ML16342B866
| ML16342B866 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1992 |
| From: | Rood H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TAC-M80670, TAC-M80671, NUDOCS 9203270291 | |
| Download: ML16342B866 (76) | |
Text
March 19, 1992 Docket Nos.
50-275 and 50-323 LICENSEE:
FACILITY:
SUBJECT:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2
SUMMARY
OF FEBRUARY 25, 1992 MEETING HELD IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND TO DISCUSS ANALYSIS BY PG&E TO RESOLVE LONG-TERM SEISMIC PROGRAM (LTSP)
CONFIRMATORY ITEM (TAC NOS. M80670 AND M80671)
On February 25,
- 1992, the NRC staff met with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) in Rockvi lie, Maryland to discuss the calculations performed by PG&E to resolve the confirmatory item identified by the NRC staff in its Safety Evaluation Report on the LTSP issued on June 6, 1991 (NUREG-0675, Supplement Number 34).
The meeting was held to give PG&E an opportunity to present the confirmatory analysis that had been submitted by PG&E letter DCL-91-313, dated December 26, 1991, and to answer any questions that the NRC staff had about the analysis.
Attendees at the meeting are listed in Enclosure 1.
The viewgraphs presented by PG&E at the meeting are given in Enclosure 2.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the NRC staff indicated that with the issuance of this meeting summary and its enclosures, sufficient information will have been docketed to allow the staff to prepare a safety evaluation of the LTSP confirmatory item analysis.
Encl osures:
l.
Attendees 2.
PG&E Viewgraphs cc w/enclosures:
See next page Original Signed By:
Harry Rood, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate V
Division of Reactor Projects III/IV/V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTR IBUT ION
, Docket File
- Hwong, RV PDV Reading TMurley/FMiragl JPartlow BBoger MVirgi1i o TQuay ia HRood DFos ter CRegan OGC ACRS (10)
EJordan SShankman RC
& Local GBagchi RRothman RPichumani NChokshi RZimmerman, RV PMorrill, RV PDRs DRPM/PD L
DFoster 03/(i /92 DRPlf 5/PM HRood 03/i]/92 92032702'RP1 92031'3P PDR ADOCK 05000275 P
PDR Viipra pq r; r,,:2'-,;= ~ /"pqOagr DRPW/P D~
IIL'dDUI' i.':.iu'.,.,P.:,.
I mull U TQua 03/[I/92 Fc l
44,
~
pl jee (g
~
II
't
/
'(
W I I L jj I I
tl
\\
Et Wt I 1 'I W
I A
~
vtt lv I
eE f7Wfl j '
~
'. fw.>
3 Ill. 'f l I I
'I Ill f Wl te lt
)II I" I IJ II 4
r,3l*
r e
I*
44 Ee W-
~
WWt I E
I 4
~
>>I Il tl II W...
I I
I jlWE
'I I
.rP I'wjjfvjw*w."lr Uwf W'
f
'CE
~:fJZW f'w" f',W E.P r I
I'
~
I W
W I
4 4
I i'l!,lf.w r
rWI.I
'j,f;jj~ ~$ "
..Wj~l>>, f I
4 I
I P)
I E.
UWe>>t E
t
~
l" 4 U
4 I I,
4 I
I
- 4 I'
r
\\4 W
"'II1wf,ff
~ 'E'"II
~ E Ee I
y ~8 REoy, tp
+ ~
0 Cy
- 0O r+
o'**++
Docket Nos.
50-275 and 50-323 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Yarch 19, 1992 LICENSEE:
FACILITY:
SUBJECT Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2
SUMMARY
OF FEBRUARY 25, 1992 MEETING HELD IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND TO DISCUSS ANALYSIS BY PG&E TO RESOLVE LONG-TERN SEISMIC PROGRAM (LTSP)
CONFIRMATORY ITEM (TAC NOS.
M80670 AND M80671)
On February 25, 1992, the NRC staff met with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) in Rockville, Maryland to discuss the calculations performed by PG&E to resolve the confirmatory item identified by the NRC staff in its Safety Evaluation Report on the LTSP issued on June 6,
1991 (NUREG-0675, Supplement Number 34).
