ML19246B143

Transcript of 790628 Public Meeting in Washington,Dc Re Seismic Design Capability of Operating Reactors & Responses to IE Bulletin on Seismic Analysis.Pp 1-41

ML19246B143
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/28/1979
From:	Gilinsky V, Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7907120499
Download: ML19246B143 (42)

Text

.

r

/

N U CLE A R RE G U L/sTO RY CO MMIS SI O N

\\'

IN THE MATTER OF:

PUBLIC MEETING BRIEFING ON SEISMIC DESIGN CAPABILITY OF OPERATING REAC"0RS AND PESPCNSES TO OIE BULLETING CN SEISMIC ANALYSIS

(

Place -

Washington, D.

C.

Date.

Thursday, 28 June 1979 Pages 1_.t1 7 2.ew.:

J j;;,

(:::::ca :o v

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.

Offici11Reponers Lt t North C:citel Street Wcshingten. O.C. 20C01

( ll T NATICNWIDE COV? RAGE DAILY l-

7 907120 h 7 }

,s 1

2R5 6 4 3 DISCLAIMIR This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Ncclear Regulatory Cc= mission held on Thursday, 2 8 Jane 19 79 in the Commissions's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W.,

Washington, D.

C.

Ihe meeting was open to public attendance and observation.

.'" i s transcrip:

has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.

The transcript is intended solely for general informational

c. u r o. c s e s.

As c.revided bv'10 CTR 9.103, it is net part of the formal or infernal record of decision of the matters discussed.

Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations er beliefs.

No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Cc= mission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement er argn=ent contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.

s,--

p6 k,,S) a' v,QN Da O$

i)T)~'l..f4

\\

%g o

e

' Y.i

2 e

i i

i CR56 43 1'I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4

1 2

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN 3

i 4

l i

1 5

PUBLIC MEETING 1

l t

l 6'

BRIEFING ON SEISMIC CESIGN CAPABILITY OF OPERATING 7

REACTORS AND RESPONSES TO OIE BULLETIN CN SEISMIC ANALYSIS t

8' 9

10 l Rocm 1130 1717 H Street, N.

W.

11.

Washingten, D.

C.

i 12 :

Thursday, 28 June 1979

(

l s

13 {

The Cecnission men, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m.

l I

t la I SEFORE:

i 15 l DR. JOSEPH M.

HENDRIE, Chairman 16 E CTOR GILT.iSKY, Cet liusicner 17 ALSO PRESENT:

13 Messrs. Gossick, C as e, Rathbun, Russell, Eisenhut, and 19 Rothschild.

20 21 22 23 24

.tc..;.c.,o n eco,.n. w.

25 O

),

N.

3 i

R 5643 i

iHITLCCK l

I

-l mte 1 11 P ROCEEDINGS i

l 21 (9:45 a.m.)

3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Let's go ahead.

l 4 '!

I find that our colleagues are ill this morninc.

I i

l i

5' am not sure whether I have infected them with mv late illnesses i i

i.

i 6!

or whether scme member of the staff has assaulted them with i

i 7

his or her diseases.

But we hope they will be back with us 8,

scen.

At any rate, they won' t make it this =crninc..

l i

I 9

We have this morning a briefing on seismic design 10 capability of operating reactors and responses to OIE bulletin 11 on seismic analysis, which may spread and talk about a number 12 of associated matters.

i 13 '

Lee, go ahead.

h 14,

MR. GCSSICK:

All right, Mr. Chairman.

I i

4 15 i Darrell Eisenhut will go ahead with the briefing.

L i

16 '

MR. EISENHUT:

Thank you.

I 17 !

What we would lake to do tcday is sum =arize all of 13,

the different seismic aspects that are going on and give you 19 a status report, where we are and where we are going in the 20 future.

21 If I could have the first slide.

22 (Slide.)

1 3

23 This is a graphic illus tration to summari:e all of 24 the different aspects that are under way that we are ~cing to Acs Kedefst R ecor*ars, Inc.

23 '

be talkinc ahcut.

What we would like to do, the six items at I

~

F)

(',,"

I'i l

ate ' 2 4

l l

t I

l' the top will be summarizing what we have talked to you about l

2i in the cast. 79-02, 7}-04, we talked about before.

These are i

3ll two of the I&E bulletins that went out.

We will briefly sum-r I.

4!

marize what

• hey are.

We will give you a summary of the status i

I l

5j on 79-07, the algebraic summation, a tulletin that resulted I

6l also -- that resulted in the five-plant shutdown.

I 7

You will recall that af ter we met and discussed l

8 Maine Yankee and return to pcwer, there was an cpen issue i

l i

9i hanging where we said we would be continuing to lcok at Maine i

l l

10 '

Yankee to decide if any future acticn was necessary.

We added Il the SEP to this list because the SEP represents 11 of the oldest l

12 plants in the U.S., and in fact there is a seis..ic review that 13 l has been under way on these plants new for about a year. There I

i 14 is some feedback ccming out of these plants that we are trying l i

i i

15 to factor into cur overall, what I call game plan.

16 And you will also recall we had recently a UCS 17 petition c seismic reanalysis that has been sent in.

This i

18 is about a conth old new.

19 Related activities we will also be talking about are 20 rvo research prcgrams, really, cne with NRR that has been sent 21 to Research for ranaging.

These are basically shcrt-term and 22 long-term seismic ccnservatism prcgrams.

23 Task Action Plan A-40 was a shcrt-tern program 24 meant to addresa certain selected issues.

It is basically a

'CS-EW6f ai A tocr*ert, IPC,

+

25 !

program that Cperating Reactor Grcup started two or three years,

r

.3 i

,.)U

's

t i

nte 3 i

o l

r i

I I

1' that is being wrapped up.

It selected specific issues on 1

l 2

seismic conservatisms.

l 3

MR. CASE:

It is one of the unresolved safety issues.

l.

4 MR. EISENHUT:

Yes, it is one of the unresolved 5!

safety issues.

i l

l 6l The SSMRP is the seismic safety marc.in review program.;

i 7l That is Research's answer to a request that NRR sent to Research!

or a cread variety or seismic aspects.

.; t is a program being 8}'

l 9

administered and run out of Research.

It is a multi-year i

1 10 ;

program, multi-million dollar program.

l l

11 Then we will generally discuss the seis=ic game plan, i 12 which is sort of conceptual at this point, and different I

13 ;

aspects under that program, in summary.

I 14 j Bill Russell, who has been sort of the chief project 1

15 -

manager of all of the day-tc-dav work en the five plant shuc-l t

f l

i 16 '

dcwns, will be summarizing the tcp six items in this chart.

17 Larry Shac, who is on detail to us from Research to help us cut la on the cverall seismic aspects, a wide variety of aspects, will 19 summarize the seismic game plan and where we are going from 20 there.

21 So, with that, Bill?

22 MR. RUSSELL:

May I have the seccnd slide, please?

23 (Slide.)

24 MR. RUSSELL:

3ack in March, March 5th, we issued ac -;.:erm neocr m. inc.

25 I&E Sulletin 79-02.

The specific issue we were concerned with

):

,o r-

/V 5

I r.te ' 4 l

6 l

6 I

was the installation of concrete anchor bolts.

