ML20151J650

Summary of 970723 Telcon W/W to Discuss 970709 Submittal of NSD-NRC-97-5227 Re Site Parameters.List of Attendees & Comments Prior to Telcon Encl

ML20151J650
Person / Time
Site:	05200003
Issue date:	07/31/1997
From:	Joseph Sebrosky NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
NUDOCS 9708050212
Download: ML20151J650 (20)

Text

. e ef o,

• g* -% UNITED STATES f6 - 00 3

• }

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

\ ***o #' July 31,1997 APPLICANT: Westinghouse Electric Corporation PROJECT: AP600 l

SUMMARY

OF AP600 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS SITE PARAMETERS The subject telecon was held on July 23, 1997, between members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff and Westinghouse. Attachment 1 is a list of l the participants.

The purpose of the telecon was to discuss Westinghouse's submittal of July 9, 1997, (NSD-NRC-97-5227) concerning site parameters. The staff reviewed this submittal and provided comments to Westinghouse in the form of a markup prior to the telecon (Attachment 2). The staff's major comments were in two areas:

(1) the staff did not agree with Westinghouse's definition of shallow soil sites, and (2) the staff did not agree with Westinghouse's proposal to provide the process the combined license (COL) applicant would use for evaluating sites that fell outside the range of site parameters for the AP600 design certification.

Concerning shallow soil sites, Westinghouse stated that the staff was changing the definition of a shallow soil site from a previously agreed-to definition.

Westinghouse stated that the definition was agreed to during a June 1996, meeting and documented in a July 18, 1996, meeting summary. Westinghouse i expressed significant concern over this apparent change in an agreed position over a year after the meeting was held. The staff agreed to review the meeting summary. Regardless, the staff believed that the definition that Westinghouse proposed in its July 9, 1997, letter was not satisfactory and Westinghouse needed to address the current staff concerns with the definition. l The staff recommended that Westinghouse review page 2 of Standard Review Plan 3.7.1, which gives guidance on shallow soil sites. Westinghouse agreed to this action.

For issue (2), Westinghouse main;ained that their proposed Section 2.5.2.2 was consistent with what the staff had allowed for the Combustion Engineering (CE) i System 80+ design. The staff maintained that the analyses that were performed for the CE System 80+ design were different than what Westinghouse was proposing. The staff recommended that Westinghouse review pages F-1 and F-2 of the supplemental final safety evaluation report for the CE System 80+

design. Westinghouse agreed to this action, but maintained that even though the analyses may be different, the approach that Westinghouse was adopting was the same as the CE approach. The staff agreed to reassess Westinghouse's July 9, 1997, letter because of Westinghouse's comments. The results of the i staff's reassessment can be found in Attachment 3, which provides another staff markup of the July 9,1997, Westinghouse letter. Attachment 3 also provides additichal comments in areas that were not discussed during the July 23, 1997, telecon. The staff is still in the process of reviewing Westinghouse's July 9, 1997, submittal and recent revision to the SSAR that affect Chapter 2. Therefore, the staff's comments in Attachment 3 should be l;'

considered preliminary and are not meant to be an all inclusive list of {g comments for Chapter 2. I 9708050212 970731 PDR A

ADOCK 05200003 PDR ,

h hhh -

l July 31,1997 f

the upcoming review of the structural design of the AP600 nuclear island i structures was briefly discussed. The staff requested that Westinghouse make available in their Rockville office the packages that would be reviewed during i the meeting at least one week in advance of the meeting. Westinghouse agreed  :

to assess whether the staff's request.was possible, and to also assess the t availability of its contractors to support the meeting. The staff also '

informed Westinghouse that it was preparing a letter detailing concerns that it had with the passive containment cooling tank design.

A draft of this telecon summary was Ico'."ded to Westinghouse to allow them the opportunity to comment on the summary prior to issuance.

Original signed by )

Theodore, R. Quay FOR Joseph M. Sebrosky, Project Manager  !

Standaraization Project Directorate ,

Division of Reactor Program Management l Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ,

Docket No.52-003 ,

i Attachments: As stated j cc w/atts: See next page , j DISTRIBUTION w/ attachment-Docket File PDST R/F; _TKenyon- i PUBLIC BHuffman' . DTJackson o JSebrosky GBagchi, 0-7 H15 TCheng,-0-7 H15 .

RPichumani, 0-7 HIS BRothman,.0-7 H15 JNWilson  ;

i DISTRIBUTION w/o attachment: l SCollins/FMiraglia, 0-12 G18 TMartin, 0-12 G18 RZimmerman, 0-12 G18 MSlosson SWeiss TQuay l WDean, 0-5 E23 ACRS (11) JMoore, 0-15 B18 l

l DOCUMENT NAME: A:SSS he TEL.

To mccive a copy of this doeueneset, in theSUMbem. ' gd ' 'pwkhout ettechment/ enclosure af *E' = Copy wkh attachment / enclosure *N' = No copy 0FFICE PM:PDST:DRPM _ D:ECG4:J$ l D:PDST:DRPM l l NAME JMSebrosky:sghN GBafc)(iP TRQuay1W L DATE 07/7497 '

07/4/97 07/h/97 l l OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l

l L __ . - _ _ _ _ . _

I

Westinghouse Electric Corporation Docket No.52-003 i cc: Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo, Manager Mr. Frank A. Ross l Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Analysis U.S. Department of Energy, NE-42 i Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Office of LWR Safety and Technology l Westinghouse Electric Corporation 19901 Germantown Road l P.O. Box 355 Germantown, MD 20874

l. Pittsburgh, PA 15230 1 Mr. Ronald Simard, Director Mr. B. A. McIntyre Advanced Reactor Program Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Nuclear Energy Institute Westinghouse Electric r.orporation 1776 Eye Street, N.W.

Energy Systems Business Unit Suite 300

Box 355 Washington, DC 20006-3706 t

Pittsburgh, PA 15230

! Ms. Lynn Connor Ms. Cindy L. Haag Doc-Search Associates Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Post Office Box 34 Westinghouse Electric Corporation Cabin John, MD 20818 Energy Systems Business Unit Box 355 Dr. Craig D. Sawyer, Manager Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Advanced Reactor Programs GE Nuclear Energy Mr. M. D. Beaumont 175 Curtner Avenue, MC-754

Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division San Jose, CA 95125 l

Westinghouse Electric Corporation '

One Montrose Metro Mr. Robert H. Buchholz l 11921 Rockville Pike GE Nuclear Energy Suite 350 175 Curtner Avenue, MC-781 Rockville, MD 20852 San Jose, CA 95125 Mr. Sterling Franks Barton 2. Cowan, Esq.  !

U.S. Department of Energy Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott  !

NE-50 600 Grant Street 42nd Floor i 19901 Germantown Road Pittsburgh, PA 15219  :

Germantown, MD 20874 '

Mr. Ed Rodwell, Manager Mr. S. M. Modro FWR Design Certification Nuclear Systems Analysis Technologies Electric Power Research Institute Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company 3412 Hillview Avenue Post Office Box 1625 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Idaho Falls, ID 83415 Mr. Charles Thompson, Nuclear Engineer AP600 Certification NE-50 19901 Germantown Road L Germantown, MD 20874 l j l

I F

I

r-  ;

i AP600 SITE PARAMETERS TELECON PARTICIPANTS July 23, 1997 HAME ORGANIZATION  :

BRIAN MCINTYRE WESTINGHOUSE DON LINDGREN WESTINGHOUSE RICHARD ORR WESTINGHOUSE RA0 MANDAVA WESTINGHOUSE G0VTAM BAGCHI NRR/DE/ECGB I

TOM CHENG NRR/DE/ECGB i

! BOB ROTHMAN NRR/DE/ECGB j l RAMAN PICHUMANI NRR/DE/ECGB l

TED QUAY NRR/DRPM/PDST JERRY WILSON NRR/DRPM/PDST J0E SEBROSKY NRR/DRPM/PDST l

l l

i-i l

l l

l 1

l

,' Attachment 1 l i  !

l i

A _ _ _ -- , s.-

e

. l i

Attachment 2 l

l l

*=

2 Site Characteristics L ,

CHAPTER 2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS his chapter defines the site-related parameters for which the AP600 plant is designed. De site parameters are in Table 2-1. Rese parameters envelope most potential sites in the United States. De sections of this chapter follow the standard format and discuss how the specific parameters are to be used in the 7600 design and how the Combined License applicant is X.

to demonstrate that the site mee eQ'bf ptwmh5 5 De site is acceptable if the site characteristics fall within the AP600 lant site design parameters in Table 21. F= :=: -h= : shfiohr ' . site ' characteristics bH be'fiotl0dr :=:d; 6e envelope diffis(ddfp'd6ns' ' '6s ._,dper=:=,

necc= j f= the Combined License app -demonstrate that X the deldp 5'ahsfied die fihYrre'56efss' top,ligant referencing thUdesip'cl>mmitinents anti'#44%cff.thers'4escrifisd'.in ,

. StMiifs d,'5sfiftj Arialysis Report.':hrz::ti d= :: :=:d i: ap: tie:y v S: dri;;n 2.1 Geography and Demography The geography and demography are site specific and will be defined by the Combined License applicant.

2.1.1 Combined License Information for Geography and Demography Combined License applicants referencing the AP600 certified design will provide site specific information related to site location and description, exclusion area authority and control, and population distribution.

Site Information - Site specific information on the site and its location will include political subdivisions, natural and man-made features, population, highways, railways, waterways, and other significant features of the area.

1 Exclusion Area - Site-specific information on the exclusion area will include the size of the area and the exclusion area authority and control. Activity that may be permitted within the exclusion area will be included in the discussion. j l

Population Distribution - Site-specific information will be included on population distribution.

l 2.2 Nearby Industrial, Transportation, and Military Facilities 1

The plant has inherent capability to withstand certain types of external accidents due to the specified desien conditions associated with carthquakes, wind loading, and radiation shielding.

Acceptability for external accidents associated with a given site will be covered in the Combined License application.

own uexaumom Revision: 15 I Draft,1997

[ W85tifigt100se 2-1 i

, 2. Site Characteristics

= Lithography Structural geology

. Tectonics

= Seismicity 2.5.2 Vibratory Ground Motion The AP600 is designed for a safe shutdown canhquake (SSE) defined by a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.30g and the design response spectra specified in subsection 3.7.1.1.

The AP600 design response spectra are developed using the Regulatory Guide 1.60 response spectra as the base and modified to address high frequency amplification effects observed in east coast canhquakes. The maximum ground accelerations in the two horizontal and the venical directions are equal.

2.5.2.1 Combined License Seismic and Tectonic Characteristics Information Comti,d License applicants referencing the AP600 certified design will address the following site-specific information related to seismic and tectonic characteristics of the site and region:

CorTelation of canhquake activity with geologic structure or tectonic provinces

= Maximum canhquake potential

( a Seismic wave transmission characteristics of the site Safe shutdown canhquake (SSE) ground response spectra FWoWiiies%6ticipsi:lii's65):Fthe Comb'ined License applicant must demonstrate that the proposed site meets the following requirements:

The free field peak grocnd acceleration at the finished grade level is less than or equal to a 0.30g safe shutdown earthquake.

