEVENSON: Well, I didn't do it, but I assum?
5 that it was correct. It'is an interesting comparison. It 6 has significant impact.
7 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes. I think we were-concentrating 8 only on'the low frequency and when we did Ken Nakajimi, you 9 'only concerned with high frequency.
10 DR. SIESS: Nov, let's see. As I recall, I guess
'll it's in-the value impact statement,-it made some 12 calculations for shear walls, am I right?
13 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes.
14' DR. SIESS: 'With fairly high frequencies?
( 15 MR. CHOKSHI: Right.
I N
16 DR. SIESS: And using time histories,you would get 17 to match this right?
18 !El. CHOKSHI: Well, w.at we did on that was that 19 we estimated how much would be increased in the shear force 20 if you combined the high frequency marks properly and then 21 put it in the design model to compensato for the risk of
. 22 core damage frequency.
23 That is what war. done in the value impact 24 statement. ,
l 2S DR. SIESS: In that case you say you get 40 J Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 H
4 k i
96 i i
1 percent higher stress or 33 percent higher stress or ]
2 something--
3 MR. CHOKSHI: Right.
4 DR. SIESS: --if you used--
5 MR. CHOKSHI: Proper combinations.
l 6 DR. SIESS: --what was called for by the new 7 requirement--new Standard Review Plan.
]
l 8 MR. CHOKSHI: Right. . !
l 9 DR. SIESS: So you did your analysis just by l i
10 reducing the fragility? j 1
11 MR. CHOKSHI: That's right. And the 40 percent is i 12 the limit. In reality it will be much less than that. I i
13 DR. SIESS: Is it a simple one to one relationship i 1
l 14 between the force and the fragility achieved?
15 MR. CHOKSHI: No, it is not. 40 percent will be 16 the upper bound case.
I 17 DR. SIESS: Okay. l
)
18 MR. CHOKSHI: Because, you know, the shear wall, i l
19 you know, seismic might be very small traces, designed for a l l
20 shield or missile protection. l
)
21 DB. SIESS: And you're still assuming those shear .
22 walls are correct?
23 MR. CHOKSHI: It was true, right. -
j j
24 DR. SIESS: 2ney h:2d to be to get thoso l 25 frequencies. '
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation .
(202) 628-4888 l
l
I 97 1 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes. I think one weakness is the 2 Diablo where they ran into much more detailed investigation.
3 DR. SIESS: Nobody has ever tested one that wasn't
.i 4 correct.
5 MR. STEVENSON: I think some of the ones that we 6 tested were on cracks at Los Alamos.
7 DR. SIESS: They didn't see the cracks, but their 8 synthesis said they were cracks.
9 MR. STEVENSON: There were, I think there were
. 10 more recent tests that were reported at the ASCE meeting.
11 DR. SIESS: They tried an awful' lot to get some l
12 that weren't cracked but didn't succeed.
13 MR. STEVENSON: I think more recently they 14 apparently found some 15 DR. SIESS: How did they do it, pre-stress them?
16 MR. STEVENSON: By taking a great deal of care ;
17 apparently. But anyway, my understanding is based on a 18 presentation I heard at EPRI two weeks ago that they have 19 now gotten some results which indicate that at higher
,, 20 frequencies which postulate--
. 21 DR. SIESS: I think it is conceivable that a shear
.A 22 wall could remain uncracked initially. It is also highly
. . 23 likely that when it is subjected to any significant force, 4
.ff 24 together with shrinkage and a few other things, that it 25
^
~ would crack.
h .,
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
98 1 I was just astounded to find ut that people were 2 analyzing systems and components on the assumption that the 3 wall was uncracks. I would simply have assumed that it was 4 uncracked and then I would assume that it was cracked and I 5 would have looked at the range in between.
6 MR. CHOKSHI: You know, the way we used to deal 7 with that was a frequency variation, a much smaller 8 variation, about 15 percent. That was the only frequency ,
9 variation that was accounted.
10 DR. SIESS: The concern has been floor spectra.
11 MR. STEVENSON: I think part of the problem, if 12 you assume it's fact and then you have got to determine 13 what the stress level in a rebar is and if there is a factor i
14 of 20, there's an assumption of first cracking revealed in i 15 the rebar,you got to--
16 DR. SIESS: The test don't show the factor of 20, 17 MR. STEVENSON: No, it don't because the test is 18 at various stress levels, but if you look the test data, 19 testing shear walls from the initial crack to the yield of 20 the rebar, there are tremendous changes instead of--
21 DR. SIESS: If you start with it, yes, but if you 22 start with some cracking where you're already down to 25 23 percent of the uncracked. .
24 MR. STEVENSON: I understand that. But I guess my 25 point is then, as soon as you cinck it, then you've got to .
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
W 97
- . 1 MR..CHOKSHI
- -Yes. I think~one weakness is the
'if
- z 2 Diablo where they.ran into much more detailed' investigation.
\
3 DR. .SIESS: Nobody has ever. tested one that wasn't 4' correct.
5 MR. STEVENSON: I think some of the ones that we 6 tested were on cracks'at Los Alamos.
~
7 DR. SIESS: They didn't see the cracks, but their 8- synthesis said they.were cracks.
=9 MR. STEVENSON: There were, I think there were 10 more recent tests that were reported at the ASCE meeting.
11 DR.' SIESS: They tried an awful. lot to get some 12- that weren't cracked but didn't succeed.
13 NR. STEVENSON: I think more recently they 14 apparently found some
[,-h 15 DR. SIESS: How did they do it, pre-stress them?
Q/ 16 MR. STEVENSON: By taking a great deal-of care 17 apparently. But anyway, my understanding is based on a 18 presentation I heard at EPRI two weeks ago that they have 19 now gotten some results which indicate that at higher 20 frequencies which postulate--
21 DR. SIESS: I think it is conceivable that a shear j 22 wall could romain uncracked initially. It is also highly
. 23 likely that when it is subjected to any significant force, t
24 together with shrinkage and a few other things, that it o 25 would cr ack.
L 1
l-
' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 h',,N .
98 1 I was just astounded to find ut that people were 2 analyzing systems and components on the assumption that the 3 wall was uncracks. I would simply have assumed that it was 9 l 1
l 4 uncracked and then I would assume that it was cracked and I 5 would have looked at the range in between. I 6 MR. CHOKSHI: You know, the way we used to deal
. i 7 with that was a frequency variation, a much smaller {
8 variation, about 15 percent. That was the only frequency ,
i 9 variation that was accounted.
10 DR. SIESS: The concern has been floor spectra.
11 MR. STEVENSON: I think part of the problem, if 12 you assume it's fact and then you have got to determine 13 what the stress level in a rebar is and if there is a factor 14 of 20, there's an assumption of first cracking revealed in j 15 the rebar,you got to--
16 DR. SIESS: The test don't show the factor f 20.
17 MR. STEVENSON: No, it don't because the test is 18 at various stress levels, but if you look the test data, 19 testing shear walls from the initial crack to the yield of 20 the rebar, there are tremendous changes instead of--
21 DR. SIESS: If you start with it, yes, but if you 22 start with ecme cracking where you're already down to 25 23 pe.tcent of the uncracked. .
l 24 MR. STEVENSON: I understand that. But 1 guess my 25 point is then, its soon as ycu crack it., then you've got to l
Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
(202) 628-4888
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . . _ - b
99 {
q l' ' estimate what'the stress levels are, the analysis of that l l
,[' \ 2 ' wall becomes limited becauseLthat's going to affect the f
'i "'
J 3 frequency which.is. going'to affect the whole. 'I think that -
.4 'is the reason why they did not assume cracking because they .i 1
5 didn't know where it--
Ei - DR. SIESS: But now they're worrying about it, 7 yeah.
8 MR. STEVENSON: The solution, so far in ASCE is 9- not to assume a cracked wall.
10 .DR. SIESS: I saw something proposed in,that last 11 NuReg that ASC.was coming out with a ban and it got down to !
4 12; about 25 to 40 percent of the uncracked stiffness.
13 MR. STEVENSON: That's correct, but'they still are 14 ; going to makeLthe analysis based on--
15 'DR. SIESS: They don't have to. I was concerned
'[v} '16 abut this and I was trying to find out.why somebody can't 17 compute the stiffness of a cracked shear wall.
18 MR. STEVENSON: They can, but it then becomes a 19 ifunction of the. load on that wall, it's not linear.
1 20 DR. SIESS: I'm not sure they can do it'without a
,, 21 finite element analysis and'I am not sure they know how to 1 -
22' do that when the rebar doesn't cross the cracks at right
.- 23 angles.
24 In other words, what would the stiffness be if you l 25 had a rebar like this as ccmpared to a rebar like this?
L
~
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 o
______-_-_a
i i-
-l I
100 l 1 MR. STEVENSON: It's different. It proved out in 2 containment. 3 3 DR. SIESS: We know that. It's an old story. We l 4 have looked at plate with reinforcement non authargonal and 5 some very interesting questions come up, but empirically the 6 stiffness drops down considerably depending on how much l
. (
7 rebar you've got and it doesn't make a darn bit of )
8 difference to the wall. The wall isn't going anywhere. .
9 MR. STEVENSON: It's the frequency )
i 10 characteristics. l 11 DR. SIESS: It's the equipment. But when you I'
12 applied this change on the PSD and the spectra to the actual 13 case, it just didn't make much difference in risk?
14 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes.