The meeting was held to give PG&E an opportunity to present the confirmatory analysis that had been submitted by PG&E letter DCL-91-313, dated December 26,
- 1991, and to answer any questions that the NRC staff had about the analysis.
Attendees at the meeting are listed in Enclosure 1.
The viewgraphs presented by PG&E at the meeting are given in Enclosure 2.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the NRC staff indicated that with the issuance of this meeting summary and its enclosures, sufficient information will have been docketed to allow the staff to prepare a safety evaluation of the LTSP confirmatory item analysis.
Encl osures:
1.
Attendees 2.
PG&E Viewgraphs cc w/enclosures:
See next page Harry Roo
, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate V
Division of Reactor Projects III/IV/V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
k
~
ll I
l
~
~
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon CC Regional Administrator, Region V
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Mr. Peter H. Kaufman Deputy Attorney General State of California 110 West A Street, Suite 700 San Diego, California 92101 NRC Resident Inspector Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0.
Box 369 Avila Beach, California 93424 Richard F. Locke, Esq.
Pacific Gas 5 Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Mr. John Hickman Senior Health Physicist Environmental Radioactive Mgmt. Unit Environmental Management Branch State Department of Health Services 714 P Street, Room 616 Sacramento, California 95814 Michael M. Strumwasser, Esq.
Special Assistant Attorney General State of California Department of Justice 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Room 800 Los Angeles, California 90010 Managing Editor The Count Tele mm Tribune o nson venue P. 0.
Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Chairman San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Room 370 County Government Center San Luis Obispo, California 93408 Ms. Sandra A. Silver Mothers for Peace 660 Granite Creek Road Santa Cruz, California 95065 Dr. R. B. Ferguson, Energy Chair Sierra Club California 6715 Roc'anyon
- Creston, California 93432 Ms. Nancy Culver 192 Luneta Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Ms. Jacquelyn C. Wheeler 3303 Barranca Court San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Mr. Gregory M. Rueger Senior Vice President and General Manager Nuclear Power Generation Business Unit Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Room 1451 San Francisco, CA 94106
l pr
ENCLOSURE 1
Attendees February 25, 1992 Meeting to discuss LTSP confirmatory item analysis NAME G.
Bagcgg7 S. Bhattacharya N. Chokshi L. Cluff B. Norton D. Ovadia R. Pichumani H. Rood R.
Rothman B. Sarkar ORGANIZATION E%B PG&E NRC/RES/SSEB
'G&E PG&E consultant PG&E NRC/NRR/DET/ESGB NRC/NRR/DRPM/PDS NRC/NRR/DET/ESGB PG&E/Bechtel
I
ENCLOSURE 2
Viewgraphs Presented by PGIIE February 25, 1992 Yieeting to discuss LTSP confirmatory item analysis
l
DIABLOCANYON LONG TERM SEISMIC PROGRAM CONFIRMATORYANALYSIS NRC/PGSE - FEBRUARY 25, 1992 ROCKVILLE,MARYLAND
~ e
DIABLOCANYON LONG TERM SEISMIC PROGRAM Meeting Between NRC Staff and PG8E on Confirmatory Analysis Februar 25 1992 at Rockville Md.
AcCenda 8:00 a.m.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY NRC STAFF AND PGB E 8:15 a.m.
PRESENTATION BY PG8 E STAFF INTRODUCTION Comparison of LTSP with SSER 34 spectra 4
STRUCTURES AND COMPONENTS EVALUATED FOR CONFIRMATORYANALYSIS
- Horizontal Motion
- Vertical Motion (10 min)
(15 min)
NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF ROOF AND FLOOR SYSTEMS (2 hrs)
EVALUATIONOF SEISMIC MARGINS
- Equipment/Components
- Structural Elements
- Displacement of Floor Slabs and Seismic Margin (30 min)
~
CONCLUSIONS 11:30 a.m.
NRC STAFF CAUCUS 12:00 P.M.
EXIT MEETING
~ 4 I(
2 C0 dlOO CO CO O
EQo.
