ML16341F677
| ML16341F677 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1990 |
| From: | Rood H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Shiffer J PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-55305, TAC-68049, NUDOCS 9005010164 | |
| Download: ML16341F677 (12) | |
Text
April 27, 1990 Docket Nos.
50-275 and 50-323 Mr. J.
D. Shiffer, Vice President Nuclear Power Generation c/o Nuclear Power Generation, Licensing Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Room 1451 San Francisco, California 94106
Dear Mr. Shiffer:
D ISTRI BUTION ocet 1 eD NRC 5 LPDR PD5 Reading JZwo1ins ki JLarkins HRood PShea OGC RPichumani RRothman GBagchi ACRS (10)
SUBJECT:
RE(VEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATING TO SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ASPECTS OF THE NRC STAFF REVIEW OF THE DIABLO CANYON LONG TERM SEISMIC PROGRAM (LTSP)
(TAC NOS.
55305 AND 68049)
Enclosed is a request for additional information relating to soil-structure interaction (SSI) at Diablo Canyon.
These questions were raised by the NRC staff and its consultants at the SSI meeting held on November 2-3, 1989 in San Francisco.
In a letter dated January 19, 1990 the staff forwarded two letters by NRC consultants (Professors Costantino and Veletsos) giving their comments on the November 2-3, 1989 meeting.
To more explicitly define the SSI issues, the enclosure to this letter lists and amplifies the questions discussed at the November 1989 SSI meeting.
In order to maintain our review schedule, we request that you respond to the enclosed request for additional information by June 15, 1990.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me.
S incere ly,
Enclosures:
as stated cc w/encl:
See next page RSP/PD5:PM
- (A)D HRood J
ns 04/26/90 04'/90 original signed by Harry Rood Harry Rood, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate V
Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 9005010164 900427 PDR ADOCK 05000275 P
~
~
I
~PR RECIj
+
~
0 A.
~L OO 0."
/p ~**++
Docket Nos.
50-275 and 50-323 UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 April 27, 1990 Mr. J.
D. Shiffer, Vice President Nuclear Power Generation c/o Nuclear Power Generation, Licensing Pacific.-Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Room 1451 San Francisco, California 94106
Dear Mr. Shiffer:
SUBJECT:
RE(VEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATING TO SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ASPECTS OF THE NRC STAFF REVIEW OF THE DIABLO CANYON LONG TERM SEISMIC PROGRAM (LTSP)
(TAC NOS.
55305 AND 68049)
Enclosed is a request for additional information relating to soil-structure interaction (SSI) at Diablo Canyon.
These questions were raised by the NRC staff and its consultants at the SSI meeting held on November 2-3, 1989 in San Francisco.
In a letter dated January 19, 1990 the staff forwarded two letters by NRC consultants (Professors Costantino and Veletsos) giving their comments on the November 2-3, 1989 meeting.
To more explicitly define the SSI issues, the enclosure to this letter lists and amplifies the questions discussed at the November 1989 SSI meeting.
In order to maintain our review schedule, we request that you respond to the enclosed request for additional information by June 15, 1990.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me.
S in cere ly,
Enclosures:
as stated cc w/encl:
See next page Harry Rood, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate V
Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
0
~ p
ENCLOSURE 1
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION (SSI)
INFORMATION DIABLO CANYON LONG TERM SEISMIC PROGRAM With reference to your response to Question 21 (submitted by PG&E letter dated February 6, 1989), provide further clarifications on the specific frequency ranges over which the Diablo Canyon site-specific SSI response calculations are valid, that is, the highest frequency limits below which the SSI calculations are adequate in accordance with the numerical and modelling criteria stated in the program manuals of the SASSI program used for the calculations.
With reference to your response to Question 26 (submitted by PG&E letter dated February 6, 1989), provide further clarifications on whether the effects of base slap-down following a base uplift have been considered in the containment base uplift seismic response calculations.
With reference to your response to Question 26 (submitted by PG&E letter dated February 6, 1989), provide further explanations on the effects of containment base uplift on the plant fragility analysis at the site spectral acceleration levels higher than the level considered in the site-specific containment base uplift response analysis.
With reference to your response to Question 27 (submitted by PG&E letter dated February 6, 1989), you indicated that in the six sets of uplift calculations
- made, the effects of small perturbations in the time phasing between horizontal and vertical input motions on potential uplift effects and equipment support point spectra were included.
Amplify your response indicating the perturbations considered in the six sets of calculations, and their effects.
With reference to your response to Question 28 (submitted by PG&E letter dated February 6, 1989), provide further explanations on your justification that the differences between the three suites of input seismic motions used for the lift-offcalculations and the site-specific inputs defined and used for the remainder of the SSI study, are small.
Provide indications of the degrees of reduction of seismic input motions due to depth of foundation embedment considered in the Diablo Canyon s ite-speci fic SS I response ca 1 cu1 ations.
On pages 4-48 and 4-51 of the LTSP Final Report, it is stated that discrepancies in the energy content of the numerically generated ground motions noted at the low frequency range (below 3 Hz) are unimportant.
However, the Final Report shows that the frequency of the building with the lowest safety margin (the turbine building) is shifted down to approximately 1
Hz as a result of nonlinear effects.