15 DR. SIESS: All right, that figures then. I'm 16 reading your slides to see where I got any questions. It's 17 easier than looking back there.
18 You had something on the tanks and something on 19 soil structure interaction--
20 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes.
21 OR. SIESS: "and power spectral density and that's ,
22 about it, isn't it and the three thinga?
23 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes.
- 24 DR. SIESS: And we wore Leon cut on ground motion.
25 You got, any questions, Charlie't Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
3,- ,-
101.
1 . MR . WYLIE: No.
J2 'DR . SIESS:. John, you want to ask your questions?
3- MR. STEVENSON: I had three-questions.
41 The current change to the power spectral density 5 function. The first question is the minimum PST is now
-6 defined in Appendix A--
7 DR. SIESS: Get closer to the mike.
8' MR. STEVENSON: Okay.. The first question is the
~'
9 minimum PST that you have now defined in. Appendix A to 3.7.1 10 is "more-reasonable" and for that reason, it's not' clear why 11 only 80 percent of it needs to be exceeded in qualifying a-12- candidate, minimum.
13 MR. CHOKSHI: Okay. Let me put up the first 14 slide. I think the problem is to insure that--
15 DR.-SIESS: Raise it a little bit.
( 16 MR. CHOKSHI: But we do not make PSD requirements 17 controlling the input motion. We still want basic design 18 input as the response spectra and PSD is just there to 19 . insure that there is a frequency distribution, energy 20 distribution and a frequency band.
21 And what we did was, we did a number of studies 22 and'if you used this spectra and then generated time history
-. -23. motion, how will you compare with the Reg Guide 160 spectra.
24 We took it where you got a very good fit but now then we 25 .vant it below that. i l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 s
102
[ 1 If we used PSD to generate time history because we 2 don't want this to be a governing criteria and that is why 3 we put 80 percent limit. When you do 80 percent, if you 4 come out slightly below and very close to 160, but you do 5 not exceed 160 spectra, that was the reason for doing that.
6 MR. STEVENSON: Okay. So 80 percent is based on 7 parameter studies.
8 MR. CHOKSHI: Parameter studies. '
l 9 MR. STEVENSON: My second question. I believe the 10 duration of straw motion identified in Standard Review Plan 11 371, Appendix A should be more precisely defined. If the 12 time history is generated by synthesizing synacoids, PD will 13 be a length of the peak region.
14 However, in a time history that were generated for 15 straw motion reference, TD is not well defined.
16 You defined it in the body of the Standard Review 17 Plan, but the description, in Appendix A, is kind of fuzzy 18 and I just wondered why you left it relatively undefined in 19 the Appendix.
20 MR. CHOKSHI: Well, you know, it's the definition 21 of duration, I think. Various people have various--I think
. 22 the details in Tom Kennedy's and Shinazuka's reports, I 23 think, in the context of what is in the Standard Review .
24 Plan, I think it explains that concept very well.
25 And bringing all thoce ideas into the SRP, we Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l l
103 1 thought some of the people could look it up. To use som-l 2 different definitions of PSD and strong motion division, I 3 think you have to think exactly what you want to use .,
4 consistent with your set of PSD criteria.
5 MR. STEVENSON: Well I guess it just seems like s 6 you were fairly specific when we were talking about the 7 generation of the time history that you had to use as to
. 8 which strong motion, when you were talking about--
9 MR. CHOKSHI: Oh , I see what you're enying.
10 MR. STEVENSON: --generating a Reg Guide, but then 11 you got very fuzzy when you started talking about it in l
12 context of a power structure.
13 MR. CHOKSHI: I thing the way we did the study was 14 we assumed certain--I think the circumstances we introduced 15 was defined in the body of the--
16 MR. CHOL'SHI : They're consistent because they can 17 mean almost anything. My point is that you kind of relaxed 18 the duration discussion for the power spectral density.
19 I guess my point is that I don't see it in here.
20 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes, I think you are right. We 21 could go back and make it more specific.
22 MR. STEVENSON: That was my only comment. That
- 23 you already made specifics to the time history and it seems 24 to me those same specifics should--
25 MR. CHOKSHI: You are right.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 u _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __________ __ _ _ _ ___._ _._._____.___ _ ___________.__________..______.____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
104 1 MR. STEVENSON: --should apply to the density )
2 functions.
3 And my last comment was, I noticed that you have a 4 cut off at 24 hertz and I have some trouble with that in 5 that it implies there is no energy above 24 hertz and I may 6 be right, but it can make a significant different when 7 you're generating floor response from that same input and I 8 mean, either one of two things should happen, in my opinion.
9 The cut off frequency should be increased to 33 10 hertz or dropped from 33 hertz down to 24 hertz.
11 Now we've got an intermediate number that defines 12 high frequency. I suspect that should be some resolution.
13 Twenty four seems to hop out of the air. I suspect it was 14 based on parameter studies as well. But it now generates 15 some uncertainty as to what really high frequency is now.
16 It's going to make a difference to how we generate 17 floor spectra and what the floor spectra in the high 18 frequency are going to look like.
19 MR. CHOKSHI: I think you are correct. What 20 happened was that we started with 16 hertz cut off. That 21 was Bob Kennedy's initial recommendation and when you start ,
22 increasing that limit, you are having difficulty making up 23 on the PGF and that is where it finally came out.
- 24 I think the answer to your question is that you 25 are right and we may have some difference in the Reg Guide Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 1 '105 .)
1 1 ?. 6 0. The' definition of high frequency was this PSD and I jr '2 don't know w ather in terms of impact on actual floor li i\ . 3 structure or on:the equipment, but I- -
4- MR. STEVENSON: I think'there.are some cap 9s, we j 5 can make suggestions.-
6 'MR. CHOKSHI: I hadn't thought of that.
7 'MR. STEVENSON: I just wanted to bring it up that ,{
.8 .I thought that now we have kind of an' intermediate 9 definition of high frequency density with an amplified.
10 response. Maybe there ought'to be at least something in 11 .there that' explains that that this is based on an empirical 12 study.
13 MR. CHOKSHI: I think that's a good point.
14 MR. STEVENSON: It specifically dc 3 not define f 15 .the limit of high frequency.
5 16- MR. CHOKSHI: But my recollection is'that all the
- 17. time history is used by industry, they're basically--they 18 don't have any power. I'm saying you are careful in 19- selecting the motion also to make sure that you have a lot-20 of high frequency component, you're not going to get that 21 effect. [
. 22 MR. STEVENSON: That's true.
. 23 MR. CHOKSHI: Then I will get back to you.
24 MR. STEVENSON: There's enough over lap damping to 1
25 give you the necessary shape in the high frequency without Heritage Reporting Corporation
("'} (202) G28-4888 V
- I
- - - - - - - - _ - _ l
106 i
1 having any explicit energy.
2 MR. CHOKSHI: All right.
3 MR. STEVENSON: The 24--again I think there should 4 be some explanation--
5 MR. CHOKSHI: I think we--
6 MR. STEVENSON: --as to the stratagem to simply 7 over design and--
8 MR. CHOKSHI: That's right. I think we can .
9 address those comments.
10 MR. STEVENSON: That's all.
11 MR. SliAUKAT: It is your suggestion that the range 12 between 24 hertz and 33 hertz should somehow be clarified in 13 the SRP--the discretion should be there.
14 MR. STEVENSON: I guess there should be some 15 discussion of why 24 hertz was selected because it seems now 16 like we are generating a time history--using a time history 17 that 33 hertz is the limit and when we're dealing with power 18 spectral density functions, it's 24 hertz and there has to 19 be some explanation that the 24 hertz is simply based on--
20 this gives us a good--
21 MR. CHOKSHI: Right. I think that is a point well
. 22 taken.
23 MR. STEVENSON: Otherwise, your people, you know, ,
24 you're using a different definition of high frequency 25 depending on how you're your generating power spectral Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
107;
( .-
1 density functions.
l 4
l l "'N- 2 MR. SHAUKAT: Your point'is well taken, but would 3: the Standard Review be the place where that kind of 4 discussion should be put in?
5 MR. STEVENSON: Well I think it wouldn't be out of-6- place to have a sentence in Appendix A of 3.7.1 that 24 7 hertz is selected as a convenient--
8 MR. CHOKSHI: Right.
I 9 MR.-STEVENSON: --limit for the generation of 10 power spectral density functions.
11 MR. CHOKSHI: I think that's a very good point 12 that we don; define it right.
q 13 DR. SIESS: If you don't tell the reader or the 14 user why.you did it, you're going to start assuming reason 7
15 why you did it and they're very likely to be wrong and lead 16 to wrong conclusions.
MR. CHOKSHI:
d 17 I think both of us wanted to -- that 18 -- aforementioned.
19' DR. SIESS: Okay. Let's.have the lights back.on.
20 John Stevensi;n supplied me with some comments, 21 first'to the effect that he was'quite happy with the j
. 22 resolution of A-40, but there are some other things that !