1 M
~ LTSP,84th Percentile LTSP, Median SSER 34, 84th Percentile
+
SSER 34, Median 5% Damping 0.1 10 Frequency (Hz) 100 Site-Specific Horizontal Ground Motion Response Spectra (Significant Equipment/Component Frequencies)
I N
co 2 0
I 4)
OO Eg L
O C) 1 tO
~
LTSP, 84th Percentile LTSP, Median SSER 34, 84th Percentile
+
SSER 34, Mediqn 5% Damping
+
0 o
+
0.1 10 Frequency (Hz) 100 Site-Specific Horizontal Ground Motion Response Spectra (Significant Structural Frequencies)
l
zo 2
C0 I
OO CO CO a.
M
~ LTSP V/H Ratio, 84th Percentiie 5% Damping LTSP V/H Ratio, Median LTSP Regression, 84th Percentile
+
LTSP Regression, Median SSER 34 0o e
r t
0 0
0.1 Frequency (Hz) 10 100 Site-Specific Vertical Ground Motion Response Spectra (Significant Equipment/Component Frequencies)
~ LTSP V/8 Ratio, 84th Percentile 5% Damping
LTSP V/H Ratio, Median o) 2 CQ I
ID OO
<0 lU a.
1 CO t.TSP Regression, 84th Percentile
+
LTSP Regression, Median SSER 34 Po e
0 0
0.1 Frequency (Hz) 10 100 J
Site-Specific Vertical Ground Motion Response Spectra (Significant Structural Frequencies)
STRUCTURES AND COMPONENTS EVALUATEDFOR CON FIRMATORYANALYSIS HORIZONTALDIRECTION Equipment/Components None affected Structure(s) Evaluated REFUELING WATER STORAGE TANK
E
STRUCTURES AND COMPONENTS EVALUATEDFOR CONFIRMATORYANALYSIS (Continued)
VERTICALDIRECTION Equipment/Component EvaIuated NSSS PIPING MAINSTEAM PORV DIESEL GENERATOR FUEL OIL DAYTANK 4.16 kV SWITCHGEAR 4.16 kV POTENTIALTRANSFORMER SAFEGUARD RELAY PANEL IMPULSE LINES BALANCEOF PLANT PIPING & SUPPORTS CONDUITS, CABLE TRAYS, AND SUPPORTS
STRUCTURES AND COMPONENTS EVALUATEDFOR CONFIRMATORYANALYSIS (Continuedj VERTICALDIRECTION (Continued)
Structures Evaluated CONTROL ROOM ROOF SLAB (Auxiliary Building El. 163')
4.16kV SWITCHGEAR FLOOR SLAB (Turbine Bldg. El. 119')
PIPEWAY STRUCTURE FUEL HANDLINGBUILDINGCRANE
t
NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF ROOF AND FLOOR SYSTEMS
r
OBJECTIVE Development of a procedure for estimating inelastic energy absorption factor (F)
~ 0 I
ANALYSIS PARAMETERS
~ Input motion: LTSP 1988 vertical
~ Model: Single degree of freedom system with 4 Hz and 7 Hz elastic frequencies
~ Gravity load: Cases with no gravity load and gravity load = 30% of yield strength of spring
~ Force-Displacement:
Bi-linear with second stiffness = 0.03 X Initial
~ Target ductilities: 2, 5, and 3 0
0.400 0.200 CO 0
'0 0.000 O
-0.200
-0.400 0.00 5.00 10.00 Time (sec.)
15.00 Input Time History Used in the Nonlinear Analysis
~ ~
10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Response
Spectrum of the Input Time History
I ~
1a) Vertical model 1b) Horizontal model Force Py 0.03K Displacement 0.03K 1c) Force<e(ormation relationship Models Used in the Nonlinear Analysis
~ ~
I
11.0 7.0 c
3.0 E
0.0 CL o
-3.0
-7.0
-11.0 0.00 5.00 10.00 Time (sec.)
15.00 20.00 Response Time History for the Case with Dead Load Equal to 30 Percent Yield
n strong motion cycles Py Pdy (P-t) hy p-1
+h Ductlllty per cycle =
n
~
hy Effective ductility,
~ l ~~ t~+ l e
n Effective Ductility Considering Multiple Strong Motion Cycles
~ ~
Ductility,p Yield FS 4 Hz Model Ultimate FS F
Yield FS 7 Hz Model Ultimate FS No Dead Load 4.83 8.52 1.76 17.77 3.68 3.78 8.57 2.27 10 Dead Load E ual to 30 Percent Py 10 3.71 3.71 3.71 529 1 43 8.27 2.23 18.22 4.91 3.03 3.03 3.03 4.09 5.55 9.16 1.35 1.83 3.02 Scale Factor for No Dead Load and Dead Load Cases
NONLINEARANALYSISOF ROOF AND FLOOR SYSTEMS
~
ADJUST FOR RATCHET IN G (n
3)
~
FOR A GIVEN Ductility factor
~
COMPUTE INELASTIC ENERGY ABSORPTION FACTOR (Velocity Region Equation) 0.61 1
F
= (2.24 P 1.24)
(Acceleration Region Equation) 0.41 1 F
= (2.67p 1.67)
P e
t
Frequency (Hz)
Target Ductility V
Nonlinear Analysis*
Velocity Region Acceleration Region Geometric Mean Ductility Scale
- Factor, F
Modified Riddell-Newmark Method (n =3) 1.43 1.41 1.30 1.35 2.23 2.33 1.87 2.09 2.29 2.33 1.87 2.09 10 4.91 3.49 2.47 2.94 1.35 1.41 1.30 1.35 1.83 2.33 1.87 2.09 1.92 2.33 1.8?
2.09 10 3.02 349 2.47 2.94
- Dead load equal to 30 percent Py
- Denotes case where the input time history is applied with a reverse sign.
Comparison of Nonlinear Analysis Results with Modified Riddel-Newmark Method
NONLINEARANALYSISOF ROOF AND FLOOR SYSTEMS CONCLUSIONS Modified Riddell - Network procedure with n = 3 is valid for-LTSP ground motion and dead load in the range of 30% of yield strength.
Use Riddell-Newmark equations to determine inelastic energy absorption factor:
~
Velocity region equation for systems with fundamental frequency of about 4 Hz
~
Geometric mean of velocity and acceleration region equations for systems with fundamental frequency from about 7 to 9
Hz
I ~
EFFECT OF INCREASE OF SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS SHOWN IN SSER 34 FRAGILITIES OF AFFECTED EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS (Based on Hazard Defined as Average Over 3 to 5 Hertz Range)
SPECTRAL ACCELERATlON CAPACITY EQUIP MENT/COMPONENT NSSS Piping VERTICAL FREQUENCY (Hz) 7-9 S
(g)
S (g) 10.0 SSER 34 8u HCLPF (g)
Main Steam PORV Diesel Generator Fuel Oil Day Tank Piping 10-20 10.4 11.50
> 10.0 0.34 0.38 3.51 10.0 Unchanged 4.16 kV Switchgear 4.16 kV Potential Transformer Safeguard Relay Panel Impulse Lines 33 33 33 5-20 3.53
> 10.0 10.76 7.09 0.35 0.34 0.28 0.25 0.36 0.32 1.31 3.39 2.63 3.06 0.35 0.25 10.0 10.70 0.34 0.36 Unchanged 1.14 3.37 Balance of Plant Piping and Supports Conduits, Cable Trays, and Supports 6-20 6-35 11.03
> 10.0 0.40 0.39 3.00 10.34 10.0 0.40 0.38 2.85 Equipment supported on vertically flexible floor slab having vertical frequency less than 10 hertz Note: Spectral Acceleration Demand:
S,3.85 1.94 g
SEISMIC MARGIN FACTOR VS. DISPLACEMENT SEISMIC MARGIN FACTOR.
FS I
FSE X
F
~
KN OWN DATA:
FS 2 Elastic scale factor Yield displacement FOR A GIVEN
~ U Ductility factor
~
ADJUST FOR RATCHETIN6 (n
3)
~
COMPUTE INELASTIC ENERGY ABSORPTION FACTOR (Velocity Region Equation) 0.61 1
F
= (2.24 P 1.24)
(Acceleration Region Equation) 0.41 1
F
= (2.67p, 1.67}
P e
1
II
52'- 6" Q5 Key Plan Critical strip ol slab
, Ir,=
II LL 17 18 QJ
-sr Auxiliary Building Control Room Roof Slab
J
3.0 2.0 0
1.64 C
CO C$
E O
E 1.0 Cl Existing seismic margin factor for AuxiliaryBuilding 10 Displacement near midspan ( in.)
Displacement Near Midspan of Control Room Roof Slab Vs. Siesmic Margin Factor
FS
=
0 92
~
KN OWN DATA:
EXAMPLE CONTROL ROOM ROOF SLAB (CDFM Capacities)
I Elastic scale factor 4y
= 1.27" Yield displacement GIVEN 5
= 4" U
p,
=
= 3.35 Ductility factor
~
ADJUST FOR RATCHETING (n
=
3)
(s
-1) p
+1
=
1.72 e
n 0.61 1
~
COMPUTE INELASTlC F
= (2.24 P l.24)
=
1.80 ENERGY ABSORPTiON FACTOR (Velocity Region Equation)
~
. COMPUTE SEISMIC MARGIN FACTOR FS,
=
FS E X
F
=
1.66
EXAMPLE CONTROL ROOM ROOF SLAB (Using Best Estimate Capacities)
KNOWN DATA:
FS
=
3 46 Ay
.= 3.94" Elas tie scale factor Yield displacement
~
GIVEN 6
= 2.5" p
=
=
1.29 Ductility factor
~
ADJUST FOR RATCHETING (n
=
3)
(S
-1) p
+1
=
1.10 e
n 0.61 1
~
COMPUTE INELASTIC F= (2.24 IJ.
1.24)
=
1.13 ENERGY ABSORPTION FACTOR (Velocity Region Equation)
~
COMP UTE SEISMIC MARGIN FACTOR FS, FS E X
F
= 164
S
CONTROL ROOM ROOF SLAB DISPLACEMENT
~
Using CDFlVI capacity and a ground motion equal to SSER 34 input motion, the predicted displacement is 3.4 inches
~
Using CDFM capacity and a ground motion equal to 1.64 x SSER 34 input motion, the predicted displacement is 4 inches
~
Using best estimate capacity and a
ground motion equal to 1.64 x SSER 34 input motion, the predicted displacement is 2.5 inches
~ Displacement is much less than the ACI Code capacity limitof 11 inches
(\\
1' 0
G Cl CO V
8-T-Controlling Beams t
1 D6 D
1 QD.
0 = Masonry wall column linking elevation 119 ft.
~
and 140 ft. floors.
4.16 kV Switchgear Turbine Building 4k'I/ Switchgear Floor Partial Plan
~ <
~
~
Beam at Q3 Cenler line of switch gear location o
20 C
CO CO E
O E
1.5 Beam at Q2 1.0 1.0 2.0 Displacement (in.}
3.0 4.0 Displacement of Floor Beams Vs. Seismic Margin Factor (Total Displacement Including Dead Load Displacement)
2.5 Le 2.0 C
CO I
Cg E
O E
1.5 Beam at Q3 Center line of switch gear location Beam at Q2 1.0 1.0 2.0 Displacement (in.)
3.0 4.0 Displacement of Floor Beams Vs. Seismic Margin Factor (Additional Displacement Beyond Dead Load Displacement)
~ ~
EFFECT OF INCREASE OF SPEGTRAL ACCELERATIONS SHOWN IN SSER 34 CAPACITIES OF AFFECTED STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS (Based on Hazard Defined as Average Over 3 to 5 Hertz Range)
STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS Control Room Roof Stab CAPACITY S. (g)
> 3.18 SElSMlC MARGlN FACTOR
> 1.64 Turbine Building Floor Elevation 119 feet
> 2.81
> 1.45 Fuel Handling Building Crane 2.62 1.35 Pipeway Structure
> 3.41
> 1.76
~ 4
CONCLUSIONS
~
Postulated increases can be accomodated by seismic margin in existing design
~ Conclusions of the probabilistic risk assessment described in LTSP Final Report are not affected