• The site design response spectra atthe fmished grade level in the free field are less than or equal to those given in Figures 3.7.1 1 and 3.7.1-2.

• Foundation material layers are approximately horizontal (dip less than 20 degrees) and the shear wave velocity of the soil is greater than or equal to 1000 feet per second.

W f' . ""b.i'4jid$edid'ftsished'giadi'leset! 4 Vd.',.')%.W.,'23' fit @MTit'niek

.py .

.g g ~ .-

g eiW(Snd4%io,%ifra96&dve.s c"'" " "'

ds 'aEarhalMt'ideilirirdc5aedsi&Jurucode4'WNURiW'IC, R@f56%

g 5) e54'illitiiviog a thio'ioirlakof TOHod' 6 ricin and 6'446,f an'(d[6$' disgh'Id(j@j(

of,750 reet'per secood or less. $sefa site is cetride shi'ings'6ffs6Kfidoi6er(svakated i dillf

( for; AP600ified 'derfgri heitirrdidon in' Standard R' and would'bi sic e view Plan 3.7.1WcompMiM'ififdsi,'^ evalbated l ilt'tb

• DC 4 %I edes kvt eut 4M leoCa4.C ged ce er too Sco er le55 dr edvR et ca" f +o34 hav,be p thre so.L

+os e. Valvate+Cd %e M.fdkI@sfEd) Mis' ion: 15 '

[ WBStiligh00$6 2-7 Draft,1997

. . . _ME

2. Site Characteristics

--. ~.

_ UNf 55IMs' indflys' thK6ffp'%6sbE80'ri't5 apsfeuitw)issowAaw%t? a TGk6fMWdmwaswiw b[{5WipiiisiNh5d?m p-d m..,ew . E a ..,,,,. Y. _ . _ . -

,2.5.2.2 A! :.:::: Site Specific Seismic R=;== Design Basisj N

g."6T f= - idnign m:y k !:::td = ,i:n $ : : =t!& $: h=& cf $: a: pr;=p/.:

=d =i! :=di:!:= l- Td!: 2 ! *h :vd=:!= f= $ =;mbili:y f it -

ah=S;=gi:&:ignb=.:=:F=d k!=d =!d k =br::=d =d = var:d"Cby :p.7."i:n

= p= O f .

.:. _.._i:c.l. - C:=bi=d L!:== :pp!!=: = Egum 2.5 ' per!&:: Der dr fr !::.mne Si:::p=ine zi!  :== i-:==:!= =dy=: m:y b pc'==d by $: C:  !=d Li:==

pp'i:=: :: &== = ==p= bili:y. 'h2 =dyx: v=!d ex $: . :p=in: =i!

> ic =:=d== it - " - " " "--

=di:i

=

n .i _. -, ., .m, '_i=!cding

_ ; . . . . . _ A.=:e_:!= ; =i! p gr.ie

...g. -. r. .t....&

. . . . . - . - o. , . . a . .. rt. .t.._._._ _ _ f. . _ ._ _.._ _. ....

.. _ r . t.

7r.

'pniE: g :=d me:!= "g.. m 2:i,fy $ : = v d : ping :d Pl= 3 ' ' fu $ np==ghi';;;rj m=::p=:== f= &=pir.g vdun , 5 =d of'2,p== 3, ;'p.:

=d ef $ E =ded P.:v erte: ping ni' d r f= por n  :=! &=;;y fu=:i= E= :p== :p=:= =d had cr$ p=::== &uH=d f=m ;i= :pcine =dyx; 2 dd k ==pr:d :g .im: 1:

&:!;n bzt of $: AP500 = &x . -d h!: .

oi n ni .m .

n... /

th $ste,5pec5W., 5pp ,in un s m e, ',j,be'r,m.4p~c4,trar M, n ,,

If,n~e /..in, fccqu~eo/~n 2tn . ,#us.[,

tandbroos;~are' . .e.tra,.r,outs. n a.eed/s6u,cespoose.n o- s

'o f -

~nny- i .,

( k.

cyot n u u de, t

p1 ge1ev ' j' "'

g ~

dy,kke A. pe,r2&o,ike,tu.a.tilid,,%,,"l%l}~ir(dtW)E{w.hb,il

. i.

, v .e taaiy5tsan4:

naou

a. n

//,'of'e ovn

/rstoschat' n n, ,,,

o / ". ~

. 'r,ompeced.< 1The

=!d 5:

floor pr:d.response Th,e~.sd.'e,jfes.tgn.

n spect,ra a,t ~~i~~.,,

5 ?'reent . a da,mpingY.:.:

/~ v ,n/

te / v,f:!!:vir.;

n. f:= ,!:

=FJgums,17M,amt,E7g: , ,

, , enk%. .gr, . ,, ,,

i, ,,

in, -2y, , ,r, e site is acceptable foiIcIfirs'toidffo'ndNM'g, the peaks of site-specific eksIditiod'=dyr: do noJ ./ exceed the AP600 e floor response etrafof'fsdf(,o sp@ctra from the,%

identiGed beli:in?2 by me i= 10 " xr: :: =y f= ::=>

a Reactor vessel suppon Figure 3.7.2-17 Sheets 3

• Containment operating fl r Figure 3.7.2-17, Sheets 4-

• Shield building roof Figure 3.7.215, Sheets 7-9

• Control room floor Figure 3.7.215, Sheets 13 Lateral earth pressurey . : $: a: :peciS: =dyx: d=!d~ bc ==p^ red  !=:i:&:i;;n vm ,.

. . . . .:_. v.__t,_ . e_c , .. t. _~_ . . _ t. . , c

. _ 4_ m..,. Ec"r:"exte cv4sc"ue' vdpstn '" " ft4pecica' Mffis acceptable i the lateral earth pressures fromsesthe do site specific t exceed the analf'g AP600 design ues at any location,' by m = $= 10 p==: Csffraifdrdf" ""'4/5Ig'o values are: ' ' 'in,Tabi6,2CLthroo'gh,20.Cs

~

Suespec' isoiF5avetore imecacoon analyses must be peddr%edMRC6d>M6e'81 liu apMfc ( so de'monstrath'acceplatnlity(ot'5 bis that hase'sefs' mfd aidfs611 chMe1Misn$s'4d1 ' ' '

of she paramden f6.Tabl621&These analyses woojduir th6'ffis's'p'e'effrd,d;4f' '

( _

Revision: 15 ow.muconrimom Draft,1997 28 W Westinghouse

==

2. Site Characteristico

^

N

' ~yss6w7e'g'ipe'diKc"yo'sL70odff'fif('$'(p

"'"psk'f{,Q' ,

i eu w s g i w e ea

' ^ '

\

t' l b g o,~<

g y,/nn9 '%'%((d:p,3,,;W4'nsj(th""'

.gv u~ / ,

iisp'g&ild'ipecui'ilui%Eliit4516'#iinE'ddiHibdKd5nc W6' -

Edej>'aredikat4/dW9s&g'hasit'Ath'APfM&%'6Mt'ithMs c h6Eidif$od j ggp & 'sh5,'j@diden nis! amssMH'i'ai'39'MR@i@an' 9 wunw~qr w s

.s e s ,e sen m m y m ,s c f(

TS'TAndW/cf(1861'fs'f4f61(pt(Wgd6'4/s6bi'nfdfy's(66%'feiM'4 dt'tbd'i%sijbMeitildadbb'(M  := = w =M'M% mN rV W X eC49errEdmethcc4%$46iishod%csnp@ent@v6iA .A M/ tesy cce e,4ce%f spe mod man sdt~spuC#L desty chroefu'shes, 2.5.3 Surface Faulting Combined License Informatidn Combined License applicants referencing the AP600 cenified design will address surface and subsurface geological and geophysical information including the potential for surface or near-surface faulting affecting the site.

2.5.4 Stability and Uniformity of Subsurface Materials and Foundations 2.5.4.1 Excavation Excavation in soil for the nuclear island structures below grade will establish a venical face with lateral suppon of the adjoining undisturbed soil or rock. One alternative is to use a soil nailing method. Soil nailing is a method of retaining canh in-situ. As the nuclear island excavation progresses venically downward, holes are drilled horizontally into the adjoining undisturbed soil, a metal rod is insened into the hole, ar)d grout is pumped into each hole to fill the hole and to anchor the " nail" rod.

As each increment of the nuclear island excavation is completed, nominal eight to ten inch diameter holes are drilled honzontally through the venical face of the excavation into adjacent undisturbed soil. These " nail" holes, spaced horizontally and venically on five to six feet centers, are drilled slightly downward to the horizontal. A " nail", normally a metal bar/ rod, is center located for the full length of the hole. The nominal length of soil nails are 60 percent to 70 percent of the wall height, depending upon soil conditions. The hole is filled with grout to anchor the rod to the soil. A metal face plate is installed on the exposed end of the rod at the excavated wall vertical surface. Welded wire mesh is hung on the wall surface for wall reinforcement and secured to the soil nail face plates for anchorage. A 4,000 psi to 5,000 psi non-expansive pea gravel shoterete mix is blown onto the wire mesh to form a nominal four to six inch thick soil retaining wall. Installation of the soil retaining wall closely follows the progress of the excavation and is from the top down, with each wire mesh-reinforced, shotcreted wall section being supponed by the soil " nails" and the preceding elevations of soil nailed wall placements. The shotcrete contains a crystalline waterproofing material as described in subsection 3.4.1.1.1.

(

. w.n uem ,um Revision: 15

[ W85tiflgh0!!$e 29 Draft,1997

2. Site Characteristics s

Table 2-1 (Sheet I of 2)

SITE PARAMETERS Air Temperature Maximum Safety (*) ll5'F dry bulb /80*F coincident wet bulb 81*F wet bulb (noncoincident)

Minimum Safety'" -40*F Maximum Normal *' 100*F dry bulbn7'F coincident wet bulb 80*F wet bulb (noncoincident)*

Minimum Normal *) -10'F Wind Speed Operating Basis 110 mph; importance factor 1.11 (safety),1.0 (nonsafety)

Tornado 300 mph Seismic SSE 0.30g peak ground acceleration}" mg f.c 545 us# MM b M 'h t S $ Afit'vif PANT.Oidtf,O /*O Vtt f aF $erl f Fault Displacement Potendal None Soil Average allowable static soil Greater than or equal to 8,000 pounds per square foot over the bearing capacity footprint of the nuclear island at its excavation depth.

