ML20069H361

Provides Preliminary Response to 820701 Request for Review of Seven Points Re Validity of BNL Results & Generic Implications in Final Rept Concerning Analysis of Facility

ML20069H361
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	10/15/1982
From:	Cooper W TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
5511-174, NUDOCS 8210190584
Download: ML20069H361 (3)

Text

2

~2 ^ "RTELEDYNE

. ENGINEERING SERVICES h 130 SECOND AVENUE WALTH AM. MASSACHUSETTS C2254 465 71890 3350 TWx (7101324-7508 October 15, 1982 5511-174 Mr. H. R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dear Mr. Denton Your letter of July 1,1982 transmitted the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) Final Report concerning their analysis of the DCNPP annulus structure for our consideration, identified seven points of specific concern and requested our views regarding the validity of the BNL results and of their generic implications. .

This letter is a preliminary response to your letter. It should be stressed at the outset that the TES review of the BNL report and of the latest URS/Blume analysis of this region is not as yet complete and no final conclusions will or should be made from this letter. Further, it should be understood that the URS/Blume analysis we are considering is that which PG&E refers to as the 1981/1982 URS/Blume model.

With respect to the seven items specifically addressed in your letter, we have also considered the contents of the PG&E letter to us dated July 8,1982 presenting their preliminary review on those items.

Based upon our review to date, we concur with PG&E that there is no significant disagreement with respect to the first three of your seven items which involved the consideration of masses and joint conditions.

The fourth item is concerned with spectrum smoothing where the technique applied by PG&E is consistent with that approved for PG&E use by the NRC.

The fifth and sixth items relate to piping dimensions. We agree with PG&E that the dimensions used by BNL probably do not represent the actual configuration, but this is still under review. Your seventh item is the most important, involving BNL piping support forces much larger than those reported in the URS/Blume analysis being used by BNL, and this is also still under review.

Based upon our review of the URS/Blume 1981/1982 analysis, TES has recently opened E01 files 3006 and 3007 addressing two concerns which we have identified. These are related to the method used by URS/Blume in consolidating radial beams in their frame and the treatment of the tangential beam when these are support points for attached components.

These concerns are reinforced by the TES review of the BNL evaluation, although the latter was not an essential step in our identification of the concerns. Our letter 5511-170, of which NRC has a copy, further addressed the basis and significance of these concerns, as well as l indicating that the concerns are important for only certain regions of i the annulus structure. That letter was written to comnunicate to the i Diablo Canyon Project (DCP) more detailed information than was l transmitted by the Open Item Report.

$j/.

l he,%@ - -

Q.

~

1~ $$to$ErisS*S$"? 'RTELEDYNE Page 2 ENGNEERING SEPNICES TES continues to review this entire issue as it applies to DCNPP and as it applies to addressing the concerns of your letter. We presently consider it possible that the present 1981/1982 URS/Blume analysis may not provide adequate results for evaluation of the annulus structure or of the attached components. Similarly, we presently consider it possible that the BNL Model B may provide a valid solution for the annulus structure including floor response spectra. However, the BNL report may not provide for a proper evaluation of the piping itself.

Your letter also asks that we respond with respect to possible generic implications of the differences between URS/Blume and BNL results. There are several aspects which could be considered with respect to the term generic:

1. With respect to significance to other DCNPP structures, we consider it to be highly improbable that any differences indicate a generic concern. The configuration of the annulus region is unique and there are other structures, such as the control room, where URS/Blume considered the local effects properly. Moreover, all structures are under review by DCP and are subject to verification by the IDVP.

2. With respect to the general methods available for use in seismic analysis of structures, we believe that aither the noncondensed models (such as those used by BNL) or condensed models properly applied are capable of producing adequate results.

3. With respect to other containment structures analyzed by URS/Blume or by any other organization using similarly consolidated models, we have no basis for judgement within the IDVP as to the potential for a generic concern.

We will continue to report to you on this matter.

Very truly yours, I

TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES h f. y William E. Cooper Project Manager - 5511 WEC:cjr cc: G.A. Maneatis (PG&E) H.B. Brom , Esq.

R.H. Engelken (NRC) D.F. Fleischaker, Esq.

H. E. Schierling (NRC)(2) J. Reynolds, Esq./J.R. Phillips, Esq.

R. R. Fray (PG&E) B. Norton, Esq.

E.Denison (RLCA) A.C. Gehr, Esq.

R. F. Reedy (RFR) R.B. Hubbard R. Sestak (SWEC) B.S. Georgiou, Esq.

WTF1 FDYNE C4 Iransmittal - Please Sign and Return Acknowledgement g g:g g g g g pJ O Requent for information (RFI) 1 1 When Requested Assign Control Number Page .__of O Receipt (TES Use Only) Control No.

W. E. Cooper Mr. H. E. Schierling Originator Transmit To:

5511 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No.

October 15, 1982 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory conoission Date

1. S-J-82 7920 Norfolk Ave.

Client PO .

N/A Bethesda, MD 20114 l Transmitted Under Separate Cover To:

NOTE: Furnish complete identification for items transmitted (below).

O i

O 1.a QTY TYPE ITEM IDENT NO._ REV DESCRIPTION - Title and Number of Sheets / Paces 5 f

1 Ltr 5511-170 URS/Blume Review,_BNL Review 1 Ltr 5511-174 BNL Annulus 6

1 Ltr 5511-175 Region 5 Comments on Phase II i

l I

I.

j _.

_.w - - -

_U-_.__ _.

r__. _

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT BY 9, . J TITLE L DATE [d L

! DISPOSillON FOR PREVIOUS REVISIONS U O Return to TES O Mark Void ODestroy uncontroiicd NOTE TO ADDRESSEE: Unless stated otherwisc the listed items are furnished to you as Controlled Documents. Please sign and return the number 2. copy to:

TELFDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES-l 130 Second Avenue i Waltham, Massachusetts 02254 I

Attention: Document Control, Project N //

DIS TRIBUTION: 1 and 2-Addressee 3-Document Control 4-Originator / Project Manager 4/81 '

- . . - - - . - - - -- - , --