We requested i,

1 2l they address flexibility concerns, because we found scme of the '

l I

i 3i initial assumptions were related to ricid base.olates and were i

4 in :act flexible.

We recuested thev do a testing program anc I

I I

5; verify that the plan had considered seismic loads.

The i

i 6 i responses are due on July 6th.

7; We do have scme c 21ir.inary results, hcwever.

We i

3i are finding scme plants that have extensive installatien i

9 defects.

Scme plants have very few problems, and seme of the i

10,

.croblems are such as m_ssine. bolts on sleeves, more mincr i,

11 j problems, misalignment of the anchor bolts, where they are not i

,I 12

c. erpendicular to the baseplate.

i e

i 13 ;

CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Would you identify anchor 14 bolts ?

Anchor bolts used where?

15 MR. RUSSELL:

On the baseplate -i. cine. succort, to e

1 1

16 '

fasten the baseplate to the concrete wall or ficor.

It is 17 usually a frill hole into the concrete, and they put an la expansion type anchor bolt into it to fasten the baseplate 19 in place.

- n o t,.7 a

. - _ _4.,,. A w

a 30 C e v_y a c _ v a R G.-,.. v..e.s f

.f r,,

m

... a. s e-m._

21 throughout the plant?

22 MR. RUSSELL:

Yes, sir.

23 MR. EISENEUT:

If you Icck at the everall picture, 24 if ycu have a piece of pipe running through a plant, there

.sc..s.e.,

a.ce, m. i nc.

25 are two er three things that are quite important frcm the i,

.g e

). ) :)

t-a-

te'5 7

l l

I, 1,

l' seismic standpoint.

One is.vou cut the supcort in Ehe right i

l 2

place, so that it doesn't vibrate at the wrong frequencies.

I 1

i 3;

Another one is that the support is the right size.

And the i

I 4

third is that the support is in f act anchored properly.

5!

This is addressine. the ancher feature.

And a lot i

6 of other ones -- for example, the next one is the weight of f

I 7;

different components in the system, so that you can see hcw r'

l 3,

Ehe piping will wiggle, so to speak, under an earthquake 9'

condition.

i i

10 Mn. Russz;L:

We have also had some plants report, j

j 11 '

in locking to find the anchor bolts during testing, that the 12 entire seismic su= cort was missinc.

We will be addressinc I

o s,

i 13 Shat in the as-built problems later on.

14 l The third slide, please.

l

\\

IS [

(Slide.)

l i

l 4

16 The seconc issue wn ch Darrell has bri(#17 touched i

t 17 cn is asscciated with the weight of the components and piping.

IS The specific issue was the velan swing check valves.

The 17 criginal enes are 4-inch, 6-inch, 3-inch and 10-inch valves.

20 We want them to identify the systems that were affected and 21 reanalyze with ccrrect weights, to ccrrect any necessary 22 ] modifications, tc actually install them.

23 Respenses were due May 1st, and we have had 65 24 facilities respond.

5 of them have not yet responded, have 2,a ;.e.r.i a.comn. inc.

-e been shut dcwn.

i

,te'6 8

t 1

Of those 65 responses, 48 actually used the velen

.t I

1 2

swing check valves, with the =cdifications that were recuired, i

3' that were relatively mincr.

One hanger was overstressed and l

I 4l there were some miscellaneous hanger adjustments.

This is I

5i consistent with the earlier briefing that we gave the Commission i

l l

6-when we did a worst-case evaluati.cn of a 6-inch swinc check l

7 -

valve and showed that the piping would not be significantly i

i 3

cverstressed.

I I

9; CO!OiISSIONER GILINSKY:

Have you considered the valve weight into the analysis?

10 II MR. RUSSELL:

The correct weight of the component 12 -

as it is used in the piping analysis.

t i

I3 '

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

And the weight is what?

14 MR. RCSSELL:

The weight of the valve which is in l

i It line --

16 ;

CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

A standard valve, or do they 17 vary in si::e?

18 MR. RCSSELL:

They vary in size from three nches 10 to ten incnes.

,0 COM}CSSICNER GILINSKY :

Why wJen't the right weights 4

,I not used?

2,2 ya, ac333;;:

It app,22.ma e related to a CA i

i 23 prcblem.

The weights that were on the drawings in scme cases 24 were estimates of weights prior to actual fabrication of the w.:.rm necomn inc..

2*c '

valves.

i s

I

.):)

\\'

i

s.te'7 9

t 1'

MR. EISENEUT:

There is another ascect that can i

r i

2l enter into here.

If the utilities, for example, needs a line 3

and he needs valve that can withstand a certain pressure, and' i

4l he pt:ts it on his drawing that, I am going to -- I need a valve S

that can withstand 500 psi -- so he initially on the seismic i

I 1

6 design may estimate the weight of that valve.

When he orders l

4 7;

that valve frc= the manufacturer, the manufacturer may say, I

3 I have a 3-inch valve that can withstand 1,000 psi.

I can give l

9 v.ou that right avav.

10 And he may take delivery on the valve and put it in 11 the system.

That is over-desing.

There is certainly sc=e of 12 that, where they get an off-the-shelf cc=ponent that is a I

13 larc.er valve than thev thought about in the first o. lace.

l I

i 14 '

The second thing is there is certainly sc=e variation !

i i

IS !

on weights of valves, because of minimums -- I mean, scme 10 variation on hcw the valves are manufactured.

17 CHAIPPAN HENDRI2:

Generally in those valve bcdy 18 forgings, you are generally locking for minimum wall.

l9 MR. EISENHUT:

That is exactly right.

That was my O

hird --

21 C'iAIPyxi HENDR E:

And as a manufacturer takes his 22 error a iittle bit cn the heavy side to make sure he dcesn't 23 go under minimum wall and cc=e ap against ccde or spec limics,

• 4 and if he calculated the weight en a nc=inal wall basis, his c..sa nu a.ce,,n. inc. '

25 actual weight may cc=e out a little icwer.

7o n

r JJO l'

J

1 nte'8 10 t

i 1.

MR. EISENHUT:

The third aspect is related.

The l

2, rec.uirements have changed over the years as to what is the t

i 3

minimum wall.

l i

1 l

4l MR. SHAO:

Usually, when ceccle cet valves stronger I

I 5*

than design, the designer thought they wculd do the job, but i

l i

i 6;

they forgot to 1cok back at the piping, the effect on the 7I, 01einc.

i 8

CHAIRMAN HINDRII:

they thought they were doing a I.

9 gecd thing.

l 1

l 10 MR. SHAO:

But it would affect the piping on it.

i 11 COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:

There was a check lacking 12 after the valve was crocured.

(

13 <

MR. SHAO:

Right.

,l 14 MR. RUSSELL:

We also found that the valve that was I

\\

15 ~

provided by Velan, the weight of the valve is not within the 16 scope of treir QA crec. ram at that time, so that there was not l

17 a check back, such as de valve tnat was provided, that ycu 18 had gced records of what the actual valve weight was.

So 19 even if de licensee had attempted to use the correct weight, 20 he night have had wrong weight provided by de valve nanufac-21 turer.

22 It is a ccmbination of dings, and what we are finding 23 -

out is that valve weights which were used were not representa-24 l tive cf what was in the field.