. 23 need to be done, not necessarily under the A-40 rubric, and 24 not unsurprisingly one of them on there is something that we 25 talked about a little bit earlier, the OBE versus the SSE, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
i
\
b: 108 1 but as I look down John's list without going through it in 2 detail because I am not going to accept it as a committee 3 position at this time, a lot of the points are -- areas that 4 he talks about are related to designing structures for 5 seismic voting. -
6 The Standard Review Plan, if I am not mistaken, is 7 chiefly related to analysis.
8 MR. CHOKSHI: These cities -- not in economics -- -
9 DR. SIESS: It is pretty much -- the things we 10 have been talking about here are how you analyze it, and of 11 course the results of the analysis affect the design, but I 12 have noted in the past when the staff reviews seismic, and 13 they go out and do a seismic audit, most of the emphasis, 14 most of the things they are reviewing, are the analyses, not 15 the implementation of that into a design, and so I am saying 16 to you and to John that you might be talking to the wrong 17 people.
18 I am not sure -- in general the SRP does look at 19 other things than analysis in other areas.
20 MR. STEVENSON: I guess my point is that in 21 addition to the 3-7 series there is a 3-9 series, for 3-10 ,
22 for electrical, and there they very definitely talk about 23 design, and I don't think you can practically separate them.
- 24 DR. SIESS: There is not enough of it in the 25 structural area, and some of the things that you do in Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
!)
109 1 analysis, or you require in the analysis, end up having I e~'s 2 definite effects on design, and if you understand those
)
'N_ / 3 effects you might do something a little differently.
4 I think some of these things could be addressed by 5 the staff. I would like to pass it on to them.
6 I would also like to suggest that the ASCE 7 Committee could address a number of these things. What is 8 the name of that standard, design?
9 MR. STEVENSON: Does somebody have a copy of that?
10 MR. CHOKSHI: Yes, I have it.
11 DR. SIESS: What do they call it? I think it is 12 design, but I am not sure.
13 MR. CHOKSHI: I will take a look.
14 DR. SIESS: It is referenced. It must be in
/ 15 Shaukat's list of references. Oh, he has got a list of
16 references. One of these hand-outs has a list of 17 references.
18 MR. CHOKSHI: This is the standard.
19 DR. SIESS: Seismic analysis of safety related 20 nuclear structures. I would think maybe that standard might 21 give more attention to design.
. 22 MR. STEVENSON: Well, the problem is that we have
, 23 defined analysis, ACI and AISC, from the design. It is kind 24 of like --
25 DR. SIESS: Yes.
l l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation l /s (202) 628-4888 I
'\
J l
l l \
110 1 MR. STEVENSON: We didn't want to get into -- that 2 was part of our charter. We started just talking about 3 design, and we got into specifics which may or may not be in 4 conflict with ACI and AISC.
5 DR. SIESS: But, you know, ACI 318 doesn't 6 separate the two. In those cases where analysis isn't i 7 obvious, that is the standard building code, yes, you know.
8 Nobody in the code tells you how to analyze a frame except ,
9 you soon make consistent assumptions regarding stiffness, 10 but when you get into things like slabs that you always 11 assume nobody knows how to analyze them, you tell them.
12 MR. STEVENSON: I think the concern is that you 13 end up getting into a battle with the --
14 DR. SIESS: Yes. I think it is interesting to 15 look at this list of suggestions and see how many could be 16 -- really, they ought to be addressed in the Standard Review 17 Plan to the same extent that they address the mechanical, 18 electrica.1, and so forth; the implementation, you know, of 19 the results of the analysis.
20 But some of these aren't even considered now. I 21 mean, you have got one here on permit balanced seismic 22 design such as seismic capacities or subsystems are not 23 required to be significantly greater than the structural -
24 system that houses or supports them.
25 Now, that really comes out of the analysis, l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
111 JL doesn't:it?
.2' ,
MR. STEVENSON: Right. It is not addressed at,
'A G7) s- 3 this~ point, but it -- I guess.for recommendation'in the 4 future.
5 DR. SIESS: And how it would be addressed in-6 something related strongly to analysis.
7 MR. STEVENSON: Well, it could be addressed in 8 Section 3.8. I am not saying all of these.should be 9 addressed in Section 3.7, Standard Review Plan. There is
.J 10 Standard Review Plan 3.8, 3.9 - :
11 DR. SIESS: What is.3.87 12 MR. STEVENSON: That is --
13 MR. CHOKSHI: Design of structures.
14 MR. STEVENSON: It is the design section of the 15 Standard Review Plan.
~'
16- DR. SIESS: Okay.
17 MR. STEVENSON: I didn't rea2'.y distinguish where 18 it should go.
19 DR. SIESS: Oh , no.
20 MR. STEVENSON: But there are Standard Review l
- \
21 Plans that cover that area, design. j 22 DR. SIESS: But these -- as I said, I will pass
. 23 these on. These are suggestions that I think would lead to 24 better seisraic designs, and by better I mean designs that 25 withstand earthquakes better; would they be more economical Heritage Reporting Corporation
-\,
[ (202) 628-4888 r
i
L 112 1
1 or easier to design.
Some of them wouldn't be. Well, that 2 is the --
3 MR. STEVENSON: Two of those in there would be 4 considered a ratchet. One would be a recommendation that we 5 make buildings ductile, require there be design ductile 6 joints. That is not a requirement now of 349, 359, or your 7 Standard Review Plans.
8 DR. SIESS: And, of course, that comes right along . .
I 9 with allowing inelastic --
10 MR. STEVENSON: Well, the two would go hand in 11 hand. I think that would be safe design.
12 DR. SIESS: But, you see, you mention here ACI 13 318, Appendix A, which I guess now is Chapter 19. I am not 14 sure, but Appendix A of the building code is not analysis 15 related at all. It says if you are in this earthquake zone, 16 you detail this way. It gets away from the question of how 17 you decide how much reinforcement to tell you how to detail 18 for ductility, and it avoids the analysis issue.
19 It is an interesting --
20 MR. STEVENSON: Logically, that concern, you know, 21 would be raised in Section 3.8, not 3.7.
22 DR. SIESS: Yes, yes. These aren't 3.7, a lot of 23 them. -
24 Charlie, have you got any questions?
25 MR. WYLIE: No.
I l
Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 i
I
- I
113
'I DR. SIESS: I_think we are through with our
}/' 2- technical' review. I do hope that the staff won't1 quit.
- ('/
3- -They got to have something to do between now and the next 4' plant-that come in, and seismic isn't going to go away, but 5 it shouldn't make life all that. difficult'for us.
6 Charlie, how do you think we should handle this 7 for the full committee?
. 8 MR. WYLIE: Well, I would suggest having a staff.
9 meeting, a summary presentation. )
10 DR. SIESS: Well, there are two possibilities.
11' One is that I go in there, or we go in there and tell them 12 that the subcommittee has heard it and we recommend that the 13 committee accept this as the resolution of A-40, and the 14 other'is to ask the staff to come in and give us essentially 15' what we got from Shaukat this morning which he should be 16 able to get through in about an hour without me asking 17 questions, and I think I know the full committee well'enough 18 that they will at least ask as many questions as I asked.
19 Either they are smarter or dumber -- I am not sure which --
20 on this subject.
21 But do you think we ought to do the latter; have 22 them come in for about -- schedule about an hour and a half?
23 MR. WYLIE: I would think so.
24 MR. IGNE: We have an hour and a half. ;
25 DR. SIESS: We got an hour and a half already Heritage Reporting Corporation
} (202) 628-4888 v
i
,i
'I
114 1 down?. Okay, then I can take a few minutes at the beginning, 2 and you can present just what you did. You might put some 3 more dates in the first two pages. Somebody else will ask 4 you.
5 MR. SHAUKAT: You want an hour on the staff 6 presentation?
7 DR. SIESS: Yes. It might run a little bit, 8' depending on how many questions, but we spent two hours this .
- 9 morning on it, a little under two hours, I guess. No, it 10 was an hour and 45 minutes, wasn't it, to the time I called 11 the break, and I asked a lot of questions that they don't 12 need to ask so I think you could probably get through in an 13 hour.
14 MR. SHAUKAT: In an hour, I think.
15 DR. SIESS: Yes, and then that will give me time 16 for a brief report and time for some overrun, and I don't 17 think we need John there.
18 Yes, I am very pleased with the way this has gone 19 over. I still think that it could have been done in less 20 than nine years. Nine? Excuse me; twelve -- if there had 21 been any urgency.
22 I do think you need to keep working on it because 23 I still have a feeling that the staff is much stronger -
24 oriented on the analysis part of this stuff than on the 25 design, and let's face it. Analysis is great and we have to Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
L ,
115'
, 1 do it. We have got.all sorts of nice tools to do it with..
y 2 z.I would hate to think we couldn't have built nuclear plants
, af'jL
\-
3
~
without computers, but we sure can't_ build one now without 4 computers.
5- But designing a structure, the seismic input,- ,
i 6 ought to tua a little more straightforward than I think it 7 has been. This is a big step forward, but it is still 8 -mostly making it easier to analyze it, 9 I-think as it is pointed out pretty well in the 10 standard, in the value impact statement, very little effect 11 on safety, but it is going to reduce the arguments between 12 the staff and the licensees in the future, and that may be 13 -- that is worthwhile. If it is worth the cost of this, I 14- don't know.
15 You know, you never count in the cost of the 16 project. Value impact is always the future value versus the 17 future cost. But, you know, in a real well run business 18 somebody would sit down before they started and say, "Are we 19 likely to - "
20 MR. MINNERS: That is what clarification is 21 supposed to do.
22 DR. SIESS: Yes, I know. You try.
. 23 Charlie, you might make your 1:30 flight if I quit 24 now, p 25 Thank you, gentlemen. When are we scheduled?