Determine the sensitivity of the turbine building safety margin to low frequency spectral accelerations, and assess the impact of low-frequency energy content discrepancies on the turbine building safety margin.
In the comparisons of basemat response spectra presented in Figures 7-20 through 7-29 of the Final Report are the Hosgri evaluation spectra the same as the "qualification basis" spectra referred to on page 7-1 of the Report?
If not, are they higher or lower than 'the latter spectra?
0 0
ld r
9.
The 84th percentile site-specific response spectra exceed the Hosgri evaluation spectra by a substantial amount in all the building structures.
Explain the significance of these exceedances.
10.
Although not specifically stated, the equipment damping for the floor response spectra presented in Figures 7-30 through 7-38 of the Final Report appears to be 5 percent critical damping.
Explain why this damping value is appropriate for all equipment items involved.
11.
The peak values of the seismic qualification basis floor response spectra in Figures 7-30 and 7-31 of the Final Report are approximately twice as large as those for the 84th percentile site-specific spectra.
Do both sets of spectra refer to the same amount of damping, and if so what is the source of this difference?
12.
Despite the fact that the 84th percentile site-specific LTSP basemat response spectrum for the turbine building in Figure 7-29 of the Final Report is substantially higher than that for the Hosgri reevaluation
- spectrum, the opposite is true of the corresponding floor response spectra displayed in Figure 7-39.
What is the reason for this difference?
Are both sets of spectra for the same structural and equipment damping values?
If not, why not?
13.
Explain the term peak-and-valley variabi lity of response spectra referred to on page 7-46 of the Final Report.
14.
Discuss the significant differences between Plant Seismic gualification methodology and Long Term Seismic Program assessments for evaluation of plant structures and equipment.
15.
Provide copies of the reports by W. S. Tseng and D.
W. Wing entitled "Seismic Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis with Basemat Uplift",
Theoretical Manual and Verification Manual, Revision 1, Computer Program CE444, Bechtel Power Corporation, July 1984.
16.
(a)
Provide a summary of the pertinent input and output data that demonstrate the final results of deconvolution analyses performed using the SHAKE and the SASSI programs.
(b)
Discuss and document the adequacy of using the SHAKE results for the strain-dependent material properties in the SASSI program in view of the differences in the analysis procedures adopted in these two programs.
WP
Mr. J.
D. Shiffer Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon CC:
Richard F. Locke, Esq.
Pacific Gas 8 Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Franci sco, Ca 1 ifornia 94120 Ms. Sandra A. Silver 660 Granite Creek Road Santa Cruz, California 95065 Mr. Peter H. Kaufman Deputy Attorney General State of California 110 West A Street, Suite 700 San Diego, California 92101 Managing Editor The Count Tele ram Tribune o nson venue P.
0.
Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Ms.
Nancy Culver 192 Luneta Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Regional Administrator, Region V
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, Californi a 94596 Mr. John Hickman Seni or Hea 1th Phys icist Environmental Radioactive Mgmt. Unit Environmental Management Branch State Department of Health Services 714 P Street, Room 616 Sacramento, California 95814 NRC Resident Inspector Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0.
Box 369 Avila Beach, California 93424 Bruce Norton, Esq.
c/o Richard F. Locke, Esq.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Dr.
R.
B. Ferguson Sierra Club - Santa Lucia Chapter Rocky Canyon Star Route
- Creston, California 93432 Chairman San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Room 270 County Government Center San Luis Obispo, California 93408 Michael M. Strumwasser, Esq.
Special Assistant Attorney General State of California Department of Justice 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Room 800 Los Angeles, California 90010
'b V
sV+
0 j Mr. J.
D. Shiffer Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Long Term Seismic Program CC:
Dr. Keiiti Aki Department of Geological Sciences University Park Univers ity of Southern Ca 1 ifor ni a Los Angeles, California 90089-0741 Dr. Ralph J. Archuleta Department of Geological Sciences University of California Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, California 93106 Dr. Robert D. Brown, Jr.
U.S. Geological Survey Mail Stop 977 345 Middlefield Road Menlo Park, California 94025 Dr. David B. Slemmons 2905 Autumn Haze Lane Las Vegas, Nevada 89117 Dr. Robert Fitzpatrick Bui lding 130 Brookhaven National Laboratory
- Upton, New York 11973 Dr. Steven M. Day Department of Geological Science San Diego State University San Diego, California 92182 Dr. James Johnson EQE 595 Market St., 18th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Dr. Jean Savy Mail Code L-196 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P. 0.
Box 808 Livermore, California 94550 Dr. Anestis S. Veletsos 5211 Paisley Avenue
- Houston, Texas 77096 Dr. Kenneth Campbell Dames and Moore 27728 Whirlaway Trai I Evergreen, Colorado 80439 Dr. C. J. Costantino Bui lding 129 Broo khaven Nationa l Laboratory
- Upton, New York 11973 Dr. M. K. Ravindra EQE 3150 Bristol Street, Suite 350 Costa
- Mesa, Ca 1 ifor nia 92626 Dr. Michael Bohn Organization 6412 Sandia National Laboratory Post Office Box 5800 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 Dr. James Davis Division of Mines and Geology 660 Bercut Drive Sacramento California 95814 Dr. Morris Reich Building 129 Broo khaven Na tiona I Laboratory
- Upton, New York 11973
C A ~e
@if I