Ac ;=:,e a.cor.,s.inc.;

25 Next slide, please.

,) } ]

['

i

11

te.9

,i I

I i

li (Slide.)

i 2

I am jumping in time a little bit.

We are discussing ;

3 I&E Bulletin 79-07, which is the algebraic summation problem.

l 4!

Initially when we issued the shcw-cause orders to the five I

I 5'

plants, we were under the belief that the only plants which i.

I i

6 were affected with that code were the original five.

We found 7:

eut that Westinghouse had also used a ccde which used algebraic i

a summation.

I 9

About mid-April we issued a bulletin to identify all 10 l of the plants that may have used algebraic summation.

The l

11 '

results of that were that we identified 25 operating plants 12 which have used algebraic summation.

i 13 !

I have identified some of the ccdes involved and 14 '

scme of the firms involved in developing these codes:

S!.cck 2, i

15 Stone & Webster, Adipipe, Arthur D.

Little, Westdyn with 1

16 Westinghcuse, Daps, which is a General Electric code, and 17 :

Pipdyn 2, developed by the Franklin Institute.

18 Of the 25, we ccepleted preliminary review en 16.

19 There are three that are still ongoing.

I will ccver that a 20 little bit later.

21 CCMMISSICNER GILINSK'I:

Oc they all do this inde-2' pendently cr was there scme -- were they all guided by scme 22 other document that would cause them cc --

24 CHAIRMAN HINDRII:

Scme mystericus lemming-like force sc. :.:uu a.comn, inc. ;

25 that unconscicusiv. drew them all --

\\

s I

j

')

l 1

/

nte'10 l

12 i

i I

t l'

l 1'

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I can't find any Justi:1 cation i

l' I

i 2-

or using this kind of a summation technicue.

I haven't heard l

1 i

3!

any such justification presented.

I find it cdd that so many l

I 4

different organi::at.ons with a creat deal of exnertist would i

i a

5, all make this error.

i i

i 6!

Is there some standards committee or do they all 7!

get together?

Do they check the ccdes against each other?

I I

i 8,

MR. SHAO:

Mainly it was at that time the dynamic i

9-analysis was a very new state of the art.

People really didn't; I

I I

10,

knew what to do on the different subjects.

Abouu 15 years ago,'

I i

11 there was no dynamic analysis.

It is a new art, and pecple i

12 tried to use trial methods.

t q

i 13 '

And one nethed was using algenraac summation and the 14 ;

other was absolute sum.

In general, algebraic summation will t

15 l get more results than the absolute, but mainly because of the 16 l infancy of the science.

17 '

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

But once ycu use the phase 18 relationships, I dcn't see hcw you can pcssibly use algebraic e-1 19 summatio n.

20 21 y.

64 6

23 24.

Acs 5sceras Recx2rters, Inc.

~,

/'t O

a

.'.';)

9C<

)

643.02.1 13 gsn 1

MR. SHAO:

At that time,.1R C d i dn ' t have a po s i t io n.

2 Col,!MISSIONER GILINSKY :

I understand tnat.

3 MR. SHAO:

In '72, we had an aosolute sum.

Su; 4

before '72, :nere was no po si :io n.

5 MR. RUSSELL : With respect to the early pa r t of the o

question a s to any rela tion snip between these, One We stdyn 7

ccde is really evolved f rom Acipt pe.

And Nestinghouse dic, 6

in fact, contract with Arthur D. Li ttl e, and initially used V

Acipipe and then mace some de velopmen ts to that and renamed 10 it Westoyn.

11 So tha t a ccounts somewha t for it.

12 To the bes of my knowledge, the Shock 2 Ca ps and 13 Pipdyn 2 were all developed incepencently.

14 MR. SHAO.

There is ano ther po ssibility.

And then

\\

15 10 years from now, maybe what we are doing now is wrong, 16 tco.

17 (Laugn:er.)

Ic Cui.GtISS IONER CI LINSKY :

But one may ccme to a 19 cifferent a ppro ach.

Su that would be ce::er for one either 20 one way o r ano the r.

But tne algebraic summation seems to be 21 dead wrong.

22 MR. SHAO:

But 13 years from now, people will know 23 MR. EISENHOT:

There ha d ;c' ce scme of :nis --

24 C00(I5SI0 DER GILIN5KY: Tnere mus t nave oeen ene 25 summer stucen that started this.

e

']U

\\'

s

6w.a.v.,e_.2 14 csn 1

itR EI.c ENHUT:

Cne summer student anc people ha ve 2

discussions, the e c hnica l pe o pl e.

Anc I am sure in this 3

field taere were certainly ciscussions of the a pproach being 4

usec.

Anc certainly, there is scme cross-f ertilization, so

.o speak.

o s

6 MR. RUSSELL: May I nave the next vievgraph, plea se ?

7 (Slice.)

e I cnought I woulc take the opportunity to also folc 9

in where we stand on the remaining four plants snutdown basec 10 on :he snow-cause orcer.

11 Surry uni: 1, ne staff will be mee:ing witn :ne 12 licensee en the 12th of July to re view the resul ts of pipe 13 stre ss analyse s, 14 We did review scae in Soston last Thursday and g

\\

15 Fricay, and we found char 11 of 42 problems whica were ceing 16 done by Stone & Webster in Bosten did require harcware fixts 17 to correc pipe overstress prcclems.

15 Of tho se !!, we reviewec 9 in cetail anc ceternined 19 that 7 of the 9 were related to e s-buil: Orcolems. We can only 20 a::ricu:e ene to the me:ncc o f the ecce the was usec, es 21

!ar as One algecraic summa tion.

_7, T...a

.ma...c.

a a. a

• v, s 4 )-

.' 2 l

.e. w..' l w n 4.~.w.i.

i

-.-. =.. - *

• e v, 9

w w

w

• 1 w a w %

V %sf M,a.m. e.iaPa

• -4 3 p. e2

a

).3 4.

4

-4 c't a-

".q

'19. C e w wa

• *' A

- i -

dW n % aufm p r. aw a

b a

e. *w sf m he w w w

..a%

e

e. W aw.e

~4 d

w w r.,~=... a. r.. i. n A. u u.e...

.A...~-

.r wo u.' - a x y-a,.

...-=..e.....'.

c" 3

m w

g s

25 cperaticn procably in early September.

~7 o

o

~.3 i'\\

, o.

643.02.3 15 gsn 1

We still don't have any sta tus on Surry 2.

They 2

are in their steem generator replacement cuttags, and we ha ve J

no schecule yet.

4 Eeaver Valley has completed all but three pipe 5

stre ss analysis preolems and about 50 supccr:s.

They have a 6

proposal for interim Operation which has ceen submitted to 7

the staff, wnicn we have under review now.

S They are making mccifica:icns to One plan; at this 9

time anc expec t to have :no se completec about the 6th of 10 July.

11 They do have questions and we are in ne question 12 and answer phase on t ha t review, and I woulc expec that no 13 before mic-July.

14 Fitzpatrick lic ensee estimates that tney will s

15 submit their proposal for interim operation to the staff On 16 July 2nc, at which time we will start that review.

The ir 17 proposal for interim operation incluces completion of all 16 pipe stre ss analyse s and all su.cports in inaccessible areas.