Heritage Reporting Corporation
, (202) 628-4888 ;
1 l 1
I i
)
116 1 Have you got the agenda for next month here?
2 MR. IGNE: July 13?
3 DR. SIESS: I haven't seen it. Thursday? Well, 4 he will let you know, and he will make the presentation.
5 Whoever else, you know -- bring any backup you need, anybody 6 that doesn't have anything better to do can come on over, 7 but Chokshi ought to be here, I think, and maybe --
8 The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. .
9 (Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m. 'ne meeting was 10 adjourned.)
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
a 1 CERTIFICATE 1
--s-i y l
~r'~
3 This is to certify.that the attached proceedings before the 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter j 5 of:
6 , Name: ACRS - Subcommittee on Extreme External Phenomena 7
8 Docket Number:
9 Place: Bethesda, Md.
10 Date: June 22, 1989 11 were held as-herein appears, and that this is the original 12 trauscript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear
~
13 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, 14 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the
/ 15 direction of the court reporting company, and that the
.C 16 transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing 17 proceedings. , _.- , .,
/s/ % '.
h;'a
, f I .' l. '
/ G ' 1/ /' ?
18
/ l ;
'19 (Signature typed). IRWIN L. COFFENBERRY- o 20 Official Reporter 21 Heritage Reporting Corporation 22 23 24 25 p j Heritage Reporting Corporation g (202) 628-4888 s/
L_____u__________. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
fi ,
O . INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN 0F.THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON L A(v)
L
~
EXTREME EXTERNAL PHENOMENA, JUNE-22, 1989 BETHESDA, MARYLAND THIS MEETING WILL NOW COME TO ORDER. THIS IS A MEETING OF THE ACRS EXTREME EXTERNAL-PHENOMENA SUBCOMMITTEE.
L I:AM C. P. SIESS. CHAIRMAN 0F THE ABOV't ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE. THE OTHER L ..
ACRS MEMBER IN ATTENDANCE IS C. WYLIE. THE ACRS CONSULTANT IN ATTENDANCE IS J. STEVENSON.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE WILL REVIEW THE RESOLUTION OF A-40, " SEISMIC DESIGN.
CRITERIA."
E. IGNE IS THE COGNIZANT ACRS STAFF MEMBER FOR TODAY'S MEETING..
THE RULES FOR PARTICIPATING IN TODAY'S MEETING HAVE BEEN ANN 0UNCED AS PART OF THE NOTICE OF THIS MEETING THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ON JUNE 12, 1989.
THIS MEETING IS BEING CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
' FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT AND THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE ACT.
WE HAVE RECEIVED NO WRITTEN OR ORAL STATEMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
IT IS REQUESTED.THAT EACH SPEAKER FIRST IDENTIFY HIMSELF OR HERSELF AND
, SPEAK WITH SUFFICIENT CLARITY AND VOLUME 50 THAT HE OR SHE CAN BE READILY HEARD.
D0 ANY SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE INITIAL COMMENTS AT THIS TIME? (CHAIR-MAN'S COMMENTS, IF ANY).
WE WILL NOW PROCEED WITH THE MEETING, AND I CALL ON S. K. SHAUKAT OF RESEARCH TO START THE MEETING.
l 1 / STEVFmNSON & ASSOCIATES ,
a structural-mechanical consulting engineering firm 921~ Miducst Asenue . Cleseland. Ohio 41125 - (216) 587-3805 + Telex: 5106015834
- Fax: (216) 587-2205 _
88C1490 0678G June 21, 1989 Dr. C. P. Siess, Chairman .
ACRS Subcommittee on Extreme External Phenomena Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
Review of Changes to SRP Sections 2.5 and 3.7 in Resolution USI A-40
Dear Chet:
As requested, I have reviewed the material concerning the resolution of A-40 and the revision of Standard Review Plans Sections 2.5 and 3.7 sent to me on 12 ?tne itJB9. In general I agree with the changes made to the SRP. However,
- e. know there have been several activities undertaken by the NRC since whir.h included consultant and staff studies, reports and workshops which bear on the A-40 issue. In my opinion, many of the issues raised, discussed and recommendations made in these studies, reports and workshops concerning the seismic design of nuclear power plants have not been arted upon by the NRC staff in the resolution of A-40. As an attachment to thir, letter I have listed several seismic design areas which I believe require further evaluation and consideration by the NRC staff. Therefore, while I believe this staff action may formally resolve the USI-A-40 effort it does not resolve all outstanding nuclear power plant seismic design issues.
I believe there should be a continuing ef fort to resolve ti;e outstanding issues I have raised plus I am sure there are additional seisi;;ic design issues of concern to others, which I have not identified, that need consideration. .
Please advise if you require any clarification of this letter.
Sincerely, '
h>
John D. Stevenson President 205:ss l' - ' es s u r c
I
')
88C1490 0679G
,m '
( '(-
Review of SRP Changes to Resolve A-40 0 !
- 1. The minimu as now defined in Appendix A to SRP 3.7.1 is reasonable, therefore, it is not clear why only 80 percent of it need be exceeded in j qualifying a candidate minimum PSD.
. J n
- 2. I believe TD , the strong motion duration identified in SRP 3.7.1 l Appendix A should be more precisely defined. If the time histories were {
. generated by synthesizing sinusoids TD will be length of the peak region. However, if the time histories were generated from strong motion records, TD is not well defined.
- 3. The forth paragraph of 3.7.1 Appendix A states the comparison of PSD l beyond 24 Hz is not required. There are equipment having natural frequencies above.24 Hz. Eventually the Floor Response Spectra generated by the time histories may be used for secondary system qualification.
The energy content above 24 Hz, small as it is, may be significant for device responses. I think the requirement should be extended to 33 Hz or otherwise the upper bound of the frequency range for amplified response spectra should be reduced to 24 Hz.
(v ;
1 b
i d
-4
(
l
_ _ _ - - - _ - - - - - . - _ _ _ _ - - _ - [
88C149G 0680G O
Recommendations for Future Revisions of Sections of the Federal Regulations and Standard Review Plan Dealing with Seismic Design and Evaluation of Nuclear Power Plante
~
There have been a number of NRC staf f recommendations, consultant reports and NRC research reports and workshops which have made recommendations concerning changes to NRC seismic design requirements covered by 10CFR100 Appendix A, ">RP '
Sections 2.2.5, 3.7.1, 3.7.2, 3.7.3, 3.9.2 and 3.9.3. Many of these recommendations are not contained in the current proposed changes to thz SRP Sections 2.2.5, 3.7.1, 3.7.2 and 3.7.3.
In my opinion a number of technical areas covered by SRP Sections 2.2.5, 3.7 and 3.9 still require NRC Staff review to develop safer, more consistent, rational and realistic seismic design and evaluation requirements for structural systems and subsystems.
It must be understood that " conservative" design for inertia seismic loads which is the focus of current NRC seismic design and evaluation requirements covered in SRP Sections 2.2.5 and 3.7 does not necessarily lead to
" conservative" overall design.
In generai optimum design of elevated temperature, high energy structural subsystems tries to minimize the amount of restraint in such systems in order to minimize stress induced in the system by restraint of free end displacement caused by thermal expansion, support motions and water and steam hammer and sudden valve operation effects. Conservative design for seismic inertia effects tends to increase restraint hence overall operating stress levels in such systems.
In addition conservatively defined high seismic inertia loads on structural systems (buildings) require use of structural joints designed to transfer large loads. This discourages use of ductile joint details because of the resultant congestion (e.g. ACI 318 Appendix A). Earthquake response experience shows ductile joint detailing to be very ef fective and necessary to -
resist significant structural damage in strong motion earthquakes.
In Table 1 is presented a list of technical areas suggested actions and .
associated references which should receive continued NRC Staff review to improve the seismic and overall safety related design basis of nuclear power plant systems and subsystems.
O 4
i 88C1490 0681G 1
{
fn)
L e1- Summary of Technical Areas Related to Seismic Design Requiring Further NRC Design criteria Development I i
l Area Action Reference .
- 1. Modify (Increase) Seismic a) Increase Pipe Damping 1,2,3 Damping Values Used in Values to ASME Code Case N-411 Design of Subsystems b) Minimize Caveats Associated with (Piping) Use of ASME CC N-411 .
i c) Increase Damping for, Heavily Insulated Pipe
- 2. Decouple OBE from a) Change or Clarify Wording of 1, 4 SSE and Eliminate 10CFR 100 Appendix A to Permit I the OBE as a Design Decoupling of OBE from SSE j Requirement for Low b) Eliminate OBE as a Design Basis j Seismicity Sites for Low Seismicity Sites (OBE i' PGA $ 0.089) since Earthquake PGA at this Level and 3elow have been shown to be Non-damaging to ;
Engineered Industrial Structures j and Substructures. ;
i e a) R.G. 1.60 Contains a Variable 5 l
( 9 Use of a Median or~) W.brm Hazard Design Spectra Margins as a Function of Rather than Variable Mean Frequency with a Median Value Plus One Standard Deviation Defined at the High Frequency Design Response Spectra Limit (33Hz) and Mean Plus One ;
Standard Deviation Defined in the j Amplified Frequency Range 2-10 Hz j b) Item 1 under SRP 2.5.2.6 Requires {
Generation of Mean Plus Standard Deviation (84 Percentile) Spectra.
