ML20058L824
| ML20058L824 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200001 |
| Issue date: | 05/07/1993 |
| From: | Fox J GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Poslusny C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9305130008 | |
| Download: ML20058L824 (7) | |
Text
. .. . .- _~. . -.. . . ...
t g GENucle:rEn:rgy j
'l l
GeneralDectnc Company }
175 Curtnet Avenue. 5un Jose. CA 95125 )
t May 7,1993 Docket No. STN 52-001 !
i i
'i l i Chet Posiusny, Senior Project Manager !
Standardization Project Directorate -;
Associate Directorate for Advanced Reactors i and License Renewal - ;
Office of the Nuclear Reactor Regulation !
Subject:
Submittal Supporting Accelerated ABWR Review Schedule - DFSER Open -!
Items 3.7.2-8 and 3.7.2-9 j
Dear Chet:
Enclosed is a SSAR. markup addressing DFSER Open Items 3.7.2-8 and 3.7.2-9 which replaces :
my markup dated January 30,1993. l Please provide copies of this transmittal to Tom Cheng and Gautam Bagchi. :
Sincerely, .
bW Jack Fox !
Advanced Reactor Programs ,
cc: Gary Ehlert (GE)
Norman Fletcher (DOE) <
Al-Shen Liu (GE) l
)
h I
l i
[bb 9305'130008 930507 f PoR aoocn osnoooor-A PDR-l /- 3 r
. - - - _w.m,-
6 2.3.1.2 Soisaic Design Parameters ;
l To confirm seismic design adequacy of the standard plant, the !
COL applicant referencing the ABWR design shall demonstrate that the site-specific conditions meet the following site envelope parameters considered in the standardized design.
(1) The site-specific SSE ground response spectra at plant l grade in the free-field are enveloped by the design ground
- spectra of Regulatory Guide 1.60 (Revision 1 December 1973) anchored to 0.3g peak ground acceleration in both j horizontal and vertical-directions. When the site-specific ,
control ground motion is determined to locate at the rock i f
outcrop or a hypothetical rock outcrop according to SRP '
3.7.1 guidelines (e.g., shallow soil sites), the site-specific soil free-surface motion through soil layer amplification shall be calculated and the resulting ground [
surface response spectra shall be bounded by 0.3g RG 1.60 t spectra. The site-specific ground spectra can be considered within the design ground spectra if no more than five points fall above, and no more than 10 percent above, the 0.3g RG 1.60 spectra. *
(2) The site-specific soil profile is reasonably comparable to i t
one of the generic profiles shown in Fig. 3A.3-1. It is to-be noted that the UB profile in Fig. 3A.3-1 represents the lower bound soil condition after uncertainties in soil properties are taken into consideration. The site can be !
considered acceptable without performing a comparison if it l is a rock site having a shear wave velocity no less than 3500 ft/sec.
(3) The soil static bearing capacity at the site is 15 kst ;
minimum and the dynamic bearing capacity is adequate to accommodate plant design SSE loads (including dead and live ,
loads) of 48.7 ksf for the reactor building, and 17.4 ksf for the control building.
(4) There is no potential for liquefaction due to site-specific i SSE at the site.
(5) There is no potential for fault displacement at the site.
The seismic design adequacy of the ABWR standard plant is established when all of the above five site-dependent conditions are satisfied. If there is any deviation of these conditions, a site-specific evaluation is required as described l below.
?
A site-specific SSE soil-structure interaction (SSI) analysis shall be performed when site-dependent condition 1 (ground
- motion)_and/or condition 2 (soil properties) are not satisfied.
The SSI analysis shall be performed in accordance with the i guidelines specified in SRP 3.7.2. The calculated site-specific responses are compared to the standard plant j I
I l
4
~
- design loado to confiro the soisaic docign adoquacy cecording .