17 Maine Y ankee was approvec f or star -u p cn :ne 24th Of May.

20 CHA IR MA.4 d EdD R I E: Let's see.

At cc:n 3 eave

'/a lley 21 anc "?i tz,"

there are pro ce sal s ceing consicered, either 22 succi :ec anc considerec cr consicered f or submi ssion.

That 23 wouic say t ha t we ha ve gc : this mucr analyzed end Jixed, and 24 thi s much snalyzec.

Anc there are cer tain :nings we still 25 nave :c cc.

Eu; we Onink a case can ce mace that a :e ra tion s 5) i,I

643.02.4 16 gsn i

for some incarim period until those fixes are complete is 2

a cce pta' le.

c 3

MR. RUSSELL: Ye5, sir.

That i s a very geoc 4

c haracterization f or Seaver '/ alley.

. it:;a trick will no t have completec accut half of 5

6 the support analysis associated with acce ssible areas; So we 7

wculdn't know w na t t he ex ten t of,medification would be.

o CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

The ".:it:" situation has a 9

third ca tegory.

This stuff we haven't analyzed ye t and na t 10 you will want to consider wha t all of that means.

11 MR. CASE:

We might make some.cro jections aceut 12 what you might 'inc.

C..A I n A,A s,, n.. -,,O n-. : An c.s.a ve a g co d b a si s, r e a so n ac.i y l a-n ea t:

14 gcod basis for thinking, for projecting the kind of situa tion 15 enere mignt be.

lo Nov is there a comparable situation en Surry I?

I/

JR. EIS ENHUT :

Let me comment on that one.

18 We had ceen working on Surry I following :na; ly general kind of a pproach because cu t of tha 69 prcolems :na:

20 hac been analy ec, so far we have cnly seen one :na : requirec 21 a fix as a resui; ci algebraic summation.

22 And as you know, we had b ee n pro j e c ting s tart-uc 23 egain in scoe interim mcce similar 50 One 5eaver Valley, 24 t'itzpatrick situations early in.J1y.

Very recently.

25 earlier within :he last w ee k, Vepco has inf ormed us :na; :nese 7

1 r '. 7

.).)M i si t.

643'.02.5' 17 gsn i

o ther problems will, in fact, procaoly celay tneir operation 2

for some time.

And they are proposing a resumction of 3

operations la ter :nis summer.

4 They also askec f or a mee ting on July the 12th to 5

discu ss the si tua tion.

o CHAIR!4AN HENDRIE: I see.

7 MR. EIS ENHUT: So we ccn't really know at this point e

exactly wne: > it is.

The significant aspect tne re, we will V

be discu ssing a little bit later in Larry Shaw's part, w he re 10 we talk about the as-cuilt si tua tion,

11 MR. RUSSELL: May I have tne next slide, cle a se ?

12 (Slide.)

13 I have a summary slide tha identif tes the la specific plants wnich usec algecraic summation.

The cca cu ter l

15 ccde which was usen and scme remarks to incicate wnetner it 16 was usec ex tensively.

Anc by that I mean e ssentially all c1 17 the saf ety-related systems in tne unit.

Or whether it was le limitec.

19

. or ins tanc e, cne or two lines analy:ec wi n :ne 2C ceda.

The X incicates :ncse plan:s wnich we have resclved 21 cn an in:erim basis, a t leas:.

22 I wouic like to point out Brunswica uni:s 1 anc 2 23 and Incien.;oin; unit 3.

Anose we nave rescivec to :ne 24 exten: we concluced it wa s acce ptacle to continue Jpera:icn 25 wnile remain' ng analysis was ccmple te.

Anc that was casec on a

r

.sJ -) U i),

643.02.0 18 gsn I

an evaluation of the metnodologies that were used anc how 2

the computer code was using analysis and conservr tisms which 3

the licensee could show in the methods tney used.

4 We were also able to see the results of the earlier 5

analysis projected to what the stresses would be af ter o

re-analysis to give us adciticnal confidence.

7 We have issuec saf ety evaluations en coth of tho se 6

t ha t icen tify what those conservatisms were.

The remaining y

uni ts, the re-analysis has been complc ted.

Staff has reviewec 10 them.

/.nc for those are indicated as resolved.

In Point 11 5eacn I and 2, we have not ha d the man po wer Oc pu t :ne 12 ce: ailed review into i t.

14 tne licens ee na s comple ted che review anc its la associated system which are of lesser saf e ty significance.

f 15 It is lower on our priority 1. st.

lo CHAIRMAN HEdDRIE: Just racwaste ccoling lines?

17 MR. P.d SSELL : Cocling lint s associated witn racwaste IS mcdifica icn.

Salem is shutdown, Salem I,

and we are actively 19 pur su ing t ha '. b e c a u se 1: 4.s extensive.

W e ho pe t ha we will 20 nave tha rescived.

21 C:o pe r --

22 CHAIRMAN HE.'IDRIE: Poin Se acn.s Opera:ing?

23 MR. RUS3 ELL: Yes, sir.

'iery limi:ec use, anc 1:.s J4 nc '. e system a ssociated wi:n saf e snu;cown or accicen 25 mitiga:icn.

Anc 1: can be iscla d.

(>7 r ns s

io

c43.02.7 Iv gsn 1

CHA I R:. TAN HE;4JR I E : Tell me again.

Brunswick anc 2

IP-3 are up or cown?

3 MR. RUSSELL: They are operating.

4 MR. CASE:

Based en staf f review.

5 CHAIRMAN HENORIE You iust said that and I was o

drif ting some place else.

Okay, enward.

7 MR. RUSSELL: I would like the next slide, please.

o (511de.)

9 COMMISSIONER CILINSKY: (ou would require in :ne 10 case of Salem 1 :na

nese proclems de resolved cefore 11 resumption of operation?

12 MR. RUSSEL_: At leas tc the extent ne s ta f f is 13 satisfiec t ha t the o pera tion during :ne remaining re-enalysis 14 was acceptable similar := what we hava cone.

15 MR. dISENHUT: Our philosophy is simple:

.Ie have lo put :cgether :nis matrix and it had all of the operating 17 plen ts.

And we

,ckec off wnetner they we:e operating or id not.

Anc if a plent was coming down or was ccwn, we required 19 a justifica:icn anc an understancing suf ficien:

ha : we were 20 conficen; :na: :he plen: was safe cefore restart-uc.

21 Plents like Srunswick I anc 2 and the Pilgrin. One 22 p; ants themselve s voluntarily snu: cown while we were 23 undergoing :nis ceca:e ciscussion := resolve 1

the acin:

24 were we all had conficence :na: the plen was safe :

return 25

pcwer.

v.

/w

4 ~. 2.

o,. a 40 u

~.

gsn i

So there was a pericc of time when the Srunswicks, 2

the vilgrims, and I cnink scme c her plants actually 3

voluntarily shut cown.thile we were naving the discu ssion.

4 MR. CASE: And made some modifications, too.

5 MR. EI S ENHUT: Yes.

The re are some even though as o

you see on this slide, there is a seconc group of pl an ts,

7 IP-3 and Erunswick, :na t have the use of the a!cebraic c

summa:icn tha: was extensive tnrougnou

ne plant. On Ca th broac variety of sy s taa s, :he re is some significant v

10 diff erence be tween that set of plants and the previous set of plants tna; makes them quite different from the five plants 12 hat are shut down in the way tha

hey use the algebraic 13 summa :icn fir st, and in the way :neir seismic analysis was 14 originally cone.

l 15 The re are some major diff erences.