Item 5 under SRP 2.5.2.6 Requires Generation of Uniform Hazard 1 Spectra at Various Probability
- Levels. NRC Should Permit
- Use of a UHS instead of a variable 84th Percentile Spectra at a
.- Probability Level Acceptable to NRC.
Permit Limited Amounts Consultants have Recommended 5, 6
- 4. a) of inelastic Response of Allowing Limited Amounts of Systems and Subsystems Non-linear Response Behavior (Global Ductility > 1.0) in Seismic ;
Design of Systems as a Function of '
Their importance to Safety. )
b) Add Additional Ductility Constraints Based
~
/
on Ductility Capabilities of Systems b
s
l i T. 'a1- Summary of Technical Areas Related to Seismic Design Requiring Further NRC Design Criteria Development (Continued)
Area Action Referen c) Provide Explicit Global Ductility Limits for Systems and Subsystems as a Function of Importance to Safety and Ductility Capabilities.
- 5. Permit Balanced Seismic a) Institute a Design Margin Design such that Seismic Review to Compare Seismic
- Capacities of Subsystems Capabilities of Subsystems to the are Not Required to be System Housing or Supporting Them.
Significantly Greater than -
the Structural System that Houses or Supports Them.
- 6. Reconcile Results of a) Consider Changes in Ductility and k-Recent Seismic Tests of Damping Parameters to Assure Rational Subsystem (Piping Systems) Seismic Design Margins (e.g.1.5-2.0 =
to Insure Rational Seismic against failure for the SSE) Are Being Design Margins are Being Maintained.
Required.
7 Use of Bounding or a) Recent Comprehensive Experience 7 Trt;;h:ld Damage Seismic Data on the Behavior of Structural 3 tc Design Safety Systems and Subsystems in Strong e- -^ and Evaluate Motion Earthquake and in Tests -
Class 2 (2 over 1 Issue) Indicate That There Are Threshold to Assure They Do Not Spectral Values before Damage Fail and Endanger Class 1 Results. Use of These Threshold Components in Their Damage Spectra Together with Layout Proximity and Detailing Caveats Should Be Permitted in Design of Certain Types and Classes of Systems and Subsystems.
b) Threshold Damage Spectra Procedures Should Be Allowed in the Evaluation Class 2 Subsystems to Insure They Do Not Fail Under Seismic Loads.
. B. Redefinition of Seismic a) Permit Limited Application of ASME 8,9 Inertia Stresses Induced Code Cases N451 and N462 and to by High Frequency Components Other Than Piping .
Accelerations (> 10 Hz) b) Seismic Induced Loads above About as Secondary or Otherwise 10 Hz Tend to Be Displacement Recognize their Limited Limited Hence Develop Secondary ;
Stresses.
- 9. Permit Use of Vibration a) Permit the Application of 10 Acceptance Criteria in ANSI /ASME OM3-1982 Criteria Limits leons of Velocity or for Vibration Be Extended to Include Displacement to Be High Stress Low Cycle Conditions
- plicd to Seismic Design Associated with Earthquake Response Adequacy mmm------ . _-_-__-__m___m_____
T. a 'i - Sumary of Technical Areas Related to Seismic Design Requiring further NRC Design Criteria Development (Continued)
Area Action Reference
- 10. Provide Specific Guidance a) SRP Section 3.9.3.11.1 Provides on How Seismic Induced less than One Page of Criteria Relative Displacements of on How to Consider Seismic Relative Support of Equipment and Support Motions in Design. The ASME Distribution Systems are to Code Ignores the Stresses Induced by j be Considered in Design. These Motions for the SSE in Design of Components. However, such Motions have been a Leading Cause of Failure of Distribution Systems in Industrial Facilities in Strong Motion Earthquakes.
Seismic Design Criteria Should be Refocused to Concentrate on those Phenomena which cause Damage and Failure to Industrial Equipment During Strong Motion Earthquakes.
5
- 11. Require Ductile Detailing a) There is No Current NRC or Industry '
of Safety Related Concrete Requirement for Ductile Design and Steel Structures of Connections (eg. ACI 318 -
Appendix A) in Safety Related Structure.
This should be made a Requirement of Design Preferably as a Trade Off for Reduced seismic Inertia Loads (Area 4).
- These activities could be considered as a ratchet of current requirements.
4 O
ll
!!- 88C1516
- ' " - 0505G-3 9;
TABLE 1 REFERENCES (1) Seismic Design Task Group " Report of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory j Comission Piping Review Comittee - Sumary Piping Review Comittee 1 Conclusions and Recommendations," NUREG-1061 Vol. 5 U.S. Nuclear !
Regulatory Comission, April 1985. .
(2) PVRC Comittee, " Technical Position on Damping Values for Piping -
Interim Sumary Report," WRC Bulletin 300, Welding Research Council, ,
December 1984.
(
(3) Bitner, J.L. et. al. " Technical Position on Damping Values for Insulated Pipe - Sumary Report," WRC Bulletin 316, Welding Research l Council, July 1986. l (4) Seismic Design Task Group " Report of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Piping Review Comittee - Evaluation of seismic Design -A Review of Seismic Design Requirements for Nuclear Power Plant Piping,"
NUREG-1061 Vol. 2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, April 1985.
(O Newmark, N.M. and Hall, W.J. " Development of Criteria for Seismic Review of Selected Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG/CR 0098, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, May 1978.
(6) Coats, D.W., "Recomended Revisions to Nuclear Regulatory Comission Seismic Design Criteria," NUREG/CR 1161 Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, May 1980.
(7) Senior Seismic Review and Advisory Panel (SSRAP) "Use of Seismic Experience and Test Data to Show Ruggedness of Equipment in Nuclear Power Plants," (Draft) Seismic Qualification Utility Group and USNRC, August 1988.
(8) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Case N-451 ' Alternate Rules for Analysis of Piping Under Seismic Loading, Class 1, 1987. ,
(9) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Case N-462, " Alternate Rules for Analysis of Piping Under Seismic Loading, Class 2 and 3," 1983. .
(10) ANSI /ASME OM3-1982, " Requirements for Preoperational and Initial Start-up Vibration Testing of Nuclear Power Plant Piping Systems,"
ASME, 1982.
1 1-4 l I
"A E I
E
~- R T T N E I M
O N
T M E 0 I O C
M O
4 R B U
N E
- C S H P 9 t
a i
h S 8 k s A N R
C A
L A
N 9
1 h
u a
k o
h G
I E R
E 2
2 S c H T d h S T H E l i
a s
e I
E O E N U h l i
D T E J K N S N M E
. O R C I T T U I A T
H E
M S
N E
S N
O I E R
E F S
Y ,
F I E 1 T R 6 N A 1 A 1 U S -
Q E R G C F D N / F N A G A A H E T C R S E U C F N D N I E E , P
- U ) T O S Q P R L E E R O E V S S P V I ( E S E T N R E D C G N G E I A D N D J S L E A N D B E P H H A N O D S C U S W I 1 O G C S E L P 6 R N I E I B R 1 G I M C V U S 1 K W S O E P -
C O I R R R R A L E P D S O C B L S D N E F /
O N R A I G 0 F F G A D ,S E 4 O I D Y U N R
- E S N D T O U N A H S E A U S I N O T A D T T T I I E S S L A F T S l i R E A D O A U T A H E D C N D I T H D E I S E WN W D T E T N N M E E E N I E H OM I M 7 T I N F L C I O VM 7 C I I P E S C E O 9 E ,
T M TU E R C 1 L Y A S O L R E E N I U C L C D R N S A R J L N C E I E ) A O I T H E F T E L C F E C D T I I B N D I L A E A R L E D C P E T G ,
C O L Z E E M A I S T ( I P P O R N T N Y R OS C O I S I F D R A L F G E G I N O : M E E F I VR D U T 0 M V D F N R N A O O C 8 U E A A O O I M M F A 9 S D M T I R 1 S T 0 T I 4 N Y R S
- O A R O A - - C M - - - N P o o o c
~
2 E E R D U I T L C S U
R 7 L S E T E 8 A C S R 9 A. - U 1 C I lL T I Y T L N T C N l N C R L A A 0B U E A G H I S / R B U N
, C S R L E N P ( C T M T I E S NR S E C T T F SE ON - C A I D l E C L F K N R A L A N I S Y I D I A T A L N B 0 O LT N R S N F ON O R S TE SE I T D ED I N M T C T LI C E F E N EU N R O D A YM I
P E EG OO L W BO D C S E E I C D S Y R T A 0 A R R SW N G H E RO D T 4 C R O U P N ET C D I EP E - I HS L O N A L I WS N V U E T W H I B
) OI T O S N U D D P H C OR O6 K T I P E E E R 8 N L G D D9 K R N U T R E O E S G N L OM F E N 1 TN U F I E EP A S T W M I
E E N I L LI T S T R V O G E N RE UR N E T OL LN ED S U R N E O BE NU N R O O A V L J A R I P O ED C EL T H U T XM R S MG E L E S
(
EN S F D N C C C N A E EN D O R I E O HI N
R GL TO I S G . D T P N I YN I D R O) E N A A I U T U N 4 T U C R T O A QF A TA WL S OS EO H I E S 5 N T S R D TH D' U 0 I O P E G N R C R ) LN RU K E E G 6 N E S 0 O Q P E 7 E S S N - E O C M MS MA O EP R F C A M U U R T 7 S C U OS NC O M S N 4 EW P B I R - E O N/ T E I I C I R RP R OG C S K F E N O D P CE U TA OI R I F E N C G O R LU TC M S O/ A H R G S S 0 TU T U Q E L K O RN S SH DP N FC P A E I K 4 E T ES L OE O TR DR - E( -
S H R A U O A P l R R L
P DN F W XN l A ON TC F N EO 0 DE P O F N A A O I S E O
. O EY D D ,
DT RD R S MR E E T T C EE PT P P C S , D EC
- W P A O O A N E D A P D D N E OD L R F O S I R T I R FE L N L S O F M I
V E O E E T OI U VE /
N C A M VN T C OT C E VC V O RN R OE TO R EE E E O EC N C R SC DS D D C S A F PI U R /
F F K e A E I C T R A R EN P TO BI - - E - -
SW - - -
o o o
, lf
F S ON C O N I
S I T T N A K ,
A D R G TN O N 8 L E Y I 8 U M T 9 8 S M WL . 7 N O EU J D 4 1 8 N S . ES 3 9 O C N N T A 5 E 1 C E N R F O A X -
F O C ,I E R S U R C N J E O E YC T K YS T O / O B S ,
G I N O L A T CI I T
EM I S S Y E I T S N R A T R C
) C N U E T O S A D R A E I D P N E H VD S N S E N T U E Y N A V C I N R N P N M B E A I E N A E S N MU V I R I M M U N I S T O S M D T L N O N D N C N O E N E E O O C T E : YA O S U l C M E T R TN Z i C C I R U EE E I T
( I T C E M I R
L A I L O E C T C V C A O D B Z L E C W C N EI U B S , U I T R M T N I C L O R R S M U P N U U S O A P L I S E N T P ,
N N L N N I S ,S S R R G T ,
N O O O R E BB O A G U P N , A O S T I K F O V I A Y K S T C S C L F P T A A D X O O C G T D U N E R I
V B E I S S E N S E Z E L E U S E P S S I O N 0 V E T N R S R L E T C N N EV M E R P L EI T O S U . Kl S . C L I O O l i D R i S A R T D S S J S EA N . . L N N F P D . N I O D 1 E O . .