- to tho following procodurea and criterin. l For Seismic Category I structures including the RpV and its internal components that are included in the SSI analysis model (1) Design adequacy is established if maximum structural responses in terms of force, moment, or acceleration are bounded by (i.e., no more than 10% exceedance) the site- l envelope responses (or the actual seismic loads considered j in design if applicable) at all locations shown in Tables 3A.10-1.la through 3A.10-1.1d and 3A.10-1.3a through l 3A.10-1.3c for the reactor building, and Tables 3A.10-1.2 i and 3A.10-1.4 for the control building.
(2) If not, calculate resulting SSE stresses. Design adequacy l
1s confirmed if combined stresses of the controlling load combinations involving SSE are within design code allowable limits.
For confirmation of design adequacy of Seismic Category I equipment and piping, a two-step evaluation is required. The l
first step serves as a screening process and involves a comparison of site-specific floor response spectra with site-envelope design spectra as defined in Section 3A.10.2 at key locations in the reactor and control buildings as shown in Table 2.3-1. The top of each building is selected because it has most motion amplification at dominant SSI frequencies. The basemat of each building is selected because it supports many safety-related components and its response represents the l
actual input motion to the building as a result of SSI. The building location near grade is of interest because it reveals the motion of foundation walls due to the embedment effects.
The top of the containment (RCCV) is selected to address the RCCV response due to integration with the surrounding reactor building. The response of the RPV at the mainsteam nozzle is selected since it is a major input motion to the mainsteam piping. If the site-specific response spectra at these selected locations are enveloped by the corresponding design spectra, there is no need to perform the second step evaluation and design adequacy of equipment and piping can be considered established. The enveloping criterion is that the site-specific spectra have no more than five points above, and no more than 10 percent above, the design spectra. For the purpose of this comparison, the 5% damped response spectrum should be used since it is commonly used in seismic margins assessment of existing plants and it is also a damping value used for the comparison of ground response spectrum following an earthquake to determine if a plant shutdown is required. If the :
site-specific floor spectra at any of these locations exceed the design spectra, a more detailed second step evaluation is
! required. In this evaluation a comparison of response spectra !
at actual support location (s) of the component (equipment or l
t l
t f
i f
4 8
- piping) under consideration in required. The desping level of
- the spectrum should correspond to the SSE damping value of'the !
component. Seismic design adequacy of the component under consideration is confirmed when its site-specific input
- spectrum is bounded by the corresponding design spectrum. The site-specific spectrum can be considered bounded if no more than five points fall above, and no more than 10 percent above, ,
the design spectrum. If not, examine the effect of deviations ;
according to the following:
(a) For flexible component which is simple enough to respond :
essentially as a single degree of freedom systen or for ;
component whose response is predominated by the fundamental mode response, design adequacy is established when the spectral acceleration of the site-specific ,
spectrum at the fundamental frequency of the component is bounded by that of the design spectrum. An exceedance of :
no more than 10% is considered acceptable. ;
(b) For flexible component of a multiple degrees of freedom j system with more than one dominant mode, design adequacy i is established when the site-specific spectrum is bounded :
by the design spectrum at all dominant modes in the l frequency range of significance for the entire system. !
When the dynamic system is multi-supported and its design ;
analysis input motion is based on envelope response-spectrum of all support points, the comparison can be j made at the envelope spectrum level. An exceedance of ;
no more than 10% for each of the dominant modes is considered acceptable.
(c) For rigid component, design adequacy is established when the zero period acceleration (ZpA) value of the site- !
l l
specific spectrum is bounded by that of the design !
spectrum. An exceedance of no more than 10% is considered acceptable.
(d) For component whose design analysis-is based on peak l spectral acceleration as equivalent static load, design adequacy is established when the peak value of the site-specific spectrum is bounded by that-of the design spectrum. An exceedance of no more than 10% is considered acceptable. 1 If none of the above conditions is met, perform response analysis and/or testing (or other justifiable method) to demonstrate that the acceptance criteria given in the design specification are met.