16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY : Wha I am getting at is:

Are 17 we using a consistent standarc f or all of the plants?

IS MR. EISENHUT: I think we are.

19 CHAIRMAN HENERIE: That was a long way :o say yes.

20 MR. EIS ENMU T: Tna t was a long way :

say yes Oc a 21 questien that I dicn't quite uncerstanc.

22 MR. CASE: It is fair c say ena: it is a consistent 23 technical s;andare.

Moti in the five, :ne orcers were.ssuec 24 i n pl an t s t ha t were snu: cown.

We nave reacned an 25 a cco. acca tion of what would ce cone before :ney started up

' '7 on

>. ~i t '. >i a

643.02.1 21 gsh I

witnout neec for en order. Technically, tney were --

2 MR. EIS ENHUT: I might acc to enforce tnat --

o 3

reinforce that, if we were si tting nere today cnc on a plant 4

t ha t could no: give us the justification, sucn as Pilgrim 5

anc Brunswick I and 2 cid no: start up, end in fact, their o

operation was delayec until we dic have the i ssue resolved.

7 The o ther plan ts tha t are snut cown under an orcer 5

nave oeen unaole to resolve i: even as of :nis time.

y I :hink tha; cnere is even tocay, in retrospect, 10 a consisten; approacn being used -- for including One 5 11 s hutcown plan ts.

12 MR. RUSSELL: Nex; slice, please.

13 (Slide.)

la At the time tha t we briefed you on Maine Yankee 7

15 wa s t he seconc.taine Yankee briefing.

I: was identified that 10 there was a significan difference between the original 17 5pectra, whicn was One basis for tne cesign, w hi c h wa s the 1c Housner Spec ra anchored a:.lG, anc what we would expec: if 19 we were to review :na site today.

2C We es:ima:ec th a t it woulc be procaoly a regulatory 21 guice 1.dC spe: ra anchored ce: ween 1.2G enc 1.20.

We 22 1 coked a; :nis issue for, I guess i aas acproximately 2 to 3 23 weeks af ter tha:

.e.-ioc of time an; ceve oped the overali 2

a..;.=...< -.

w. e..z a.. y -...-...

e,

n a

n n--

~,..n. o.

.--v...n.

-,= g-.n.=,.

w m.w

.v

..m 25 c c T.m i ss i o n.

^ '3

.~<

3 i.

}

} ' b I

j

i$43.02.10 22

sa i

Ano the staff's basis f or where we thougnt it was 2

a cce ptacle f or them to operate 3

We oc have some ongoing sta plans on which Larry 4

will be discu ssing.

5 MR. SHAO: I would like to say something about o

Jaine Yankee here.

7 I wasn': involved in the previous meetings. Su: in e

ne past, wnen we usec Housner Spec tra, whica has a lower y

curve than the 1. 60 s,ce c tra, the Housner Spectra always 10 couplec with lower damping values.

1i CHAIRMAN HEHURIE Much lower.

12 MR. SHAO: Much, much lower like tne piping is.5 13 percent for OBE anc maybe 1 percent for 555.

1.60 is always 14 ccupied with 1.ol, wnich is the damping value f or 1.61.

The

[

15 damping valua for piping is 2 percent, 3 percent for GFE and 16 SEE.

When you couple 1.60 and 1.61 and Housner Spectra with 17 the olc -- :ne final answer ccmes out almost tne same.

The 40 c han ge is very small.

Iy Su

ne G Icac is e differen story.

20 CHAIRMAN HENORIE: Tell me again wnere ycu are going.

21 MR. RU SSELL:

.'ie x t slice, please.

22 CHAIR:.tA i HENDRIE: I tncugn; it was se:: led, cr are 23 you still poking arcund here?

s _e.. s.. )

r i<

_3 4 25 MR. EISENHUT: On Maine Yenkee?

-, n r,.

643'.02.11 23 gsa 1

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The Maine Yankee seismic design 2

basis.

3 MR. dISEHHuT: On Maine Yankee's, we said that we 4

would lcok at it anc consicer wnether we neeced to, anc if 5

so, wra; kinc of addi;ional review neeced to be done on Maine 6

Yankee.

7 We fel that we neeced.to 1cok at and make tha:

a cecision in the overall scheme of t ni ng s, which is basically 9

why we are trying to cut all of these things toge ther,

10 actually why we asked Larry to come over originally.

Since 11 hen, he has pickea up a f ew extra cu tie s to help, cut tog e the r 12 this overall,cackage.

13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It is time that he went back to 14 work on the staff.

15 (Laugnter.)

16 MR. EIS ENMUT:

My sentiments rf ec tly.

17 What we are trying to do is to make that decision on la Maine Yankee as Oc the scope of wna; is neeced.

Again, in lv scr: of a consisten; manner co;h in :ne seismic inputs anc 20 f rca :ne structural response, wna needs c ce done, 21 recognizing we have ne se c;her programs unce rway, recognizing 22 we nave the UCS Petition, et cetera.

23 MR. RUSSELL: I will ciscuss the systema:ic 24 evaluation program seismic reviews.

Firs:, I would like to 25 give you a li ttle bit of the status of wnere we stanc now.

o r, n

.) JJ

\\'s) i

.o43.02.12 24 gsn I

,ie nave two piants which co not have a specific 2

seismic cesign casis.

The older plan ts.

'n e have two plants 3

whicn were designed to unif orm 'cuiloing coces.

CHA IRMAN HE.'lDRI E : I gue ss i t wouldn' t violate 5

anycody's private overricing crivacy consicerations if I knew o

which two were in the first category and wnich two were in ne 7

seccad?

c MR. SHAO: Yankee Rowe, Lacrosse, first one.

Sig 9

Roca and Cresden, the secenc.

10 11 12 13 14 15 to 17 le 19 20 21 22 23 OA

)

(%

e v.b. ) '_i j

'I v

CR 5643 43 WHITL/pv i

i 25 i

1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Would you explain what that 2! means?

l i

3 MR. SHAO:

Yankee Rowe and Lacrosse didn't have any 4

specific seismic design basis.

They were not designed for I

5; seismic load.

Big Rock and Dresden 1 were designed to tn.e uni:cr:t I

l r

6*

buim W code which is essentially static analysis.

I I

7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIZ:

I did a reactor to the uniform t

8 building code, and you can save a ict of money on seismic analy-1 1

9 ~

sis doing it that way.

10 '

MR. SHAO:

I appreciate the next question would be 11 (inaudible).

12 CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Where did the uniform building i

13 '!code ccme from?

i i

i i

14 I CHAIPS.M HE'1DRII:

In the absence of -- there.Ls in l

15 l the uniform building ccde, and there has been for many years, a i

16,

seismic design basis for structures that fall under -- that are 17, built to that ccde, which is a generally accepted public building 13 ccde by the standards of current nuclear plant seismic analysis 19 -

and standards.

20 It is a terribly unsophisticated and, in our view, 21,

sort of by nuclear standards, unconservative basis.

22,

Nevertheless, it is a whale of a lot better than not 23 i having any guidance at all on -- in which case, the structural 24 designer simply ignores possible seismic cadings.

Tw.e uniform Acs 7scerse Recorurs, Inc. l 25 '

building cede divided the countrv up into seismic ::cnes and said'.

i 7 3

. 4 s

]

6

\\

I

pv2 1

i i

l 26 i

1-in zone 1 vou would use this apo. roach, zone 2, and so on.

And i

I 2,

the approaches were tv.e.icall.y to simo.lv. add to the design loads i

i 3'

of the basic structure static forces.

I i

4l MR. SEAO:

They put it at the base of the building and i

i i

i 5i and put (ina"d*le) en the structure and most of the bu:.ldings are I

I 6'

designed for the uniform building ccde.

l 7.

CHAIRMAN HENDRII:

If you didn't have any guidance i

I 3

in the nuclear area and you came along and vou said, "Well, 9

what will I use; should I consider earthquakes and it seemed t

10 prudent to do so, and what will I use?"

Well, I don't know.

11 And there is the uniform building code as one of enn few docu-12 ments around generally reccgnized and accepted for structural 13,

design guidance, and so it was used for a while.

As I say, I I

l 14 ;

built one that way, i

i i

15 ;

CCMMISSIGNER GILINSKY:

It is still there?

i i

16 CHAIRMAN HENDRII:

It hasn't fallen down yet.

Do you 17 want me to make one of these speeches, "I haven't had in earth-18 quake in a dog's age on Long Island."

19 CIMMISSICNER GILINSKY:

To what standard were the 20 first two built?

,There must have been scme requirement.

21 MR. SHAO:

There was no requirement.

22 COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:

No seismic requirement.

But 23, what fixed the strength of the structure?

24,

MR. SEAJ:

F-en though,

.ike the first two plants

.co s.:wn, =eocr m. inc. ;

25 were not designed for seismic loads, they were designed for

7, a q r, J>U t.

l

pv3 I

l t

27 i

li other loads.

The reason is:

Most ecwer clants are better in l

2' seismic loadings than other structures, most are designed for I

j i

i 3

o.ressure leading.

The minute ycu design for pressure leading, I

4 you have inherent seismic resistance. Usually, the pressure load-l i

5 ing gives you circumference stresses which is equal to pi ever I

6; t,

and the longitudinal stress is pi over tts.

But earthquake 7.

stresses lead to the longtudinal stresses, so you have scme 3

resistance because you design for pressure stresses.

9 For instance, there are a couple of earthquakes in 10 Nicaragua a few years ago.

It was conventional pcwer plants.

11 It wasn' t designed for any earthquake.

It was hit nore than

.2 i

12 g,

and the earthquake was a few miles frcm the plant.

The plant!

I 13 i was almost intact -- very little damage.

Mainly, the power l

I 14 l piant, by its nature of the design, is designed for pressure 15 '

icading and is designed for wind leading and tornado leading.

16 When you design for other leadings, you have inherent resistance:

17' to earthquake leading.

la CHAIF29.N HINCRII:

In spite of all that, he wot't 19 buy that condcmin'.un in Managua, huh?

20 (Laughter.)

2I CHAIRMAN HENDRII:

He might buy a pcwer plant in 22 Managua, thcugh.

3 MR.

a ev.< u_ u..

m. w~,

i s. 4,.w..

m.

,4 d

CHAIRMAN HINDRIE:

Piping systems ccmpared to things sc. se.rc a.comn, inc.

25 like masonery, building structures, piping sistems are really J:

7, c.-

JO t.

pv4 l

28 It enormously ductile and tough objects. You can shake them.

l 2i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

We are switching frcm build-I I

3 ings to piping structures.

I 4!

MR. SEAO:

Buildings are designed for wind loadings i

I 5

and tornado loadings.

When you design for wind and tornado l

\\

l 6

loadings -- and some of the buildings are designed for pipe i

l 7l break inside or outside containment, so the building is also 8'

designed for other loadings.

9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Throughout here we have been.

i 10 talking about, really, piping.

And the building only gets into,

11 it in that it shakes the pipe.

12 MR. SEAO:

Right.

i i

13 1 COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:

What sort of Icads will the l

i 14 i piping structures be designed to deal with' l

15 MR. SEAO:

Piping is designed for pressure loading.

i 16 Piping, the major leading in piping is the pressure loading in 17 pipe plate loading, and also earthquake leading.

la Also, there are thermal training leading, too.

19 CCMMISSICNER GILINSKY:

It is all statiu analysis.

20 1 MR. SEAO:

Righ tnew we do

1. ~..c.nic analysis.

I 21 COMM'SSICNER GILINSKY:

I am talking about *de older 22 plants.

23 MR. SEAO:

The cider plants, the pressure leading 24 '

essentially is a steady loading.

It is less like a Mark I type Ace E=Jderst Aeoor*Sft, Inc.

25 of loading, dynamic leading.

But normal pressure leading is a 7

'q JU

{rl

ev5 t

l l

29 i

i 1l static loading.

i 2!

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

For plants of the vintage of the 3

Yankee Rowe or for conventional power plant piping for the high-4 pressure stuff, would they have thrown in scme allowance for 5

water hammer, possible water hammer effects?

Do you know whether 6

that was a practice?

A little impact leading?

7, MR. SHAO:

They designed for icwer level.

I don't 8

think they really addressed the water hammer.

But the allcwable!

9 in the past was very lcw.

The history of design, they used 10 first the so-called "section 1" of the ASME code and section 8, l'

and then they switched to section 3 of the ASME code.

in CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

These plants antedate Section 3.

I 1

IU MR. SHAO:

Mostly section S.

The difference between r i

I4 section 3 and section 3 is:

Section 8 only used 62 percent of 13 the yield, and section 3 uses 75 percent 67 percent.

16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Anyway, let's see, we sort of 17 '

stopped you after two items.

You hardly gcc your -- this itam la develcped.

Why don' t you go ahead?

19 MR. RUSSELL :

The remaining seven plants were, in 20 general, designed to a G value similar to what we would be doing 21 today.

That does not imply, however, that the G value wculd be that which we wculd ccme up with today.

The six cldest plants, a

23 the licensees are actually conducting the analytical studies.

24 ;

With the newer five, they are being analyzed by the staff and sc. ss:.re secomn, t. e.

7C our consultants.

I

~*

).

.f'.)

,s

.)

)

-l

o. v6 30 I

il The Dresden 2 evalcation is nearing ccepletion.

I 2;

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Dresden 2?

3!

MR. EISENHUT :

It is also one of the SEP plants we l

4 picked --

1, i

S CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Because it has a POL?

6 MR. EISENEUT:

Yes.

Renamber, we had, I believe it j

7l was, like the first seven or eight or some of the older plants, a

and then we added on those plants that had POLS.

9 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

There were scmething like 10 two or three of these.

II MR. EISENHUT:

Yes.

We added on two cr three of them.

12 We may not have gotten them all.

I think there may have -- I I

t i

13 t think we got most of them.

l.

'i 14 '

MR. RUSSELL:

We have been working on the seismic i

i 15 review of these plants for scme time, and there are scme lessons 1

16 '

which we have learned thus far frcm reviews.

17.