B F I D E i
T OH C C M .
A T E T T T D U V C l F , R ,
J , F O E L I A i T S E O F O .
F O ,
F O P O E R I T S S O S C T WRI S R R R R R L E N E V R P D P D P T E E L E R R O F P E U V C F X R B E A E M S D S E D E T S T O E S 5T M - - - - - R S N A F O E W F P M A O M L T R O N - S P C B - -
o o o o
c l
p E T
A U
Q N E R D E A 1 W C 6 E E )
N
- . 1 I O R S 1 V C A E
- E E R R C L S S
/ F A ) T N G F I S N E A T T A C E N L R T N I U S E A P L 2
. N T L 5 T O P R 4
- . N N P E (
2 I E 0 W R S 7 E S E R A ( N R 9 E N D L' W Y H A A C D M E E N T 3 F I I A O O F V M
% N . S I E L
? O 7 N R S L
. O N S T I
T 3 I O P S N M A
'r T O E E K R U I G D N I O L ,
A T H 2 D A S N I A F T O Y T N S . N R K A E 7 E O R H L E O D M P O C N 'R E C E R .
E D U 3 M R W O O N W U N S L O L G S A , C C I O T E N S I I S C I I N 1 F K N S
. R I S T I
7 A N I E N F D A D O
.. . M) M M C S I 3 O 3 O ) O I R T R . R 2 R F A T K T F W L N N A
' S F 7 F . I E A M N . 5 R R E G G A O E M T R O G 3 .
T E O N N 2 N L F I
I U I C S R F F T I E I O N C T R TP T R D U I E L H L R L D S U T U S U N A N Q Y U S E E R
, P S
E 1 S (
E S
E A
S O K R V O
~
R R . R S R L E R N R F E A G G A 6 U S 7 4 S T S . S C S I N - T E 3 E I E R A E - S F N A F E O G G T G O H V N C N T C O O F U N P B I A Q N A R A A A I H R H D P A S S T E O H S C P C E R N U S R I C (
S S E O I G I V L R T E L A C A
- A L - - -
R - - -
m o o 0 o 1 l 1
N S H G E C I S R U S R U S E E T E E D T C S S l
i E U E N T T M R R O N A T U P N E R S T S S M A 3, C E I
L P P 7 F S U R N E I O I R O V U F 3 S T L I E Q O N Y S A T L E U G L D P N S R I A L O R S R O E H S N A M O S O I I T E A I S E F T R D D C Y B R A O E 1 N E C A T A I T T
. R O P N S R R S C 7 O I S E Y T A I E
. F T S U G N C V H J 3 C F K Q R O E E N A O N E E P H E R P O R A R N D S G M R I E N T F E E U I W S T T G - S E O T E O N I L H C A S R F R M I S A G I S B N H E E C TE O T L A O I P P F D E D I H S R ,
N R T A U N S S I Y S U U C R F L T G E E T L N O T I E O E C I R I L N 0 R C MV N U S T U O l G U S N I R E E N M R I D O T D R I ,
'i EN F S U A D D A F T I E E D O S S U T O R T T N - O A I O C R T T E N L R R N S F U E C P M O I O G I T Y R C E O O B N R S T N L D M I F -
E S U E A O T S E M U O C A S V O O G U - S E C R E O C ME L N R E R I O N B A T A I O Y R F A R A V F L E F I M W F I L O D C F O C S E D F E G O S O E E D N T F N E D S P G A A O I N I N N Y I I M P O D A O R S N U I R
A A G S R I E M I U I M E H E E L S A T T T M H C C P T N D A S E A F O R S D
. U T I I I E Y U N S T F P R O P F N C S O N T E N I O M I A C D EE E I C E E C C R N G V T M S I P I I N O I O E F S R F A N I T T N C G I U I WG S C I O E N N E B C O I I E S I R A G R E L S V R N T H I O S P L E E I E P F C S MA S A D R D S O O T
S O
_ o o o o o o o o o M
O 0 Y T L ,N I N .
T O T .P G S E I A S R N C M I
S TI O G.
R S I D
I E F R D
E O A R M P R E -
N R I I D S BT R EI O C U I I I I O S C EQ V D L R F I D D C PE O A C VE N A S R R D C E EC A - '
P N T L R N D TL
. A R S K B - E S E U A N O A R A O R MS O R O N F P O I TE A I H E I O W F F R V TN T
'D. I D H I D E G E I E A
. E T E T L T N R O R WG C T C D I A N E R -
I C E I W N A ME P E TA F E J V O U MR B N I J E O S I Q O A G E S TM E R R L T C - NL MA S R P E I T E S I L E U F V D O R D OI R E J O GW I L E O S E D N R I L A L H N U B HJ E S YS L T O 1 Q A G R N S E D L E I E 6 E TI U O I S E L T WM S . R O T S S N R A I A 1 U N A A O I R S F R H ES E lA I , E BP U E F E . U T R S Q N E A H S G GT TD OE E E H T T E . A O O S N R R G T S O R R VN N N
O I
T A
D N
E M E N M S I O G S 2 F C E N D D 9 O E C I R P E E .
