ML16340C367

Trip Rept Re 820125-26 Review of Urs/Blume Hosgri Analyses of Auxiliary Bldg,Intake Structure,Containment Polar Crane & Containment Annulus.Info in FSAR (Hosgri Rept),On Which NRC SERs & Suppls Are Based,Is Not Accurate

ML16340C367
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	02/03/1982
From:	Herring K Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML16340C365	List: ML16340C364 ML16340C366 ML16340C367 ML16340C368 ML16341C470
References
NUDOCS 8203090078
Download: ML16340C367 (20)

Text

HEHORANDUll FOR:

Frank Hiraglia, Chief Licensing Branch 3, Division of Licensing, NRR FROH:

K. S. Herring, Systematic Evaluation Program Branch, Division of Licensing, NRR TRIP REPORT.REVIEW OF URS/BLUHE HOSGRI ANALYSES OF THE DIABLO CANYON AUXILIARYBUILDING, INTAKE STRUCTURE, CONTAINHENT POLAR CRANE, AND CONTAINllENT ANNULUS

SUBJECT:

Introduction Review Results Auxiliary Building:

1) 1977 ileight Discrepancy - The Cloud verification effort identified that a significant weight discrepancy of 35K between original Blume and later PG&E analyses existed at elevation 140'.

The Blume calculation book indicated that discrepancies of about

+165, +9.6%, and -3'4X also existed at elevations 163', 115',

and 100', respectively.

The calculation book indicated that the original Blume weights were used in the analyses but gave no basis for this. "

It appears that the 'use of these initial Blume weights in the Blume structural analyses was appropriate and not adequately documented in the i'nitial calculations.

8203090078 820208 PDR ADDGK 05000275 P

PDR Enclosure 1 identified concerns regarding PG&E's apparent failure to properly reflect the results and findings of final reports it received from URS/Blume in the docketed FSAR (Hosgri Report) and its piping, equipment, and component evaluations for the Diablo Canyon Auxiliary Building and Intake Structure.'nclosure 1 also identified a concern over the depth of the PG&E pro'posed Seismic Reverification Program in the structural area with regar'd to the analyses performed by URS/Blume for PG&E.

To gain further insi'ghts into the analyses performed by URS/Blume and the adequacy of"the related information contained in the docketed Hosgri Report, on January 25 and 26, 1982, I conducted a review of the URS/Blume calculation b'ooks for the Hosgri analyses of the 'Diablo Canyon Auxiliary Building, In'take Structure, Containment Polar Crane, and Containment Annulus.

The results of this review are sumtarized below.

II I

URS/Blume personnel stated that they had recently received a

written explanation from PG&E describing that the weight discrepancy was due to an erroneous March 1977 run of the SHERWAL computer program and the lack of consideration of certain weights by"the SHERWAL program.

When a correct SHERWAL run was made, and the appropriate neglected weights were added to the SHERWAL weights, the weights compare well with those used by Blume in its Auxiliary Building analyses (see ).

This was confirmed by PG&E personnel who further indicated that SHERWAL computed weights are used in conjunction with acceleration profiles from Blume's structural analyses to perform structural evaluations of walls. Although there are differences between" the masses used in the SHERWAL analysis, and those actually present, PG&E personnel contended that the SHERWAL analysis results would not be significantly affected.

2)

Elevation 100'oil Spring Omission - Differences in spectra between the Hosgri Report N-S floor spectra for the Auxiliary Building and the final Blume report on the Auxiliary Building were identified by 'Cloud, and afterward found by the NRC to be attributed to an error in the incorporation of the soil spring at elevation 100'f the building model in the preliminary Blume analyses on w'hich the FSAR (Hosgri Report) is based.

This was corrected and included in the analysis on which the final report was ba'sed.

An October, 1978 transmittal from Blume to PG&E regarding a

Blume design review reported this soil spring error but concluded that when the spring is included in the analysis, "...the result leads to higher estimates of responses and is thus conservative."

Rec'e'nt information indicates that this statement is not true with regard to certain of the N-S floor response spectra for the Aux'iliary Building.

The Blume calculati'on book contains results of an evaluation conducted between 1/78 and 5/78 to determine the effects of neglecting the soilspring since this was erroneously omitted in earlier analyses.

The study concluded that the responses in the N-S direction were indeed affected by the presence of the soil spring.

Comparisons of floor spectra with and without inclusion of the soil spring were presented which indicated certain areas of the'loor spectra were greater when the soil spring was included', especially for torsional

response, and certain areas were lower.

The calculation book indicated with no stated basis that this analysis was not used.

The person at Blume who origin'ated the 10/78 transmittal stated that (1) he was not aware of the 1/78-5/78 study and

~,

~ ~

~

I a -

~

1 1

RF

~

a

="

1 I

a pal

~

F

~

~

P P'

F

, I' 11 II P'

IF

~

a

~

I',

Fpvaf

~

1'R

~

V

~"

~

I

~'I V

~

I k ~

'I P

k I

I

'a I

a 1

, a P

1

~ 1

~'I II U

1

~ '

~

I a

'l=

VFF

~

ti R

~

~

~

'I d

FA I

~

I PP 1

F" II 1 ~

~

1

~ ~

V R h l

E

(2) that although his 10/78 conclusions addressed "responses",

he was referring only to building forces and peak structural responses not floor" response spectra.

It appears that this error was caused by'1) inadequate personnel interfaces within Blume, and (2) lack'f sufficient consideration, by Blu'me personnel, of PG&E 'u'se of floor spectra in their piping and equipment evaluatio'ns.

Intake Structure:

Use of Inappropriate Spectra for PG&E Evaluations - All preliminary and the final Blume reports regarding the Intake Structure indicated that the response spectra for the design of equipment at. the rooF level we'e similar to the ground spectra for most areas of the roof. ""No spectra were supplied in these reports and PG&E has used the ground spectra for its evaluations of all areas of the Intake Structure, including the roof.

Spectra at several points at the roof were contained in the Blume calculation book for this structure.

One of these points was at the roof area ab'ove the Auxiliary Saltwater Pumps.

These spectra indicated s'ignificant spectral peaks in the 20-25 Hz

~ange which are not'resent in the ground spectra.

Blume personnel indicated that PG&E had only recently requested these spectra and that Blume was now in the process of peak broadening them for transmittal to PG&E.

The PG&E review of the preliminary an8 final Blume reports on the Intake Structure was not sufficient to detect this issue earlier.

Containment Polar Crane:

1)

Polar Crane Analyses - The docketed FSAR (Hosgri Report) concerning the structural analyses and integrity of the Contain'ment Polar Crane contains the results of the URS/Glume 2-D nonlinear and 3-D linear elastic analyses of the polar crane.

Results of these analyses

('as relied upon by the NRC in Supplement 9

to its SER) indicated that the interaction ratios for stresses in the polar crane members are all less than 1.0; therefore, no overstresses are'redicted.

A later 3-D nonlinear analysis of this crane was performed by URS/Blume and the results provided to PG&E by Blume in a report dated July, 1979.

This latter analysis indicated the potential for interaction r'atios as high as 1.3 in 4'e crane support columns, which is an overstress.

The Bl'ume report concluded that this was acceptable since it was locali'zed and there was only one peak load excursion.

e

~

~

2)

Blume calculations'considered the time phasing of loads and used actual average material properties to evaluate these members in the absence of the normal AISC Code margins.

Also, load time histories'for these members contained in the Blume calculation book indicated that while there was only one peak load excursion, the potential existed for several in the range of 80-90% of the peak.

This analysis was disregarded and not docketed by PGEE regarding the structural integrity analyses.

PGSE personnel indicated that when they received the July 1979 Blume report, a comjrehensive review of the report was not conducted since the Blume conclusion that no modifications to the crane were requi'red was not changed from previous reports.

The PG&E review of 'the July 1979 Blume report was not sufficient to conclude that thi's report demonstrated that the analyses results presented i'n the FSAR were significantly less conservative than those contained therein and, therefore, may warrant further evaluation."'ome Service Crane"; The dome service crane analyses being performed by PGSE incorporate undocketed 3-D nonlinear Polar Crane analyses results which have not been reviewed by the HRC (see above discussi'on of the Polar Crane Analyses).

Containment Annulus Structure'.

1)

Reanalyses Models of the Annulus - The reanalyses of the Annulus that has been performed by Blume incorporate the original analysis model, with mass and stiffnesses revised to reflect the "as-buil't" configuration.

2)

Annulus Spectra for: Use in PG&E Piping and Equipment Evaluations-

.Blume personnel indicated to PGSE that piping and equipment should be evaluated'sing spectra corr'esponding to the "frame" on which it is supported, even when they are located near the center line between connected frames with different responses.

This interconnection is not modeled in the Blume analyses'.

Therefore, this approach is based on consistent application of modeling assumption's.

The adequacy of this model is under detailed NRC review, using an independent NRC contractor's analysis of the Annulus structure.

lf P

P I If

Conclusi on Based upon the results of my.'revtew, as sumarized above and in Enclosure 1,

it is concluded that the information contained in the FSAR (Hosgri Report),

on which the NRC Safety Evaluation Reports and its supplements are based, is not accurate concernin'g the Auxiliary Building, Intak'e Structure, and Containment Pol'ar Crane.

(The information for the Auxiliary Building and Intake Struct:ure "is based upon preliminary Blume repor'ts and certain information was changed in the final Blume reports.

The information concerning the Containment Polar Crane was superceded by later analysis results.)

It'appears that this has been caused primarily by a,lack of thoroughness in 'technical review by PG&E of final URS/Blume reports and the associated analyses';

Another contributor to the problem in the case of the Auxiliary"Buildingappears to be that 1) inadequate personnel interfaces existed'"v>ithin'Blume, and 2)'lume personnel focused considerations primarily on structure forces and peak responses, without sufficient consideration of P'G&E use of floor spectra in their piping and equipment evaluations.

In'ddition, a secondary contributer to the overall problems is Blume's failure to clearly indicate substantative changes between preliminary arid final reports.

Considering the implications "of this review of the URS/Blume analyses, it should be determined to &hat extent similar problems may exist throughout the analyses and evaluations presented in the FSAR (Hosgri Report).

The implications of this problem"can then be assessed.

Origiaa1~< Rf:

Kenneth S. Herring Systematic Evaluation Program Branch Division of Licensing cc:

See next page.

OFFICE/

'SURNAME(

DATEP DL:ESP KSHerring:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ Pa

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

DL' FJ r glia

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2/ 9/82 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ iM ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ t

~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~

NRC FORM 318 IIO/80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL R EGO R D COPY A USGPO: 198~29 824

t I

I It 't

~

t

Docket File 50-LPDR PDR NSIC TERA LBP3 FILE D. Eisenhut R. Purple ST Varga T. Ippolito R. Clark R.

Reid B. J.

Youngblood A. Schwencer F. Hiraglia J.

R. Hiller D. Crutchfield B. Russell D. Vassallo R.

HE Vollmer HE Thompson R. tlattson S.

Hanauer B. Snyder R. Hartfield, HPA OELD 018E (3)

ACRS (16)

H. Denton E.

Case PPAS M. Williams.

E.

Adensam 275/323 Project Hanager BOARD NOTIFICATION DISTRIBUTION J

~

Lee bcc:

W.

V.

E.

H.

R.

J.