Lateral variability Soils supporting the nuclear island should not have extreme vanations in subgrade stiffness (see subsection 2.5.4.5)

Shear Wave Velocity Greater than or equal to 1000 ft/sec based on low strain best estimate soil properties Liquefacuon Potential None i

I

(

l . wamise2am riseoen Revision: 15

[ W8Stingt10USB 2 21 Draft,1997 l

l l

, 2. S!te Characteristics x

Table 2-1 (Sheet 2 of 2)

SITE PARAMETERS Missues Tornado 4000 - Ib automobile at 105 mph horizontal,74 mph vertical 275 - Ib,8 in. shell at 105 mph horizontal,74 mph vertical 1 inch diameter steel ball at 105 mph honzontal and vertical Flood Level Less than plant elevation 100' Ground Water Level Less than plant elevation 98' Plant Grade Elevation Less than plant elevation !00' except for portion at a higher elevation adjacent to the annex building Precipitation Rain 19.4 in/hr (6.3 in/5 min)

Snow /lce 75 pounds per square foot on ground with exposure factor of 1.0 and importance factors of 1.2 (safety) and 1.0 (non-safety)

Dispersion Values X/Q See subsections 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 Population Distribution Exclusion area (site) 0.5 mi F2.ts:

(a) Maximum and minimum safety values are based on historical data and exclude peaks of less than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> duration.

(b) Maximum and minimum normal values are the i percent exceedance magnitudes.

(c) With response spectra EpfafffMidr,'as given in Figures 3.7.1 1 and 3.7.12 '(@4'"'"'fs1H)p (d) fr%%{4G%31,uar(%'i'Ne574Gayo %4The m noncoincident m ipo m ~ wet bulb 0af#temocrature.

W:(.ggu'yrgy % ygy e

~-

. so64H&'5ea . '"%,y%&%t fed'M _ ' ' ' ' M'UM $ - -

(e) Si k bayry A 6in soil hyce eJ too PctJ or less a re ao f s a/c

&lt fugt of 5'N y/'smt W.s evalosft/ $t AP600 g(g,$ n ~

Ctrbfru hon.

1 i

(..

Revision: 15 ow 4e:mnsis470evi Draft,1997 2 22 W-W85tingh00$8 t  ;

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

Attachment to DCP/NRC0949 ,

f

.I k Responses to NRC comments on Site Parameter RAls RAl# 231.40 Section 2.5.4.5.5 (page 216) of the SSAR (revised after Revision 11) states that for sites with soil characteristics outside the range considered in Appendices 2A.2, and 2B.2, the COL applicant may use the site specific soil conditions and site-specific SSE, and perform site-specific SSI analyses, and demonstrate acceptability (of the site) by comparing the floor response spectra at specified locations. A similar statement permitting the COL applicant to perform a site specific seismic analysis of the nuclear island is made in Section 2.5.4.5.2.2 (Acceptance criteria for non-uniform sites). The proposed revision is not acceptable to the staff. The SSAR should state that such sites are not covered by the cenified design. This is RAI #231.40 in SSAR 2.5.4.5.

Action W - 6/16/97 phone call. Revise SSAR section that provides for COL evaluation of alternate criteria.

Response

Subsection 2.5.2.2 will be revised to explicitly state that shallow soil sites are not esaluated as part of

~

jdesi n cenification/56bsectionTST WillWrevised ttrfattowthe precedent of the'desigiicontrol.

Opcument of an ALWR design with design cenification.f -

RAl# 231.41

,( Table 2-1 (page 2-19) of draft Revision 12 must be revised to state that SSE site parameter is 0.30g l

PGA, except that shallow soil sites are excluded. Also, include a COL requirement for excluding

- shallow soil sites in Section 2.5.2.1 of SSAR.

Action W - 6/16/97 phone call. Revise SSAR table 2-1 to include specific words that " shallow soil sites" are not included in design cenification.

l Response The re uirement for location of the control motion at plant grade will be added to the site parameters.

l foot n will be added to Table 2-1 to specifically state that shallow soil sites are n6t bounded by l the site parameters.

U

.$pFed 0F d RAl# 231.42 .

Figure 2.51 (page 2 23) of draft Revision 12 must be deleted or revised. Presumed margins are not i

included in site parameters. Also Section 2.5.2.2 of the SSAR must be revised. The review criteria are l unacceptable.

Action W - Phone call 06/16/97. Staff requested the removal of the Figure 2.5-1

Response

j, Figure 2.51 will be removed from the SSAR. Section 2.5.2.2 will be revised to remove the provision 1 that site specific floor response spectra may exceed AP600 spectra by 10 percent at any frequency.

I t'*> 4 .pe

0 e

l Attachment 3

~ \

. 4

, 2. Site Characteristics t

l CHAPTER 2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS l

l His chapter defines the site-related parameters for which the AP600' plant is designed. he j site parameters are in Table 21. Rese parameters envelope most potential sites in the United l

States. The sections of this chapter follow the standard format and discuss how the specific parameterji,,'_:~~~ "Ised in the AP600 design and how the Combined License applicant is to demonstrate that the site meets the &

. para mL k t6 use,re The site is acceptable if the site characteristics fall within the AP600 lant site design

, parameters in Table 21. F= :r:: =hn: : ite ' ' ' "' haracteristics Is','fpfiM  :=6 :he envelope ' M g g [ N.a n u:c , it-is

=cc==y f= the Combined License a licant referencin the AP600 'wdemonstrate that  !

//// /// / //// \

prea .'f fo'tI% ch==::iti d=: nc: :==d $: n;=t:!hy of 1; i;ign 2.1 Geography and Demography He geography and demography are site specific and will be defined by the Combined License applicant.

l 2.1.1 Combined License Information for Geography and Demography Combined License applicants referencing the AP600 certified design will provide site specific information related to site location and description, exclusion area authority and control, and population distribution.

Site Information - Site-specific information on the site and its location will include political subdivisions, natural and man-made features, population, highways, railways, waterways, and -

other significant features of the area.

Exclusion Area - Site specific information on the exclusion area will include the size of the area and the exclusion area authority and control. Activity that may be permitted within the exclusion area will be included in the discussion.

Population Distribution - Site-specific information will be included on population distribution.

2.2 Nearby Industrial, Transportation, and Military Facilities

! De plant has inherent capability to withstand certain types of extemal accidents due to the specified design conditions associated with earthquakes, wind loading, and radiation shielding.

Acceptability for extemal accidents 1.ssociated with a given site will be covered in the Combir.ed License application.

.sumimmnnsex97 Revision: 15 W Westinghouse 21 Draft,1997 l

l l

. 2. sae car.cter*ucs 1

• Lithography

• Structural geology

• Se s "U ' a"C 2.5.2 Vibratory Ground Motion l l

The AP600 is designed for a safe shu own earthquake (SSE) defined by a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.30g and the ign response spectra specified in subsection 3.7.1.1 X 3

g jern The AP600 design response spectra eveloped using the Regulatory Guide 1.60 response g Q spectra as the base and modified to address high frequency amplification effects observed in DJ earthquakes. The ground accelerations in the two horizontal and the N# vertical directions are eque.l.

2.5.2.1 Combined License Seismic and Tectonic Characteristics Information Combined License applicants referencing the AP600 cenified design will address the following site-specific information related to seismic and tectonic characteristics of the site and region:

• Correlation of earthquake activity with geologic structure or tectonic provinces

• Maximum canhquake potential

(

• Seismic wave transmission characteristics of the site Safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) ground response spectra f e v>O I'lb or mort YtLN oC sod over rock Eff,Mfggdff%hf6fhhe Comtiined License applicant must demonstrate that the proposed site meets the following requirements:

• The free field peak ground acceleration at the finished grade level is less than or equal to a 0.30g safe shutdown earthquake.

• The site design response spectra atthe finished grade level in the free-field are less than or equal to those given in Figures 3.7.1-1 and 3.7.12.

• Foundation material layers are approximately horizontal (dip less than 20 degrees) and the shear wave velocity of the soil is greater than or equal to 1000 feet per second.

. as- - + = * * - . . . - . . , _ ,_ , _ _ . . .

/ /// ' '

i , _ 'is _////i // \

s/ /

&//

)

l lW 'w6 sue'acaxueiw

&*d \

(

^

- kyt'm%%'nt&2ifMa'sisid&O' G i'@ik . . .

J 1 D w in sen h, Ito Q.cf e r less &c)c. m ensidt {4t ru mt oC V

Si+c pf emchs For (M APGoo dtsgo*wooniscom eccOFiedo6Revision: 15

[ Westingh0Use 27 Draft,1997

,  ;= TA %

f 2. Site Characteristics e e

't

/ff sfff // / / f._'

.. '/1 '- --

s ss.. .i,..,p WP" S  ? $/Y $I iM % ,P, y,fpt;+ sal;%%Bni " ~ / .*Yk!' $,315ati<'(w

, "~fdr~,_o,se%is@8oo;;

u.2.2 .~. .-e. _...

1+ - _ -e. s.. c '. : .' . '. :. : J

.. c

~ . . % { _u, so %, y& Q ,~ j

, _& 7 .ka.M's W CA %%

. .r_=. .- <

S: ^.Pf0^ N'.!;3 "-4) k b="-d :C OC I^: C ==3i i: b=28 Of i: 'd iLi~.2^2. -

fr =b=k =d = ! x;d :bn i- Tdk 2 S: :rd=::= fr 1 :_.=b!E:, :f dese.+aes k 5:=4 = 1: i:!;; bz; =:End hbr =d r='d S =tr =d =d nuku;d by Sa P"C

=

9 pt Of 6: C:25!=' L:=;= g/!r:!= 5;;; 2.5 ' par!dn : 5:: dr f= dux::

. puHE x:! .-

E! :px!S: ::n - ;;^ n ' .:rx:::: =dyn , =:y b pic. ' by i- C: i:=d '_!r:n gp5:=: :: i;==== xx; i:S:j. S:n =:.'yn; r='d =: $: :P: : pdc: nn x;di:!:= '!;d:db; .rb::= =i! p=p=:n : x:xd=n rii St-drd ":rk:

P'= 3.'.2) =d in :pn S: n': d::tr :dgd:. S: is: =mp=== :f i: in

pn:E: ;n=d :::= " : '.k::.j :n. =tfy 1: =r&p::; :d -b :f S - ' :d P.:+iew

"'= 3. ' f= i: n;;== :;.x:=r f= t.mp :; rd n Of 2, 3 ', 5 rd "' p;n .: =d i:

=.:bpb; :d:d:: fu p:::: :ps: ' in.:j fux:!= E ;x ::p = x :p x:: = d b ;;d

d pun =n &=."=d '=.7 S 2: :p:!5: 2 :.'3 =: d = !d S = n p r.d :;d =: i:

A 2--

w. w. g . .. ..L.a . . ,f...L. - A ELnn a, 2, . .,,.' L . J L A

/ // / / / '

u eSJh1-...r,a4, n .%

g

/// // / // / ////// /

/ / /

' ' '/ /

/

e / /, ' /// /// ' ///

// / /

i .c --

sr// /s s/. ,

• v.

/ f/

.k is ^/ s s// /

/N

• s' ^ r i / / /// // ' /

floor msponse ctra at 5 reent dampin " " ' - ' " " - ' - " '-- -'--- '-~ '-

______3 / /d} /// / /s / //  ! // / ///,

.....y*--.

/s s/ f is . /s_ / // / //

an'Phpnet ~ / , .

' 4Ihe site is acceptable , f $ampatigns6the floor res nse s etra from the site specific '^ "

=d =: 3 do not exceed the AP600 spectra rden"h5ed- - t,..____

.t__

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

. ro, M sw ;%k sc,.c - . .. ,M 7.....y - -. .. .

g*

Reactor vessel suppon Figure 3.7.217 Sheets 13 O Mg a

Containment operating floor Figure 3.7.217, Sheets 4-6

• Shield building roof Figure 3.7.215 Sheets 7 9 Controlfoom floor Figure 3.7.215 Sheets 13 6

I

• M s O Wy' dw1-{

brefal earth pressures fam(avft/ev 1: ..a :p% f: = .'yr M / k e.6" E h .e"'------^'Jk4 M f2

'blagOfod .

. . e..Li.._. . . . .

x a.r i. . . _. - .'. . er e * - g,p,'sige $ g.. M'/.. p>g, 6 .

^ '- -- ' "^i M hf ail O n'ds acceptable if the lateral canh pressures from the site-specific anal ses do not exceed the e, AP600 design values at any location.'! by =: in 10 prem- * ////

N vaknesWgrvdkTatdd,74f/ hsop'E3@4'f, t g

' \

ess; sf e

.i . .

S.,,,.. .. u/

sr [eu,gse(r.

y u yof.g ue s.pe.ci.5.b.. . .d;. . . . , .so ; macto.s.e,n.neracdon.,6padys.

- , /.... /, / u o, /

. .epmmb

.. k $O$. , *Y N f N 3% N' ofjfic.'shd p'acamcien fGTaMo'2-%/,These '

acetyle/ "' " , ' " ".

bt4To I" *3 Wil Revision: 15 we2 cone mom

Draft,1997 2-8 W Westinghouse

==

i 4

, 2. Site Characteristics

• g'

/

TWMNM  %% Viit .

d

%'MJ s (dn'6

_011>jf p dfMF8st 9 soo d'$ M '"'"c'n$f5WaItc

P'hj

• m . '+}D'6 4'fgeismtc I r.hkids@goXpj6

.* wp M i%%ffdikinMK44664V' ib o+- %

~

c4 2 5.3 n r.4 i.t-< - e e Surface Fa tin Combined License Info ation % J<Lc . Q~

Combined License aphiicants referencing the AP600 cenified design will address surface an subsurface geological and geophysical information including the potential for surface or near-surface faulting affecting the site.

2.5.4 Stability and Uniformity of Subsurface Materials and Foundations I

( 2.5.4.1 Excavation Excavatior. in soil for the nuclear island structures below grade will establish a venical face with lateral suppon of the adjoining undisturbed soil or rock. One altemative is to use a soil nailing method. Soil nailing is a method of retaining earth in-situ. As the nuclear island excavation progresses venically downward, holes are drilled horizontally into the adjoining undisturbed soil, a metal rod is insened into the hole, and grout is pumped into each hole to

{

fill the hole and to anchor the " nail" rod.

As each increment of the nuclear island excavation is completed, nominal eight to ten inch diameter holes are drilled horizontally through the venical face of the excavation into adjacent undisturbed soil. These " nail" holes, spaced horizontally and vertically on five to six feet centers, are drilled slightly downward to the horizontal. A

• nail", normally a metal bar/ rod, l

is center located for the full length of the hole. The nominal length of soil nails are 60 percent j

to 70 percent of the wall height, depending upon soil conditions. The hole is filled with grout  ;

to anchor the rod to the soil. A metal face plate is installed on the exposed end of the rod at I the excavated wall vertical surface. Welded wire mesh is hung on the wall surface for wall I reinforcement and secured to the soil nail face plates for anchorage. A 4,000 psi to 5,000 psi non-expansive pea gravel shoterete mix is blown onto the wire mesh to form a nominal four j

to six inch thick soil retaining wall. Installation of the soil retaining wall closely follows the

{

progress of the excavation and is from the top down, with each wire mesh reinforced, shotereted wall section being supported by the soil " nails" and the preceding elevations of soil nailed wall placements. The shoterete contains a crystalline waterproofing material as g described in subsection 3.4.1.1.1.

)

i

.umucroouiseoen Revision: 25 W85tingh00$8 29 Draft,1997 l

l

2. Site Characteristics

~!

1 Geologically Impacted Site A geologically impacted site as shown on Figure 2.5-4 is one where the bedrock has abrupt facies change or has been interrup.c4. tither by a fault (shear zone) or by an intrusive such as a dike. His leads to the possibility of lateral variation in the bedrock properties affecting soil structure interaction and bearing pressure. Bree subcases are identified. De first type includes an abrupt facies change. He second type has a shear zone of varying width and position. The third case is an intrusive dike of very competent rock compared to the surrounding rock.

- Investigations for a geologically impacted site must define the width of the zone of the higher (or lower) shear wave velocity. He location of the zone of higher (or lower) shear wave velocity must be determined in relation to the center of containment. De azimuths of the bounding postulated vertical planes of the higher (or lower) shear wave vd:ity must he determined.

De zone of the higher (or lower) shear wave velocity is shown in Figure 2.5-4 bounded by non-curvilinear vertical parallel planes. It is recognized that such a situation is highly unlikely in nature. In order to define the width and location of the zone of higher (or lower) shear wave velocity, the spacing of the borings will have to be on the order of 10 feet for a zone with a width of 20 feet. It may be more practical to trench the site to locate and define the dimensions and locations of the intrusive or shear zone, thus climinating many of the borings i

that would  ; wotherwise M r 4 in cfbeNrequired.

s )

2.5.4.5.3 Site Evaluation Criteria 1 b l j

De AP600 is designed for application at a site where the foundation conditions do not have i extreme variation within the nuclear island footprint. His subsection provides criteria for  !

evaluation of soil variability.

The subsurface may consist oflayers and these layers may dip with respect to the horizontal.

l If the dip is less than 20 degrees, the generic analysis using horizontal layers is applicable as i described in NUREG CR-0693 (Reference $48). De physical properties of the foundation

{

medium may or may not vary systematically across a horizontal plane. The recommended methodology for checking uniformity is to calculate from the boring logs a series of "best l

estimate" planes beneath the nuclear island footprint that define the top (and bonom) of each '

layer. He planes could represent stratigraphic boundaries, lithologic changes, unconformities, but most important, they should represent boundaries between layers having different shear wave velocities. Shear wave velocity is the primary property used for defining uniformity of a site.

The distribution of bearing reactions under the basemat is a function of the subgrade modulus which in tum is a function of the shear wave velocity. He Combined License applicant shall j demonstrate that the variation of subgrade modulus or shear wave velocity across the footprint  !

is within the range considered for design of the nuclear island basemat. The farther that the

- l non uniform layer is located below the foundation, the less influence it has on the bearing I i

W85fingt100$8 2 15 Draft,1997 l l

J

< [. *

== <

, 2. Site Characteristics =

e .

. e,

!.l .

I

• Sloping Bedrock Site

/00 Sites where the surface of the sloping bedrock surface is greater than.40' feet below finished grade within the nuclear is~and footprint are acceptable fer the cenified design.

{

.a~. >>

tuR g

~1 analys_ ism te i~ g

• Undulatory Bedrock Site

(*Q Sites where the undulatory rock surface is greater than 80 feet below finished grade within the nuclear island footprint are am~%%r the certified design.wethos addmnnal analysis. W tN^

Geologically Impacted Site g

Sites where the hard rock surfac is greater than 120 feet below finished grade within the nuclear island footprint arp wywW for the cenified design n. ' - ' ' Onal

_ a. . . _J r6 n D 4, - t , w w- -}- L' (w- z __ __4 2.5.4.5.3.1.'.h:=:2 Site SpecificiSubsurface Uniformity Design Basis In addition to the cases provided above, other non-uniform sites are acceptable for the AP600.

^ ; c'::=:: ":$ valuation criteri(en.*4pY,therefore defined to evaluate sites that do not sati

.i the

" !:::d=: :d::d: directi . $'$s' ,

i,i/ v, .

/ /

(' '-

,a ~

/ / >/

g -

evaluauon . viewed as part of the Combined License application.

Rigid Basemat Evaluation A site with nonuniform soil properties may be demonstrated to be acceptable by evaluation of the bearing pressures on the underside of a rigid rectangular basemat equivalent to the nuclear island. Bearing pressures are calculated for dead and safe shutdown canhquake loads.

The safe shutdown canhquake loads used for the evaluation are associated with one of the AP600 design soil cases evaluated for design cenification. 'Ihe soil case representative of the site-specific soil is used. For the site to be acceptable, the bearing pressures from this analysis l

need to be less than or equal to R , ~ " Se bearing pressures calculated in similar analyses for a site having uniform soil propenies.

Alternatively, the safe shutdown earthquake loads may be determined from a site specific l seismic analysis of the nuclear island using site specific inputs' as described in

' subsection 2.5.2.2. For the site to be acceptable, the bearing pressures from the site specific analyses need to be less than or equal to 120 percent of the bearing pressures calculated in rigid basemat analyses using the AP600 design ground motion at a site having uniform

'( soil propenies.

.wue2aouismom Revision: 15 3 Westinghouse 2 17 Draft,1997 i

l

2. Site Characteristics I

( -

Table 21 (Sheet 2 of 2)

SITE PARAMETERS Missiles Tornado 4000 - Ib automobile at 105 mph horizontal. 74 mph vertical l 275 Ib,8 in. shell at 105 mph horizontal,74 mph vertical l

1 inch diameter steel ball at 105 mph horizontal and vertical Flood Level Less than plant elevation l'00'

, Ground Water Level Less than plant elevation 98' Plant Grade Elevation Less than plant elevation 100' except for portion at a higher elevation adjacent to the annex building Precipitation Rair 19.4 in/hr (6.3 in/5 min)

Snow /lce 75 pounds per square foot on ground with exposure factor of 1.0 and importance factors of 1.2 (safety) and 1.0 (non-safety)

Dispersion Values X/Q See subsections 2.3.4 and 2.3.5

,. Population Distribution Exclusion area (site) 0.5 mi N21 set (a) Maximum and minimum safety values are based on historical data and exclude peaks of less than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> duration.

(b) Maximum and minimum normal values are the I percent exceedance magnitudes.

(c) With response spectra Fggfd&as given in Figures 3.7.1 1 and 3.7.12 $4V,##c,fggg($f).

(d) The noncoincident wet bulb. temper able e coolin tower only. .__ _

L

~_

bihS wtO Sodd 17 o Ecg3 or (d55 N ick F C oV Y S'M C-M Mkap cM 15dC fAM&M for 44.R. AP(oeo dcsgt, ccA.Ec h Revision: 15 .S mue2ao.,isatoe97 Draft,1997 2-22 [ Westirigt10USS