What we are finding is that the structures are gener--

la ally adecuate; hcwever, we must address the torsion effects.

19 Piping is generally adequate if ycu use a more sophisticated 20 inelastic methed of piping analysis.

21 COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:

What do you mean, you 'have 22 to address"?

23 MR. SEAO:

The torrion effect, the earthcuake is a 24 torsional mcde.

The vertical hori: ental, and there is a Ac.a.cuni 9.cor

n. inc.,

25 torsional =cde.

In the par, scmetimes we neglect this.

That i

).).)

I'

,' m

pv7 i

i l

l 31 i

I 1

mcde should be addressed.

I i

e 2

MR. CASE:

You have to calculate it --

1 I

3' MR. S*dAO :

And see whether it 'rithstands torsion. In 4

some cases, it may be important, so that wc have to look at it.

5t MR. EISENHUT:

Most are going to sharpening the i

6-pencil, doing new calculational metheds, like the piping is t

7 generally adequate if you go to the more advanced --

3 COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:

And, of course, (inaudible) 9 cn whether vcu think they will.

i 10 MR. EISINHUT:

Yes.

We have a pretty broad group of' 11l--alargeteamsetup.

12 So far, we have a quite large seismic team set up, 13 which includes a large number of the consultants in the country.

14 ! For example, New Mark is one of the principal people on it.

15 There must be a half-dozen pecple on the

.it team that 16 ;

is working with the SEP.

i 17 MR. RUSSELL:

Supports general-t require a case-by-13,

case review, whether it is equipment support, pipe suppcrt, or

!9 cable tray support.

We will find we have to lock

. those.

And

?

20 the controlling path of the five plant shutdown, a review of 21 the suppcrts in the areas where we are having difficulties.

22 We are also finding that a few types of equipnent, 23 batteries and small lines which have mctor-cperated valves, 24 require case-by-case reviews.

And the questions en operability AC3-Federst A eDC,'tr1, Inc.

25 and functionability of equipment requires a closer examination i

c,,

', q t

ov8 i

32 i

li because the testing was not done earlier.

i i

i 2'

Generally, at that tine, the quality assurance I

I 3

require =erts were not as rigid as they are todav, so that even 4

if they had specified in the procurement document scmething be 5

provided that is CapaCle of withstanding a.2 G loading, they l

6; may not have gotten the testing of the dccument or documenta-tion to sb ~ w that it was done to that level.

So, it becomes a

/

3 problem in documenting the adequacy of the equipment af ter the 9

fact.

t 10 '

Can I have the ncxt slide, please.

it (Slide.)

12 The Union of Concerned Scientists petition, which was.

13 '

dated March 28,

'79, requested that the licensee for operating 1

14 l reactors be required to reevaluate the magnitude of the dafe-13 shutdcwn earthquake and to determine the free-field ground 16 motion effects to determine motion of structures, plant equip-17l ment, and c.icin2, and ccmpare those loads under appropriate lead ig cenbinations with allcwable leadings, and basically followed 19 what we currently do in identifying the standard review plan 20 today.

,1 Thev also requested that the plants be inspected tc determine whether the as-built clant conforms to the design a,

u 3

specifications for the plant.

4 24 This petition is One of the factors which we are sc..;.: rm n.comn. inc. I 25 folding into cur seismic review program, i

(L

- - p S

I' ju

.)

ov9 l

33 1:

MR. CASE:

It appears it is older than a monch.

i 2'

MR. EISENEUT:

It was submitted on March 28, and had t

I 3

a tendency to -- the action was d elayed for a while.

~

i 4,

MR. RUSSELL:

Can we go back to the first slide, 3'

lease.

f 6

(Slide-)

7 CHAIRMAN EENDRII:

I will ask you to continue, but a'

to steo brisklv along.

4 9'

MR. RUSSELL:

Yes, sir.

This is perfect timing, 10 because I am ready to turn it over to Larry.

11

( L.tughter. )

I 12 CHAIFF.AN EENDRIE:

Larry, step briskly along.

t 13,

MR. SEAO:

I will be very brief.

i 14 :

Next slide, ~clease.

15 (Slide.)

i 16 '

I think, as Darryl said, the three areas, these are 17 the three areas we should address.

The firs: is:

changing ta criteria.

As Bill just said, scme of the earliest plants were 19 designed to little er no seismic leading.

Scmetimes they were 20 designed to uniform building ccdes.

And scme plants were 21 designed to the so-called " quality dynamic loadings," dynamic 22 analysis.

And the later plancs were designed to refine the 23 dynamic analysis in the same way that in seismic criteria there 24 have been great changes over the last 15 years.

s.,cuu aeoomn inc. ;

c 25 So, we had to lock at different plants, see how dces

-o c

I

.)

ov10 i

\\

j 34 1

11 it affect these plants.

I 2i The second area we should look at is the ccmputer i

i 3

codes.

In the past, we only did an audit review.

The people 4

asked why didn' t we do a detailed review.

I think the staff f

\\

5l would like to do a detailed review, but it is not very practical I

6' to dc it.

It takes millions and millions of dollars to do the 7l calculation of one plant.

3 When we look at the staff in a year, in I&E or NSSS i

9 there are hundreds of people working on seismic analysis.

We 10 don't have the resources to do all of this detailed checking.

11 What_we are doing is audit checking.

12 i Now, we learned a lesson.

We asked the licensee to 13 do other work, and, hopefully, they will do a goed job.

But it 14 looks like they are not doing as good a job as we would like to, 15 ! so we would like to do more.

We would like to develop the i

t 16,

capability in computer codes in the sr.ructural and mechanical i

17 areas.

At least, when the staff wants to check scme of the la ccmputer ccdes, we would have the capability to do that.

19 The third item is the quality assurance.

For some 20 cases, we fcund the facilities are not ccnstructed as designed.

21 The calculations do not reflect as-built conditions, and the 2e equipment was not procured as specified.

1 23,

Can you flash to backup slide 1, and Bill can address 24 that slide.

Acehuai Remmn. inc.

25 (Slide.)

l

.. i n.,

s -

s l t,

pvil j

35 1,

MR. RUSSELL:

This slide identifies 11 operating 1

2 reactors from which we have identified significant differences --

3 by "significant," I mean the effects on the seismic analysis --

(

4!

between the original design of the facility and the as-built i

i 5;

condition.

These range frem having supports missing and having 6

mislocated supports or the wrong type of supcorts, difference l

7; in pipe geometry where you specify a straight rod and there is 3,

a bend that offsets the pipe by six feet in a 13-foot run of 9

pipe.

We are finding that supports are undersized.

10 We have had several licensees shut down their facill-11 i ties to correct these problems, and we are finding that on the 12 reanalysis o f the plants which were originally shut down where I

I 13 -

the algebraic sc=mation problem, that the as-built problem is I

i.

i 14 l actually the one that is causing the majority of the pipes to 15 overstress conditions, and also the support overstress condi-end43 16 tions.

17 18 19 20 22 i 23 24 la-Neral R ecor srs, Inc. '

b.? n j [_-

25 7

]U I

l

, 6 43 *. 04. ?

36 kap 1

MR. RUSSSLL :

de feel this is a significant problem 2

that has been identified and we are going to be issuing a 3

bulletin this week with the inspection scope of that bulleti, 4

to verify that the plant was designed and built in accordance 5

with the a: plication as it was amended.

