ML19344D736

Record of Telcon W/D Ford (Ucs) on 790320 Re Chronology of NRC Activities Re Pipestress Issue

ML19344D736
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	04/10/1979
From:	Beckman D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML19344D724	List: ML19344D723 ML19344D736 ML19344D745 ML19344D751
References
TAC-11431, NUDOCS 8004280079
Download: ML19344D736 (3)

Text

m$

a O

APR 10 013 MEMORANDUM FOR: File FROM:

D. A. Beckman, Reactor Inspector

SUBJECT:

RECORD OF TELECON WITH MR. DAN FORD, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, MARCH 20, 1979 r

I was called by Mr. Ford at 11:50 a.m. on March 20,1979 to discuss my i

participation in the Beaver Valley pipestress issue. Mr. Ford opened the conversation by stating that there seemed to be some confusion or lack of clear information regarding the chronology of activities leading to the identification of the problem and that he wanted to clarify what he could through me.

Mr. Ford repeatedly questioned me as to what part the erroneous check valve weights played in the discovery of the pipestress errors and when Region I became aware of the erroneous weights.

I told him that the weights initiated the reevaluation which resulted in the anomalous PIPESTRESS/NUPIPE results and that I became aware of the check valve weight errors at or about the time of issue of the December 6 Licensee Event Report update (LER 78-53).

l He further asked whether I knew what calculations had specifically been performed by the respective computer programs / hand calculations.

I told him that I was aware of only those calculations discussed in the LER and 3

in the Stone and Webster (S&W) report on the matter which I had reviewed (S&W Report to Duquesne Light Co. (DLC) which provided the S&W input to the LER).

Mr. Ford also asked if I was aware (or when I had beccme aware) that S&W

" abandoned" the use of PIPESTRESS in 1972 and that they made some (unspec-ified) modifications to the program.

I responded that I was not aware of i

any'" abandonment" and that, to the best of my knowledge, the program was in use through at least 1974 when as-built Terifications were performed on the design of the Beaver Valley 1 piping.

I further stated that I was not aware of any pertinent modifications to the code during its term of use.

Mr. Ford then shifted his qu2stionir.g to the chronology of the NRC internal handling of the problem, asking when I had prepared my input, to whcm it t

was sent, when it was sent, etc.

I told him that-I had prepared the memo during the last week of December through early Ja'nuary and that the memo was forwarded through regional management to h_eadquarters in mid-January.

He asked whether the time frames for handling seemed appropriate to me and whether I felt that the memo had been properly expedited.

I responded that j

8004280 0 7

b 4

I i

2 the memo had been given an appropriate priority based on the information available at any point in time and that as we leai ad more about the problem,' the associated activities appeared to have been appropriately i

accelerattd. We also discussed how track items are processed: Region -

IE:HQ - NRR.

I received no specific questions about the subject track item except as noted above.

During the conversation I indicated that I had held informal discussions with NRR during and after preparation of the memo, including passing the informal copy to the NRR Licensing Project Manager. Mr. Ford asked for the names of the individuals to whom I had spoken.

I gave him the names I

of D. Wigginton and S. Hosford.

l i

Mr. Ford asked if I knew when S&W, DLC, and/or NRC became aware of the i

error in the computer program; whether we were aware that it was erroneous f

during our inspections.

I informed him that, while individuals within the l

NRC questioned the anomalous reruits, I knew of no one who was aware of the existance of an error or the spccifics associated with the error prior to the meetings held by NRR from March 8,1979. He then asked whether I i

considered the S&W/DLC action on the evaluations conducted during October-December 1978 to be timely and responsive.

I replied to the effect that I'was aware that S&W was expending a significant effort on resolution of the problem and that my telephone discussions with the site indicated that considerable DLC emphasis was being placed on S&W's activities but that I did not have first hand knowledge of the matter.

I further stated that during my inspections I found that most of the pertinent engineering infor-l mation was maintained at S&W, Boston, and, therefore, was unavailable to me, i

making it difficult for me to judge tne timeliness and priorities given the matter.

Issuance of the December 6 LER appeared timely and addressed 1

the general concerns of this office at the time it was, issued.

During all other contacts with DLC and S&W, both organizations appeared to be free and open with-the available information.

l f

Mr. Ford then stated that he understood, apparently from hearing testimony j

of the Cannission, that the December 6 issue of LER 78-63 constituted a closecut of DLC and S&W activity on the subject.

I replied that his under-standing was incorrect. The last paragraph of that LER indicated that DLC-Engineering was continuing a review of the matter., that fur.ther results cf that review were to be provided by followup report, that I was aware of an ongoing effort in that area prior to the March 8 meetings, and that the licensee had issued a supplement to the LER subsequent to the issuance of the Show Cause Order on March 13.

1 c--*

w--,.__-____m_

o n

3 Mr. Ford proceeded to ask about my professional background, education, professional experience, tenure with the NRC, etc.

I responded that I had been with NRC since October 1977, hold an engineering degree, had been variously employed within the nuclear industry since 1969 including employment with civilian and bbvy nuclear ship progra.:s and an architect-engineer (other than S&W).

I did not provide names or particulars of my previous employment.

Mr. Ford closed the conversation by asking my personal impressions of the handling that the pipestress matter had received from the NRC.

I responded that I censidered each phase of the NRC's review and subsequent action to l

be appropriate and technically responsive to the circumstances as the issue developed (similar to the response given in the fourth paragraph above).

I stated that I was encouraged by the escalation of the matter once the seriousness of the errors was identified.

Mr. Ford then provided me with the phone number of the Union of Concerned Scientists' office in Washington, D. C. and asked that I call if I have any present or future concerns where they might be of assistance. The call was cordial and Mr. Ford offered no indication of his reactions to my statements. Messrs. R. Keimig and W. Raymond were present in my office for approximately the last twenty minutes of the thirty minute call but did not participate in the conversation'and were not party to the telephone connection.

s D. A. Beckman Reactor Inspector cc:

E. Jordan, IE:HQ W. Russell, NRR j

0. Wigginton, NRR e

E l

i

/ TW LJ

._J U

RIA! tie --

!SADHEE Amm!GF00ERCamPARU

• Box 450. RFD 2 g7 Wiscasset, Maine 04578 O

March 20, 1979 United States Nuclear Regulatory Cc=nission Office of Inspection and Enforcenant Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 l

Attention:

Mr. Boyce E. Crier, Director

Reference:

a) License No. DPR-36 (Docket No. 50-309)

Subject:

Maine Yankee Reportable occurrence #79-005/OlI-0 Please find enclosed the Licensee Event Report for Maine Yankee Reportable Occurrence No. 79-005/01X-0. This event does not represent a violation of Technical Specifications but is reportable under the requirencnts of Technical Specification 5.9.1.6.h.

We trust this infor=ation vill be satisf actory. Should additional infor=atien be required, please feel free to centact uS.

Very truly yours, MAINE YANKEE ATCMIC PCUER COMPANY ht Edwin C. Wood Plant Manager ECW/ lev Enclosures gov DV \\

1

(

790327051'1

uman am we u..w muutaAH REGULATORY COMMISSION C 77) l LICENSEE EVENT REPORT i

CCNTRCL 8 LOCK: l l

I I

II e@

I (PLEAsE PRINT OR TYPE ALL REQUIRED INFORMATIONI I

i lo lil IM l t IM lY Ip 11 I@l010 l 10 In lo In in I 1010 l@l li li 11 lil@lsi CAT ss @

I l

s 9 uCEusEE ::cE i.

s uCEssE svueEn

s a

uCEssE TveE ao CCN'T f

lotil

,"{C"7 II @l0151010 l0131019 @l013111317 lo @l013 I? In 17 lo @

[

,e 7

so si ecCutTNuusEn 64 es Es ENT cATE 74

!s REPORT 3 ATE 30 i

l EVENT CESCRIPTION AND PACBA8LE CCNSECUENCES h

(

l o i 21 13v NRC letter of 3/13/79. an Order to Show Cause fer cenciaued coeration er shutde+a=

l l

l

o,3 ; ;within 48 hrs, was issued to Maine Yankee. The Order was issued because of potential l l

g o,4 l [ piping deficiencies in safety related systa=s. In compliance with the Order Maine-I I o i s i I ankee commenced a plant shutdown on 3/14/79 and was in the cold shutdown condition l

[

Y i

l o la i Iwithin the 48-hour requirement. Because the plant is now in the cold shutdown con-l t

I c 171 ! dition, the potential piping deficiencies referenced in the Order no longer present a i t

Ioia! Iconcern to the public health or safety.

I 7

8 9 to l

SYSTEM CAUSE CAUSE Coup.

VALVE COCE C00E SU8COCE COMPoN ENT CoCE SUSC00E SUSCOCE laisi I X IX 16 L3.J@ lF l@ l S l U I P I O f R I T l@ I X l@ l Z l @

(

7 8

9 to 11 12 13 18 19 M

f StouENTIAL CCCURRENCE

>EPcRT REVIStoN f

LER EVENTYEAR REPORT NO.

CODE TvPE No.

@,agj/Ro 17191 1-1 1010151 1/l 10111 lx I l, !

101 i

g _v n

u 1<

a o

n n

ao 2

u EE9" 7CIYEd oEILaNT

'*f7$o" wouns @ 'sSe*0iTTEU poES$e.

'"s'u"s'et SI' UpTEEmEn u

uA i

I x!@l Il@

l A l@

l Al@

l0l7l210I

[yj@

W@

lAl@

lXl9I9I9l@

u 24 as a

v

.o

.i 2

ea 44 47 CAUSE CESCRl* TION AND CCRRECTIVE ACTICNS h 1i;ol lThe Order describes cossible discrecancies be~ ween the ortrinal efeine anai7 sis cem-1 l

li ii i lputer code used to analv:e earthcuake leads bv Stone & L'ebster. the sr 5 4

-.-e4-..

1 jfor Maine Yankee, and a currently acceptable co=puter code developed for this pur ose.I I

1

,,,3, [ Analyses are presently under way to verify that sufficient censervation exists in the I l

t

,,,,, ginstalled syste=s to neet the present day criteria or to identify areas that will l

l 7

a o require socifications. so "s'TA'NE cTHEnsTATus @EsEoESEv' sPcwEm oiscevEnv cIsCainTioN l'15lltl@ l019l7l@l N/A l

l D l@l Notification from the NRC l

l ACTIVITv CO TENT mELEASEo c8*ELEASE AMCUNT cP ACTIVITY LOCATION oF RELEASE f

l1 l6l h

l N/A l

l N/A l

l 7

4 g to 44 as 30 PER$oNNEL EXPosumE3

{

l NuveEn TvrE CEsCnieTicN I i i 7 ! 10 10 lo l@lz l@l sT /A I

i a >

.E.,cNNE N ezE, a

NuveEm CES:RIPTioN i

l ! = 1 10 10 lo J@l N/A I

7 4 9 11 12 So i

'. CSS C8 On 3AuACE To #ACluTV M'E OESCpimCN l

11 6 91 lz Igl N/A l

[

7 4 9 to 3o I

7903270026

• = u C" uRC eSE CNtv essytt OE5CmiPTICN i

l I: I o l lN !@l N/i l

i IIIIIIIIIIIII I

7 s 9 to sa es 30.

ete e son

~

NAME OF *REPARER PHCNE:

g

a s

1 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE 01: NEW YORK JAMrs A. FIT: patrick N uct.E A R PowtR Pt.A NT m

P.o. Box 41 JomN o.LEoNARo,JR.

Lycctmng. New York 10:93 Res.:ent Managet March 21, 1979 JAFP-79-138 31s.342.:s4o Mr. Boyce H. Grier l

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission i

Region 1 631 Park Aveaue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406

Reference:

Docket No. 50-333 Licensee Event Report:

79-014/017-0 I

i

Dear Mr. Grier:

We have enclosed the referenced Licensee Event Report in accordance with Section 6.0 of Technical Specifications and USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.16.

4 If there are any questions concerning this report, please contact Mr. W. Veme Childs at 315-342-3840, Extension 207.

VeryAr.rtr yours,

),

f. M L ) ' { D (it u y f'

//

JDL:VC:jjh John D. Leon' r, Jr.

/

Resident Manager

/

Enclosure e

' 8,s/

CC: USNRC Director, Office of Inspection 5 Enforce:ent (30 copies)

USNRC Director, Office of Manage:ent Information 6 Progra: Control (3 copies)

Internal Power Authority Distribution e

e V

0 C

I N

% \\l, 7 9 0 3 2 9 0 0 2_f

An LICENSEE EVENT REPORT CCNTROL SLCCK: 1 I

li Ei l

l l@

(PLEASE PRINT L YPE ALL REQUIREO INFORMATION1 RTllNIYlJlAlFl 1 l@l 0 l 0 l - l 0 l 010 l 0 l - l 0 l 0 l 0 l@l 4 l 1 l 1 11 11 l@l l u@

l 4 9 u:EssEE C:of i4

s uCENst west.

a

s uCE.sf Tvet 40 s: cA:

CCN T sNC{ l X l@l 0 l 5 l 0 l 0 l 0 l 31313 @l 013 [1121719 @l01312111719 l@

I0!11 5

o ei coCxET Nuuata

.a o

av f NT = Art 74 2n REncaToArt es i

EVENT ::ESCRipTicN ANC PACSASLE CONSECUENCES l

loi2; l Please See Attachment I

Io !al l I

lotalI I

10151 1 1

4 l 016 l l l

[

10171 I I

{

l049I I s0 7

s, SvsTE*.3 CAUSE CAUSE COVP.

VA LV E COOE C00E SUSC00E COV'CNENT C70E SUSCODE SU8C00E laiel 1

1:l@ IX l@ II l@ l : 1 :l :I 21 : I Il @ 1 2 l @ L _l @

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 18 19 20 SECUENTIAL CCCURRENCE REtCRT REVISICN EVENT vf AR R E*0AT NC.

CCOE TvPE N C.

@ =tga oc 17191 1-I I 01 11 41 1/1 10111 IT I l-l 101 E=c e it 22 23 24 26 27 25 29 40 31 32 AC tCN SUTy g EFFECT SMUTOCwN ATTACHvtNT NP804 PRIME C04tP.

COMPCNENT

$USMITTED PCRM WS.

SUP* LIER M ANUF ACT',,;mE R i

TAKEN AC?iCN CNP(ANT METMCQ MCVR$

W@l XI@

l Al@

l A l@

l01712101 I Yl@

l N i@

l C l@

l :l 919 I 9l@

1:

as a

u si

<0

<s az sa a

a7 CAUSE DESCRIPTICN AND CCRRECTIVE ACT1CNS h l

liiol l Please See Attachment l

l li t i l !

I 11 021 l I

e l' t :1 I l

i iilal l I

30 i

4 9 VETHC3 CF saciLi'Y a

STATUS

'nPCWER CTHER STATL" DiSCOVEAV OISCOVEnv OESCRIPTION 02 li is ! 12 l@ l 1101 Ol@l n

I W @l Netification hv A/E 1

'ETENT."

a A!nviTv 4 cunt:, ACTiviTv @ I LeC2TioNC,.EttE@

C:

E.EAsto

.ELEAst NA I

NA l

l i i s I L;_l @ W@l 7

8 9 to 11 44 45 go 8E*SCNr.E'. Exec $bP ES Nun E.

rv.E etscai.,CN --

~

l i l 71 101010 l@l 2 l@l NA I

.E.semE'.'.nr.'lfs sE :n., i ~@

e.E.

NA l

It l- ! l 010 l o !@l 7

9 3 11 12 gs

.013 08 Cm 3evaGE TO FA*:uTV Q, Yvet OE50 iFTicN v

l? 0 9l I Il NA l

e eggy

-v 150EOm E30*?!ON I ' ! 7 ! I N lD]

NA lllIllIIIl!II*,

3 3 70 48 69 33 5 W. Verne Childs 315. 22 33 0 2,

n2.E:,..Inf,ps,

,,g.

7903290031

- - ~

i o

ATTAOBEhT TO LER. :.-014/017-0 PROMPT REPORTABLE CURRENCE REGARDING SEISMIC'.JRESS ANALYSIS On March 12, 1979, the subject Prompt Reportable Occurrence was trans-mitted to your Headquarters. The following information provides the written followup report required by the Technical Specifications, Appendix A, Paragraph 6.11.A.J.1.

Subsequent to th'e Pro =pt Report submitted on March 12, 1979, the Regulatory Commission issued an Order to Show Cause on March 13, 1979, which required that the James A. Fit: Patrick Nuclear Power Plant be shut down until the seismic calculations in piping stress analysis be redone and problem areas, if any, re-solved. The calculations are being accomplished by the Authority's architect engineer on an accelerated basis.

A final report involving this matter will be made directly by the Headquarter's Office of the Power Authority of the State of New York to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, l

e o

i

t VznoxxzA Ex.zcTazc Axn Powza CourAxy Ricaxoxn.VamoxxrA noget March 22, 1979

!!r. James P. O'Reilly, Director Serial No.

165 Office of Inspection and Enforcement P0/FHT sej U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cossaission Docket No.: 50-250 Region II 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 License No.: DPR-32

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

Pursuant to Surry Power Station Technical Specifications, the Virginia Electric and Power Covepany hereby subnits the following Lietnsee Event Report for Surry Unic No. 1.

l Report No.

Applicable Technical Specification LER 79-004/01T-0 T.S. 6.6.2.a.9.

This report has been reviewed by the Station Nucient Safety and Operat-

~

ing Consnittee and will be placed on the agenda for the next meeting of the System Huclear Safety and Operating Conesittee.

Very truly yours, li K d th C. M. Stalli a Vice President-Power Supply and Production Operations l

Enclosures (3 copies)

Mr. John G. Davis, Acting Director (40 copies) cc:

Office of Inspection and Enforcement Mr. William C. Mcdonald, Director (3 copies)

~

Office of Management Information 7

and Pror;rac Control

?f9:.:70Yi4<

v

/7

\\

i

,e o

NRC FOnf.1346.

U.S. NUCLE AR f ECULATORY COMNilSSION 87 77)

LICENSEE EVENT REPORT CONTROL BLOCK: l l

l l 'l l lh (PLEASE PRINT OR TYRE ALL REQUIRED INFORMATIONI 1

e I o l 1 l l Vl Al S l P l S l 1 l@15l 0 l 0l -l 0 l 0 l 0 l 0 l 0 l -l d 0l@l 4l 1l Il Il l! @ l l

l@

3 9 LiCEN5EE CoOE le LICENSE *.4/sta 26 26 LICENSE TYPE Ju S: CArsa CON'T

,"o[.,c' *"' l X l@l 0 ] 5 l 010 l 0 l 21 8 l 0 l@l d 3 OI d 71 91 @ l 01 3l 2l II 7I ol @

I011l 8

60 48 DoCMET NU. veer 64 69 EVENT DATE 74 IS RE' ORT DATE 83 EVENT DESCRIPTION AND PROSA8LE CCNSEQUENCES h f

t o 121 l The Architect-Engineer (AE) notified Veoco of possible non-conservatisms in the nice l

[

10131I stress code used to analyze some piping systems at Surrv.

Inaccurate valve weights I

lo lal l were also identified in some instances. The health and safetv of the oublic was noe I i

lo151 I affected. This event is reported per Technical Specification 6.6.2.a.9.

I

}

l l o 16 ] I I

l0l7ll l

l 10l8l l l

l 60

[

7 8 9 SYSTEM CAust CAUSE COMP.

VALVE CCOE CoCE sWSCOCE CoVPONENT Co0E sueCODE susCQQE lo191 1 z l z lO Ls_J@ l ^ l@ l zl zi zI zl zl zl@ Lz_J@ Lz_J @

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 13 19 20 l

3 E OUENTI AL oCCURRiNCE REPcR7 Revision l

LER EVENTvtAR R E* ORT No.

CooE TYPE No.

@Natg'Ro 17 l 91 l-l 1 of 01 41 l/l I 4 11 1Tl 1-1 I ol 24 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 MouRs h l s S N 'Acho I

FoM S.

s Li MANUF RER h

C PL T E

lXl@lXl@

lAl@

l A l@

l Yl@

l N]@

lZl@

l Zl 9l 9l 9l@

l0 l5 l0 l4 33 Je 35 26 3!

40 41 42 43 44 4)

CAUSE OESCRWTION AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS h t

l i t o l l In reviewing the Beaver Vallev piping design, the AE discovered an error in the oipe l

]

t i li l l stress analysis and the valve weight used to analyze stress in some oicine systems.

Ti i

i,i;,lvas found that the discrepancy also applies to Surry.

An evaluation of the eroblem ist 6

lil3l l underway. Both units are shutdown awaiting the results of the re-evaluation.

I j

l l i 6 41 I l

6 7

8 9 80

T-ER status @

SishcNSRv' oiscovtRv otsCRieTios @

1. • 2NE

'.*:wtR sT

["GTl W@ l ll 0l Ol@l NA l

l Dl@l AE l

A!TiviTy ColTEsr A*.'O.NT OF ACTIVITY @ l' LOCAfroN oF RELEASE @

KELEAsto of RELEASE NA l

NA l

l1 16 l l Z l @ JQl 7

3 9 10 ft 44 de 30 r

pER$oNNgb gxposynts l

NuegER TYPE CEs:a.sfloN l i j 7 l l 0 l 0 l 0 l@l Z l@l NA l

i

,ERsoNNEl'iN;U4Es etscRI.Ti.@

Nuv.ER NA l

li j a l l 0 l 0 l 0 l@l 8 9 13 12 80 l

Loss C# oR o& MACE TO FACILITV h r

? vet CEscRi'TiCN v

li 191 I Z l@l NA l

= 9 10 SQ I - l l Y [@TEsCR.,w@

7 9 0 327 0'-h 9 mut l

VIPc0 News Releases dated 3-13-79 l

IlllIlltiIItl; 1:

4 a 10 68 69 53 1 m...n........'a'.

L. Stewart U

1. ~N PHONE:

e

,, page Fif 1 Surry Power Station, Unic Nos. 1&2 Docket No.: '50-280 & 50-281 Report No.:

79-004/01T-0 Event Date: 03-09-79 Pine Stress Analysis Evaluation

(

1.

Description of Event:

The Architect-Engineer (AE) notified Vepco of possible non-conserva-i tisms in the pipe stress code used to analyze some piping systems at Surry.

Inaccurate valve weights were also identified in some instances.

i The health and safety of the public were not affected. This event is reported per Technical Spetification 6.6.2.a.9.

2.

Probable Consequences and Status of Redundant Systems:

[

Possible non-conservatisms are being investigated by the Architect Engineer to determine their extent and magnitude.

3.

Cause:

r In reviewing the Beaver Valley piping design, the AE discovered an error in the pipe stress analysis and the valve weight used to analyze stress in some piping systems.

It was found that the discrepancy also applies to Surry. An evaluation of the problem is underway. Both units are shutdown awaiting the results of the re-evaluation.

4.

Immediate Corrective Actions:

The immediate corrective action was to begin an investigation to determine if the significance of sny non-conservatisms are of sufficient L

magnitude to require corrective action.

Unit 2 was already shutdown for steam generator repairs. Unit I was shutdown pending the investigation of the discrepancy.

5.

Subsequent Corrective Action:

[

Corrective action will be subsequently ta' ken if deemed necessary by the afore=entioned investigation.

6.

Future Corrective Action:

No future corrective action is deemed necessary at this time.

7.

Generic Implications:

This event is applicable to Surry Units 1 and 2.

t

REQUEST 2.

Please provide any documents from Messrs.

Nathan M. Newmark, W.J. Hall, or their associates, to the NRC since October 1978 concerning th'e algebraic summation technique for combining intra-modal responses.

Please provide also any documents from the NRC to Messrs. Newmark and Hall, or associates, as described in the preceeding sentence.

RESPONSE

Enclosed is a letter from Nathan M. Newmark, Consulting Engineering Services, to the NRC dated November 9, 1979.

O I

l 1

s

$.V l

q D

NATHAN M.

NEWMARK censutmo unamesmna sanvices satt c vfl ENGmEEMNO SUILDmG U' *,ANA. ILLJNCis S1801 9 November 1979 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attn: Mr. James P. Knight, 055 Re: Transmittal of Statement Regarding Modal and Directional Combinations of Seismic Response

Dear Mr. Knight:

Because of the many questions that have been raised regarding earthquake analysis of structures, piping, and equipment, Dr. W. J. Hall and I feel that some clarification of the background regarding absolute sum and SRSS combinations is needed, as well as an explanation of why the algebraic sum combination is invalid.

Therefore we are sending you several copies of an informal sumary of our views and the publications that I or Dr. Hall and I have prepared on this topic from 1953 to 1970, with a few subsequent refarences to 1973. Only our own papers are referred to, You may use this as you see fit. However, in the event copies are requested outside NRC, we should appreciate your consulting the NRC legal staff regarding the appropriateness of complying with such requests, because we feel that we do not want to open the door to our being called as witnesses in suits concerning the shut down of certain nuclear plants, except in behalf of NRC by whom we have been engaged as consultants since the early 1960's.

Very truly yours, N. M. Newmark dp Distribution:

~

5 - J. P. Knight 1

5 - W. J. Hall ga,lP,g 5 - N. M. Newmark 7911150361-

h COMMENTS ON SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF PIPING AND STRUCTURES FOR NUCLEAR REACTOR POWER PLANTS AND OTHER B'IILDINGS by N. M. Newmark and W. J. Hall r

Urbana, Illinois 9 November 1979 I

I.

INTRODUCTION AND SUWARY The followirg sunnary of work done by N. M. Newmark and t

W. J. Hall is reported to indicate the consistent views and criteria used since 1953 (and earlier) concerning combinations of responses due to transient disturbances or motions such as earthquakes or other dynamic environmental influences.

It will be noted that throughout this entire period the point of view has been taken that for motions in some particular input direction, the responses in the various modes can be combined conservatively by taking the absolute sum of the maximum responses in edch mode, or probabilistically by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of the maximum responses in each mode. No other l

combination has been suggested.

In particular, because of the normal cyclic vibration in an earthquake, an algebraic sum of the modal responses is neither meaningful nor appropriate, and has never bes.1 considered as I

even a possibility in any of the papers published either by Dr. Newmark or Dr. Hall.

7 9ill 50 I69