R N D O R D C 1 E E S A E F WS U A G R E 1 ME E L P . N U L C A S C 6
1 R C1 OX-N G N N S G. R N Y C
1 F E 0 - I I YR ES
- R 1 T L A D R E F N S E E N O O E C P OE O I B S A - T H B
/ S B I X OH T O G E N Y TE O L T S D G E E G O T D C T C E E N M F R N I L A E R U D I O U A D L U R C S F E L N TN N H E I O E A T OH A E S G R C S B H T L C T VM EI E A A S N P E N O M TS B D B B I E F O G O E M s E O S R F I S N C U D U T N R L E E N TD I E T N S G P E R O G A O P R I N E I V U T E I N H M S I N G S - E T G S I T A E - I G E L C Y A E B E D R N E U D N U H S D MM E I C N S O E R P S O L W N O C I S T O A C C - A EE I I R N S S P I C S R D T ME O - O M L S I E I I C S T P L L E S A E TU U F U I I S I I V I D D I L Q N D ER E O H A E O O R A E O E S C R S P WS MM C V R C R o o o o o o 0 f
T R
A P P R S
R F E C l i
E T L 0 B S 1 N A D A I T R R N O I O T O T S U C C I T S E E T N S R P I O I S S S I X D D O S E R E 8 P I O L 9 S V Y C A 0 I E D E C 0 D R A R S - A E R N E R 2 G G C O R X L
. N N / I I I A 5 I I G T U D
. S S E A Q N N 2 U U R R E E O S U E R P I N N ) ) N L P S O O L L E D A I I E I A A S C S L V T C T C C A C T U 0 O C I A I I A N O 0 R E T C T T H E W 1 P S C I R R C D M A F E E U N M P R I V V S U O R P C O C S E & & N R W P O G C '
F E S L L I I O I A A T K L V N T T A A B S E O N N Z E U N T R I O O I P P A H T Z Z R C A G F O I I E O T I F M R R T T S R N L A O O C F O A H T D H H A D I F L G S N ( ( R E T P U A L I A I_
H T O A A H A L R D N R R R C C I T R E G T S T S T C A R C N C R D U E D R F E O E E A E P N U O P I P T R V ,T S A C S T S E T I T N T Y I M C E N E E S T H C D C A E C E V S
. C C I N I R P E VE N R E R F O F A S R E O O L A I C I P N P F D F R C C 0 S N G S E E E E E E 6 T G I E S W R I P T P L ,
N I S R E O l
l S I S P 1 E S E T L O - S - I M E D E I T D E E T . M D V S A E T R T L G O E I D R I O I U . C A l i T F E E R S F S M R T A O B S E T V I F O E R R D V E N N E E L E R I S B U R P - - - - E F N M O B E O U H O D C N S o o o o
~ D D S A S E E A K PW I R N U E C T O Z N OI N C N 0 O N V E E I D N I E U P E I T H R Q
S. DS H U T E N S EA S L I R R O E E D B O WE F I T P I & S B
- T I Y V , E S M T I S T O1 YR E U A S R . D I N O L 0 P 7 E T R P R P L 6 .N N O R O E S A . S 3 N E T E
^ R W I 1 E EM S S S C O D R N P K M I S I T P O . I R _O H ES U -
F G L S . C L A O E . E S E B T D R D OR C M E I TD I ,E J K I A
C U I R U - L TTS 7 O Q F O G A F B N A
. R E I F O U 4 E C 3 D T DX P M -
T A S D E I S MEY N A U E L D T G U R B O E J T I N R N MI -
I P T S P A E O I I U E T O A T T O TP F R N Q S C R N O D EP F U I E A MR C E E T D E N A D A E D S C S E M A N S M P F O U O R M C U E S S D I C '
I E OY S L F
H T R E B F O
T O I U O T T T R P T
H T N S O N D G A E I T O TE N I MH S I N L E L R E -
I T E I M H E R E H A MA E M R E T R G H I R E I T U I E U I Q T M D I D U H I U Q E E I E
R E T R Q E L O ER R N L H O YG E D A F R O I TN L E A T D M S G T I I P V R N A E Y EI
_ A S S I I T O I D TD I H
~
C N T E C Z R E I E R O E N L C E I E E S E O 0 L D E U E P R TN N N T 0
- H M R S O I E S T N L W H R S D D I O A E S E C I N H S I R , S T S 3 L A I E
E T A T T T U N N /
O C S E O 2 T U R E M M U
M E E O M P I P TL I TM I
_ P R T M S = N N C B S L S E O E I I E A E EN O T N C R L F P N N R R N O A E C S O I L I T E I I N C D I I L P M N W T G I M R T E I O O F P I T E S E S D TE C P O O S R R I W E I L V E E O E O U U U I D V MS P Q G M F
' o o o o o o o fl'
R L A P I B S A E S T E 1 1
D E S C O D A A H C O T R D - R E OE Y P DM F D B P N E D - A O T C S A D E I EI I E S R L T S E T A E T A R A C H I E S T S D I BE N L W I N O D O M O P 2A D E E ET I T S L D A I & R D A D D I H E E N 1 R VT T O I
O O T T H
% MI S F R S N I T 0 E P E E M 2 4 L T E N M R
. E A C S I E E 7 O N N R L R P
. T S A E E I D R R A 3 E D WD I U E D 0 T S Q B N E l C TI E i
E L U N U O T T P S A G A G R L I I E L T MM S T I C I N W E L O E E S W S M H T N M P T O O R P F S P C G S E O E S C
' 8 D D E D -
F S O R I E 4 H T M L O R B S T L U A S E S I U Y O B D C T W S C O P O S H E N L S H A G N R E F N T I_ O U O E F l I F Q F I M O l
i T O E OR D Y T G O E R S O E I M T F N V A E W S I
I N N 1 O I S U T U O L E 1 I
E N S O I O M G T A C O E S F W T R E 1 1
R E I C D 4 O O C T R 1 E R T E O L A N I C N H N T G L R O U F N S A N T O N N A E C Q OE E G T R U E E I T N E M DM P -
N F R N E T 2 EI O I O O T C TR L N G I C M N E E O E N N T E M I 8 I I V I A R O T C P R O I C E 1 S I X N T U I P N I R I L E E A T T O I D O N C C L B U S L E I T E A S G U U E M F C T E N T B R D V O O U A R S U A M T E N C N R N R T N O S R E T R W E O I C
- L O WL M L A I S E O L
- TL S I I D T l L L N N L A O O P A A A O E D S - - MO l 0 O S M o o o o o I
C
, D E
N E
D R U E L D F E C E E R N D R A I U L A 1 N S C 6 O I N S 1 I I A E
s 1 T
- I C S 6 R S N I 8 C O E -
/ P R E 4
, G S E C E I F N E R D E E C U R R S N E A 1 F T 3 D 6 E F N
. N 1 R O E A 1 I 7 - 6 N C 3 6 R 8 O I 8 C - I F N -
/ 4 S F O 4 G U U I S E E L S T E T R C C C C N U S N S E S E N A I I. .
S A M M
P F O R O C S
)} F O
Y G
O C
I L
L B N S O U O T D P 1 I S H O 6 TI G H 0 C S I T 1 6 E Y L E - 8 S L l
M G - A iG E 4 EN I - .R M A H C U E S S D TN C A C G S E E - S I N T V F A EM I N I ,O K A P P E E S F I N I R M C T S O L Y P S E E I T D R R U L E E "
- D E I D U C C
' E H U S N S N N ,
I T Q T O E E E N R E N C R R R U N R E -
E E X B I M ,E F F I N M G H E E D I D G O N T R R N E I C I E "
Y C S P T E EP S R N E I C D D P D O E D P E U U A O G R L L L H E E K D F C C I T T F N E E N N I E A E A I R I I I M C R T R U
B - - -
o o O. o
1 L
S Y )
R T E O I R R T L O F U I T O B B C N I A A O R R F S .
T E N K N N NS A N O L I A S A C U T V S H ,
K TC . E S T L U G G I N U M . R R A S E A N ES ( L S T I R A K N M T F N A O SE N O A N D L B E T. I L I Y M D A D C T D O E WL I I )
N D W U F L 6 U O D O E I 7 O ) S H I C D B7 R 3 A S G A 4 G , I - S R -
- 7 S Y R K E R E . K D S N N C V 3 N U N E A L /
O A T O C T U G B P T S R VE A R DO 8 R S D N E F E S U F ( E I S D WN O W G A N L 0 O R B G O 1 1
S H A I S E I S M ES D L S R E E El Y S C U D W C i l L E I D O N C A I M EF H E N D S C O S I 8 A U I O R T E R N O E A E S S P O S P G C I L X N N A E ST A EI A R E I A 5 L C P K SM . W EA I N YI 2 E K 0 F 5 A L T I A C I 4 YT A S O V U N - S N E T E O , -
' G A EW A R R H .
I N R E 2 T G S I I D D P R .
S A F L N F E A E Y U MO O U O S E ( '
T E
F
_ A S - - - - -
- o
,!l
9 D
E N :
W O D T E H I E C I C T M E V R P R J E A M I
^ B R E U F U S S N S E S O L
R H A C S E G
. T W U R E N 4 ) O E B A 8 YK R P L 9 E N 0 O T S P 1 H A l i R O K TT TP N S N R O E A O T ED D H D E T F S I N T L S S U G A I U N R E : E A I W O E O U S I C R S C C F S P T E WD I S U N B F E E S L N I ) O E O I N T O ) S R V D VG N 3 I 3 K T G E E D E I A T N N S R A R S L E A 7 A A O 4 I E E P S T . TL W 8 E U T F D E N 3 P T 9T Q S F G li E - E 1 A E N A E N T MP V 0 O L R T R I 9L I
E R L 7 T R S E W O S O N EM S E W O T P ( S T I T O I L F L M E U F R B O S L N I R O L A F N I T O O B L O X YN F I D L A A L L I E EA T E L ( F O O TL V L E A S I C F R P H M O W E R R A ( U T R P 6 V O O S Y O O 6 4 O F F O A N R 2 2 F R 4 - B N I ,A O N P - A A D D R P M F & & I A E E P E U F D WW U T O D S N
1 1 1 1 R O
F O E EE O I R E O R I I R R GM O F S E V V G C R I K N T V E E D I T R E T O N O R R T W N F P A YE S I E C S E O N M B A R E
. C O U WC S U TM S S R N S S A Q A E T TT I E C I T R O N N F E S S TL F R E N I N A A H s A TL L R R E T A WCAW O AI E U L L E R MQ S P P l i H A N I D E E T T G T S G E L R N N F I U P A R I R S S MO L . . O S O F E . . . . S I T P 1 2 F U F O D 1 2 3 4 I o o o o o o 9
l
I L
S P
R S
N D O E I S T O A P T .
O . I R C C P T X E E
_ O ,
T , L
. S S A S E C
_ T
_ N N L I E O Z T M I Z R E T 0 E R A N V I C U I , D Q F S N E I l
f A
_ R R 0 A I L K L T A N ) C C T A 3 E N T D N O 7 E D N Z D . D E O I E 3 N T C R S E I O I P M C E H V R M P .
E S O S I N R ( C E P E E H E F R C ,
W O A G T D O D N E S N T R E I B T
H G
A N D M E
P P
A R
E D
R O
H S
N S I EM I C O T L WO D S N I C H EC N N A T E G I A O C F I
VC C R A F H EI S E R E R L E Y P E B C T O T I S U N I R N S OP E L P I S S R I -
' TR E B N N N EO F I O O O L F E X E R E S S E VN L I I C .