The inspection 6

scope will include saf e ty-related piping systems grea ter than 7

two inches in diameter, and.we would be verifying basica.lly 8

for the seismic analysis input parameters.

9 Our Of fice of Inspection and Snforcemnt has a 10 couple of slides to describe this bulletin in more detail.

.11 Generally, we will be giving them 60 days to do a portion of 12 the inspection, 90 days to complete the remaining portion of 13 the inspection, and wnere they find nonconformances to the 14 requirements of existing technical specifications with respect 15 to equipment and system operacility.

16 MR. SHAO:

Next slide, please.

17 (S lide. )

15 MR. SHAO:

This is the proposal to resolve the 19 seismic Lssues we have planned for the plants.

What snould we 20 do with the rest of the plants?

The s e a re some o f tn e 21 proposals which are very conceptual in nature.

The f irs t one 22 I think we should do -- we should make a study of all of the 23 criteria that are used for eacn operatin; plant.

Sased 0,

24 this study, maybe we can de termine priorities of Operatin; 25 f acilities which should be analyzed first.

8 A

I.

p E

5643.04.'2 37 kap i

We should look at s e ism ic input, respense spectra, 2

damping values, load combinations, et cetera.

From this study 3

you have some idea that you should i cok a t it this year and 4

some plant can wait a couple of years, and with some plants 5

you don't ha ve to work on it at all.

6 These arent' conceptual studies.

The second iten 7

we should look at is utilizating the findings f rem cystematic 8

evaluation programs.

We should incorporate all of the seismic 9

issues that are generic to this study, and study mcdif ications 10 that snould be imoosed on other operating facilities, and

.11 using finalized SEP results to develop long-range programs.

12 We should continue to quantify seismic conservatisms.

Right 13 now we have Task Action Plan A-40, which results in showing 14 the issues.

But we have the blank research program and we 15 should look a't effective G-load against P-a c c e le r a tla n.

When 16 you measure acceleration from tne instrument, and this is not 17 really the value you should use f or design.

We should develop 13 capability in verification of computer codes and the major 19 design of systens and equipment ccaponents we should develop 20 benchmark proolems.

21 Next slide, please.

22 (Slide.)

23 We shculd review the impact due to the diff erence Pt between as-cuilt and designed conditions and other cuality 25 assurance prcblems and tc maks sure proper actions will be 5 l 1n-

39 i 6 4 3 3 0'4. 3 kap i

taken.

2 We should inve stigate fore ign data, like Japan has 3

a lot of tes tir.g data, to be tter asse ss and cualit if y seismic 4

conservatism -- to quan tif v, I'm so rry, it is a typegraphical 5

e rro r, to quantif y seismic --

6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It is a wonderf ul title.

It 7

f alls squarely beteeen qualitative and quantitative and leaves 3

it absolutely clear.

de would like to store that -- right, 9

we might store that away for a suitable use when we are not 10 quite sure which we have gc t.

11 I'm sorry, go ahead Larry.

12 MR. SH AO :

I think that's all I have.

13 MR. EISNEHUT:

I think those are the items that you 14 can see, the last six items of tne areas we are working in.

15 Some of these areas have proceeded further than others.

de 16 obviously are working on code verification benchmark problems i7 and some codes.

We are obviously going down the road on the 13 SE? program trying to get out of it and see the factors that 19 have been learned there.

And on that crogram, if we find 20 some thing that needs to be fixed in One short term, we will 21 take the sho rt-t e r-ac tion.

22 We are proposing this IlE Sulletin that is going 23 out this week, which will entail also scme verification necks 24 to see if the plants are as buil comoared to the drawirgs.

25 The re may be some follow-up actions as we gc through tnis

[

I e!

a

l a 3, 0 s. a.

39 kap 1

program, so it shouldn't really be a surprise if down the road 2

there are additional follow-on bullet ins, f ollow-on l e tters,

3 et cetera.

A MR. CASE:

It is a dyn3mic program, to learn as you 5

go along.

6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Is that some kind of a pun?

7 MR. EISENHUT:

As opposed to a " static" program.

3 (Laughter.)

9 MR. SHAO:

Su: the program should be f ormulated on 10 what we learn frcm the SE? program and also the research 11 prcgrams.

12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

And you will keep us inf o rm ed o f 13 the general stragegy and thrust of dealing with the whole 14 seismic area, and periodically we will expect to see you 15 and discuss scme of these. things.

16 MR. EISENHUT:

Yo u will be see ing the response to 17 the UCS petition.

IS CHAIRMAN HE.4DRIE:

de will see a response to :nat 19 f airly soon.

4J Ei,n.

: c 3$ u. s"U L *.

v.:.

-s--s 6.

21 CHAIRMAN MENDRIE:

I assume in conf iguring :nis 22 crcad staff effor: On se ismic issues, you talked to :he ACRS 23.

f rom t ime to time?

24 WR. EISENHUT:

Yes.

Last mon:n, Sill orief ed :ne 25 ACES on the status of the five-plant snutdown.

de will ce

_,3

40 643:34*.5 kep i

k eeping them informed as we go along.

The seismic programs, 2

the research quantification programs are also reproted to 3

the ACRS.

The S$MRp, there is a standing comnitt ee of senior a

consultants.

5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

How much is A-40 and the safety 6

margins research program likely to f eed into this e ff ort?

7 MR. EISENHUT:

A-40 should very directly.

That is 3

the short-term quantific ation program.

The major part of it 9

was started in DCR f or this basic curoose. From the management 10 point, it is in research under Larry.

Larry is also the ll principal agency person running the SSMRP.

12 I feel we can ensure that it is well coordinated.

13 CHAIRMAN iENDRIE:

How long has that bee n underway!

la MR. SHAC:

Acout a year ago, it is a five-year 15 program.

Hopefully, we will get some by-p roduc ts be f ore the 16 end of the program.

17 MR. EISENHUT:

It also has on it a committee that IS has a couple of NRR representatives, of which I an on e, that 19 is sort of e steering committee to help ensure that since 20 tnat program was in response to en NRR user's le tter to help 21 ensure that, in f ac t, what comes cut of tne program is, in 22 fact, of use to N R, coth in the short term and the long term.

23 and it itself is broken down into, I guess, a short term end 22 long ter, work.

25 MR. SHAC:

In the past for seismic issues we have

,, n,

1. g 4

e y-

543.04.6 41 kap 1

many branches, geoscience branches, structural branches, 2

l oc'< ing a t the structures, mechanical branch lecking at the 3

mechanical cenpenents.

I t was ne ver rea lly in t e gr a t e d.

The 4

SSMRP tries to integrate all of the work into di ff erent 5

branches and put it into one problem.

Mayce you change ene 6

variable, it doesn't rea lly af fect. the final results that

/

7 much.

v S

We want to find out which part is most important 9

to the final results.

l3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Any cuestions?

.11 Cor SSIONER GILINSKY:

I don't hcve anything 12 f urthe r.

13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

All right.

Thank you very mucn.

14 (Whereupon, the m eet ing wa s adjcurmd at 10: 42 a.m.)

15 16 17 la

'9 20 21 22 23 9 4 d*

I I

4

>1