J. Dircks Stello Christenbury Shapar Tedesco Stolz

I'

DISTRIBUTION OF. BOARD tlOTIFICATION Diablo Canyon - ASLB Docket Nos. 50-275, 50-323 Atomic Safety and Licensing Panel Atomic Safety and. Licensinq Panel Docketing and Service Sectio Document Management Branch Hrs. Elizabeth.Apfelberq Andrew Baldwin, Esq.

Richard E.

Blankenburg Wayne A. Soroyan Hr. Glenn 0. Bright Herbert H.

Brown, Esq.

Dr. John H.

Buck Philip A. Crane, Jr.,

Esq.

Hr. Frederick Eissler David S. Fleischaker, Esq.

Mrs.

Raye Fleming Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.

Bryon S. Georgiou Hr. Mark Gottlieb Mr. Richard B. Hubbard Dr.

W.

Reed Johnson'anice E. Kerr, Esq.

Lawrence 0. Garcia, Esq.

Dr ~, Jerr'y Kl ine Hr. John Harrs Thomas S. Moore, Esq.

Bruce Norton, Esq.

Joel R. Reynolds, Esq; John R. Phillips, Esq.

Mr. James

0. Schuyler Hr. Gordon Silver Paul C. Valentine, Esq.

Harry M. Willis, Esq.

John F.

Wo1 f, Esq.

Appeal Board ACRS Members Mr. Myer Bender Dr. Hax M. Carbon

'r.

Jesse C. Ebersole Hr. Harold Etherington Dr. Milliam Kerr Dr.

Ha rol d M. Lewis Dr. J.

Carson Ihrk Hr. llilliam M. Hathis Dr.

Dade M. Moeller Or. David Okrent Dr. Milton S. Plesset Hr. Jeremiah J.

Ray Dr. Paul G.

Shewmon Dr. Chester P. Siess Hr. Davis A. Mard Dr. Robert C. Axtmann

I

~

E

,J 4

t

Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush Vice President

- General Counsel Pacific Gas

& Electric Company P.O.

Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 DIABLO CANYON CC:

Philip A. Crane, Jr.,

Esq.

Pacific Gas

& Electric Company P.O.

Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.

California Public Utilities Commission 350 McAl lister Street San Francisco, California 94102 Mr. Frederick Eissler, President Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.

4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara, California 93105 Ms. Elizabeth Apfelberg 1415 Cozadero San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Mr. Gordon A. Silver Ms. Sandra A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Harry M. Willis, Esq.

Seymour

& Willis 601 California Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, California 94 108 Mr. Richard Hubbard MHB Technical Associates Suite K

1723 Hamilton Avenue San

Jose, California 95125 Mr. John Marrs, Managing Editor San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune 1321 Johnson Avenue P.

0.

Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406

)

Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush cc:

Resident Inspector/Diabl o Canyon NPS c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conrnission P. 0. Box 369 Avila Beach, California 93424 Ms.

Raye Fleming 1920 Mattie Road Shell Beach, California 93440 Joel

Reynolds, Esq.

John R. Phillips, Esq.

Center for Law in the Public Interest 10951 West Pico Boulevard Third Floor Los Angeles, California 90064 Paul C. Valentine, Esq.

321 Lytton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94302 Mr. Byron S. Georgiov Legal Affairs Secretary Governor' Office State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.

Hill, Christopher

& Phillips, P.C.

1900 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20036 Mr. Richard E. Blankenburg, Co-Publisher Mr. Wayne A. Soroyan, News Reporter South County Publishing Company P.

0.

Box 460 Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Mr. J ames 0.

Schuyl er Vice President

- Nuclear Generation Department Pacific Gas

& Electric Company P.O.

Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94 120 Bruce Norton, Esq.

Suite 202 3216 North 3rd Street Phoenix, Arizona 85012

I.

I

. Ig

Hr. Malcolm H. Furbush Nr. M. C. Gangloff Mestinghouse Electric Corporation P. 0. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Oavid F. Fleischaker, Esq.

P. 0.

Box 1178 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.

Snell h Milmer 3100 Valley Center

Phoenix, Arizona 85073

~

~

)

C

,F