O T F S S N
.I N A A A F S O R R E P V E
C E
R L
L A
W H
P M
E H
P M
E D
I U
G o o o o o o Il i
j V _
) 4 n,( E D
~
, I 1 D Y L
% E C S 0 T N 4 A E Y N U H U D > I M
Q E
TT N I R I S O L F W I E
, N T Y _
S O C S L EI U D E TT D O V S I A E H I N S C R T T
._ O I E A I : RF N M N
. T N OI E R S O FL l i O E E I P W W T U T TM T G L Q C I A W N A U M E F I N I D I L I OY P ,S O S E LI V G M L E I S R O E TO A A R 1 T OS R N L D I U -
C N N % N D E E O MD E RT EC _
A O O 0 _
E ) S I
T 3
U L A C
R l0 i A P
A R MT T2 T O O BI I T S
N N M T A - U E S I
7 E %%T Y QM - E
. M D 50 0E B E ) F KG E 3 M N 24 4 D - R F %L I N R O U E O 0A L I U P C O S G 2 H T A N N ( KC 3)mT
(\ C U R
S
(
Y R
R G C I O PI
- T
- N C A OR R T N R OT - E RE T S O O L A - D - T D S U F E T - N YN E
- D T VN E TI R L N I N N E G P I I I I M O E M N E C S U O I I E I D O/ Q S G L S ,L P N L V E N I D P MI E R I R V E M A VE T O O S I DY S S C F R U C EA I I O P R EN VB S L D N EE TE A Y F E S I H B P I U WD L N E OYT T O S Q E A O N S DN I N R O E RX N C TE A W A P P R A I A u N EN T C MF EF D O L N S % N O l i Y N EEO 0 D O C N S N T A S VKC 4 0 O O I U
l i S N S S V
. E S . . . D T I ON PI I S N A RC E E S O F R T R E T MA TI A I E S P l i
I T 0P S V N O YP MU 0M N I O D N M I A 5 O E D C A A E L C 3C S o 0 o o o o
~1 f l l
R E
V A S E
EV H R T U C )
E N .
C N I I O A WI R TTT T A S N G S
,D E N U EA R M I L D G R A E D U N A G E L E D A R E H T E O E D S T C MN S
) V EX I T D A X K S E R A S E A A A R E U E ME S D S E TT %
N H G P D A E H S 5 I T / L O L S M 1 T G% E L B WO N F 4 I A E O R D O L G - YC W T L F E C A N 0 I O A E
( H I 1 TTL MTD C S A A L I A E X N ,
U T H T A T N E O ) E A T S S D I I 2 G S N E E M O T . A E X E R G N R T C 7 : R U A U E I T I E A . S E L M L D S S F T T R 3 E V A G A N E E E E O E I A V ( V U D B D D N T P T R
N R I S E - - - -
( P E O S S R R U U U P L L T U U C L D D U A O O R I Y M M T R T G S E I R R N
- T C A A I l A O E E P l M L H H M 0 E S S A S L V D I D D O E N N C S V U U I A O O T R W B B E O R F R R R E A E E T N E W P S O H O P Y I S L U H T
A C
I F o o o o I
R A
L C
(l
Y -
D G C E E N N C Y S I E U L U P I E D L -
O C M IO A Y L I R R R E F T P E O NVT N
, E D A D EL GS E I 0 E U H 0 N R O T 6 O H U E .
S FES B M I I 1
- R T ,
T .
A E E N 0 G. R R H E T L A R T E T M C H E E U E T R S T H P
. I O C T T E U L A O S A G Q C -
B .
Y H N E T 0 T T A R S ,
Y N 6 I ~
R E M F E .
S E 1 D I U S M 1 N R Y S L R I E E )
U C P T T R .
D 1 S N H C A I G.
. S E M C E S UP Q R L 7 A U U I A Q M H S O E T R L R 3 O E I W 1 L
T T R N 0 ~
C P F I M 6 E. D I E R T M U V S T P S N Y .
R 1 A P S S ( E N N T H M A O C . D S R E E L N I R R D P G. L A E S W I E E S R I O U V S W T I P Q O A E E N S E B S H N E A R R N T G MI B E E Y O ,- S R N D W R P G N O O S W E I O
E F I E N IE E S 0 H A B -
R D
~
Y
~ H
' P O
S O
L I
H P
E V
O B
A G
N I
, S W U E O C E L T H U R E N T E D A M T B E I M O P U N M
) W I R M R A Y E T P O T TL R D L L E Y C C I U R C , E U A U O I YD P S R Q N R N S E E E I . T T R N R T N S S O A N O I I T E E H N S M S E G D O I I U N H E C T I P
( C E M H R O T T
) N M R T P U O U I E E C S L B L Y 1 MEE I E T . : F TT T V I 7 T E I P R , .
S . N D L D TS N 0 M E E S A 0 U T U D N 3 R )
E M P I A LE6 D P E C A S .
'S E T Y 7 R R E I D . I N 1 S S C L 4 L S I T F N N C O E O E T 3 A ( U A I A O I P . C L P N 5 R Q D T I F S G O C S I -
T E I R G T I E . R O R C R D A N C TR R P S 0 J C R E 6 /
E N I N P D A N S U A D % S I . Y G S S C A A F E 2 I L 1 D E P H S P H E R R A EP E I ME T M . N U M T P H A H U G N N E E W U T A M O T D T TR .
M C R O L A T R K N O
P I E E D E M %H E C I N L N N V O 2 T P E E .
I E E A N R I E P H R B M S G R E F A W R S T D X
P D I O ) ) ) ) N D L 1 2 3 4 A N E ( ( ( ( E A P V K P E U A D Z (
O 0 T N I .
H H H C S C A A O
O R F R P O P P R P A P A
l PROPOSED TARGET PSD FUNCTION -j POWER SPECTRUM
/m(
y -1.00.+04 . . .....o, ......o, . . . . ...., . .
.....g
~
1.00 +03 r s
)
- 4
- : l'
~ ~
}.00 +02 e 3 -
4' .
j ,j m : :
m ..
51.00+01 r- , l O E i .)
a :
- 4 1.00 +00 e E i )
,s . .
(
1.00 -01 1.00 -01 1.00 +00 1.00 +01 -1.00 +02 1.00 +03-FREQUENCY - RAD / SEC RECOMMENDED MINIMUM POWER SPECTRAL DENSITY REQUIREMENT Less Than 2.5 Hz S = 650 inch2 j,,e3 (f/2.5 Hz) 0.2 O (w) 2.5 Hz to 9.0 Hz
- So gg) = 650 inch2/sec3 (2.5 Hz/f)1* 0
,9.0 Hz to 26.0 Hz So gg) = 64.8 inch2/sec3 (9.0 Hz/f)3 Greater Than 16 Hz S
O (w)
= 11.5 inch 2/sec3 (16.0 Hz/f) 8 where f = w/2n.
SLIDE 8 l i
m - - - - -
vou 0 00 - ,
i r
i 1.00 04 _ ........i . . . , . rn m . . .y . . ...
t .- s Clipped -
Non-Clipped 1.00 +03 -
u .
' 1 1.00 +02 r 0 E 3
y POWER SPECTRUM ic 1.00 +01 ;
O :
a .
1.00 00 r :
1.00 -01 1.00 03 1.00 -01 1.00 +00' ' ' ' .'1 00 + 01 1.00 +02 FREQUENCY - RAD / SEC PSD OBTAINED FROM CLIPPED VERSUS NON-CLIPPED TIME HISTORIES 1.00 +03 . . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
y :
RESPONSE SPECTRUM :
\ _
'2; l 1.00 +02 -
-y , .
! s !
O ~
~
O J -
i
[x3 I 1.00 01 .
o .
C :
p _
tia .
r.n -
1.00 00 1.00 02 1.00 -01 ' ' ' ' .'1 00 + 00 1.00 +01 FREQUENCY - HZ 2 % DAMPED PSEUDO RELATIVE RESPONSE SPECTRUM OBTAINED FROM TARGET PSD AND ENVELOPE FUNCTION HITH TIME HISTORY CLIPPED AT 1.0 v.
SLIDE 9 l 1
- N 0 Y O G C I . D N T 1 E E A . P U R . N M A
QU E D G. I O D
R -
RT t
F N C %
a D N 2 O
%I E U 0T P F S 2 O M P M A D O v DS L E
G P A N % .
V
. O 2T N R R E E J
I A L U O - S N E N F T E I T D H O V T N S T I YE I N E P T L S T M R C EU A O N T V .
C E D E A , R D R EV U
(, )
I D O F R z ES U I U H S P Y1 D C N T . Q S D C 5 OT I 7 E - E S R, ET P A 2 C E S .
G N 3 N U .
L, E D OP D F T0 TR N MS O A A D P R
S P EOP A. E H H T T
L S G C S T V A ( M A T E O -
F R ' U R YE S MB MO M E C G U U A U T R R%
C I VN R R TS T 0 E N A EA C E C 3 P I U T E M EQ H E I E1 S T P C P H EE S N S E R TR H O T E S E
W
,F EU EU zY F S Q S O N E N ,
P H N O O R OM A
4 % P F P U 2 N 0 S S R O 8 E L ET O R L R C A E TD D A A P
~ EE T S zR E EA E H EC C C 0 T X UM U 6 E
' 3. NE D U O R D
O 1 0 C D R T R L
P MD U P C .
O N O E G R A H OP O .
F BS TS TR 1 2