If the. soil bearing capacity at the site is not adequate to accommodate the standard plant design loads (site-dependent condition 3), the foundation material shall be strengthened to l
achieve the required bearing capacity. Alternatively, the COL ,
applicant may perform a site-specific SSI analysis to. l l
i i
l
i .
demonstrate that the calculated SSE soil presourco together with epplicable dood and live loads aro within the site soil dynamic bearing capacity. It should be noted that the adequacy of soil bearing shall also be confirmed whenever the site-specific SSI analysis is required; however, if the
- site-specific SSI analysis is performed solely for the purpose to address the condition 3 deviation, the comparison of structural responses is not required.
When the site investigation indicates that the site is susceptible to liquefaction for ground motions up to the site-specific SSE level (site-dependent condition 4). proven I
techniques for site improvement may be used to eliminate the
! liquefaction potential. The approach taken shall be approved by the NRC. r l It is not advisable to locate the plant at the site which is .
susceptible to fault displacement (site-dependent condition 5).
If it is decided that such site be chosen due to other l
considerations, proper justification acceptable to the NRC shall be provided to demonstrate that the effect of fault displacement on plant facilities is inconsequential.
! The evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria for the confirmation of seismic design adequacy are summarized in Fig.
2.3-1.
l I
l
.8
. Table 2.3-1 Locations for Couparison of Floor Responce Spectra for First-Step Evaluation >
Elevation Node
- i Building (m) Number Remark '
Reactor 49.7 95 Top of RB building 12.3 103 Grade level l
-8.2 88 Basemat ;
31.7 89 Top of RCCV 15.54 33 RPV/HS nozzle, Control 22.2 108 Top of CB ,
106 Grade level ;
building 12.3
-8.2 102 B a s e m a_t_, ,
- Refer to Figs. 3A.8-1.1 and 3A.8-1.2 for Reactor building and Fig. 3A.8-3.1 for control building.
i .
l l
l i
i 1
i l l l
l i
i
t YES .
PERFORM SITE INVESTIGATION TO CONFIRM IF ALL 5 SITE-DEPENDENT CCNDITIONS ARE SATISFIED NO CONDITION 1 DEVIATION: > PERFORM SITE-SPECIFIC 4 CONDITION 3 DEVIATION:
SOIL SSE GROUND MOTION _
SSE SSI ANALYSIS SOIL BEARING CAP ACITY
RESPONSE
1f ( 5 C EITHER STRUCTURAL FOR BUILDING 1F CONDITION 2 DEVIATION: RESPONSE
- EVALUATION CONF iM IF ,-A STRENGTHEN SOIL PROPERTIES U I
PRESSURE FOUNDATION IS WITHIN MATERIAL CONFIRM IF SITE- THE SITE TO ACHIEVE STRUCTURAL RESPONSE, SPECIFIC SSE YES BEARING THE REQUIRED FOR COMPONENT RESPONSES ARE CAPACITY BEARING CAPACITY EVALUATION BOUNDED BY II DESIGN LOADS YES IST STEP; CONFIRM IF NO SITE-SPECIFIC SPECTRA lf CONDITION 4 DEVIATION.
- ARE BOUNDED BY LIQUEFACTION DESIGN SPECTRA ANST PERFORM ANALYSIS
, ,M @ // / /L AND/OR TESTING TO KEY gOCATIONS " ' ' ' ' * * " yy SHOW THAT THE NO ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA II IN APPLICABLE DESIGN SITE IMPROVEMENT TO O ELIMINATE THE POTENTIAL CODE / SPECIFICATION 2ND STEP: CONFIRM IF ARE MET SITE-SPECIFIC SPECTRA ARE BOUNDED BY CONDITION 5 DEVIATION- -
DESIGN SPECTRA FOR If FAULT DISPLACEMENT THE COMPONENT UNDER CONSIDERATION SEISMIC DESIGN 3y YES ADEQUACY IS ]
l
> CONFIRMED h JUSTIFY THE POTENTIAL
- NOT REQUIRED IF CONDITION 3 IS THE A ONLY CONDITION BEING DEVIATED.
Figure 2.3-1 CONI?lRMATION OI? SEISMIC DESIGN ADEQUACY
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .