ML20080S432
| ML20080S432 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 10/14/1983 |
| From: | Biggs J, Cloud R, Holley J, Wray R LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080S365 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8310180369 | |
| Download: ML20080S432 (33) | |
Text
~
- 5. #
1 2
i 8
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
6 I
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 7
bI t
9
)
In the Matter of:
)
l 10 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L.
COMPANY
)
50-323 0.L.
{
11 4
)
(DiabloCanyonNuclear
)
l 12 Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
13
)
14 15 TESTIMONY ON BEHALF 0F THE INDEPENDENT 16 DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM l
17 0F i
18 l Dr. Robert L. Cloud f
Professor J. M. Biggs 19 Professor M. J. Holley, Jr.
20 REGARDING l
21 CONTENTIONS 3 and 4.m.-n.
l 2
23 l
24 l
l 25 i
26 i
27 i
28 l
8310180369 831014 PDR ADOCK 05000275 T
PDR b
U, {0 l
1 g
)
2 '.
In the Matter of:
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L.
3 1
COMPANY
)
50-323 0.L.
40
)
ll (Diablo Canyon Nuclear
)
5 j!
Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)
~6 l TESTIMONY REGARDING CONTENTIONS 3, and 4.m.-n.
7, INTRODUCTORY TESTIMONY 8
9 Q.1: Please state your name, current position, business 10 address and qualifications.
11 A.1:
(RLC)
This information is provided in A.1 of the 12 i Testimony Regarding Contentions 1, 2, and 5-8.
13 (JMB)
I am Professor John M. Biggs, Principal in the firm 14 <
of Hansen, Holley & Biggs, Inc. and Professor Emeritus in the 15 '
Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of 16 Technology.
My business address is Box 88, MIT Branch Post 17
- Office, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02139.
My educational 18 background and prcfe5sional experience are summarized in 19 to this testimony.
20 (MJH)
I am Professor Myle J. Holley, Jr., Principal in the 21 firm of Hansen, Holley & Biggs, Inc. and Professor Emeritus in 22 the Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of 23 Technology.
My business address is Box 88, MIT Branch Post 24
- Office, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02139.
My educational 25 background and professional experience are summarized in 26 < to this testimony.
27 (RW)
I am Ronald Wray, Manager of Engineering Analysis for 28 Teledyne Engineering
- Services, 130 Second
- Avenue, Waltham, (i)
C s ji 1
Massachusetts, 02254.
My educational background and professional 2
experience are sumarized in Attachment 3 to this testimony.
3,i Q.2: What role did you play in the IDVP's effort?
V 4;
A.2:
(RLC) My role is described in A.2 of the Testimony N
5 '!
Regarding Contentions 1, 2, and 5-8.
6 (JMB, MJH) The firm of Hansen, Holley & Biggs, Inc. was 7'
retained by the IDVP to provide additional expertise in the area 8
of civil and structural engineering, and we were the two members 9
of the firm who performed work for the IDVP.
We assisted the 10 other IDVP participants in the review of structures and in the 11 preparation of the building ITRs.
We also participated in 12 -
numerous open meetings with the DCP, NRC and designated other 13 parties, relating to the civil / structural aspects of the IDVP's
),a work.
14 15 m (RW)
I was an Assistant Project Manager for the Teledyne 16 Engineering Services effort as overall manager of the IDVP.
In 17 this role, I was responsible for managing the efforts of RLCA in 18 verifying the seismic, structural, and mechanical aspects of the 19 design process.
I also reviewed and approved all of the ITRs 20 issued in these areas.
21 Q.3: Does every answer in this testimony constitute the 22 testimony of all four members of the panel?
23,
A.3:(All) Yes, with the exception of contention 4.m., which 24 represents the testimony of only Dr. Cloud and Mr. Wray.
For all 25 other parts of the testimony each member of the panel has some 26 familiarity with the subject areas of the contentions addressed 27 and has reviewed and approved the conclusions expressed herein.
28 However, some of us were more closely involveo in the IDVP's work (ii)
6,l h
1 in some of these subject areas than in others, and our roles in 2l the IDVP effort were different.
Therefore, we have attempted in 8I each subpart of the contentions addressed by this panel, to 4
designate the panel members who are more familiar with that 5
subject area.
This is indicated both by naming those panel 6
members who were most closely involved in tie areas addressed and 7
by listing the panel members approximately in order of our 8
relative knowledge and involvement.
9 Q.4: What is the purpose of this testimony?
10 A.4: Contention 3 lists a number of " instances" in which 11 the ITP is alleged to have used " improper engineering standards 12 to determine whether design 3ctivities met license criteria."
13 The IDVP is said to have used or approved the use of the improper 14 standards or not to have verified them at all.
This testimony 15 addresses each instance cited.
Contentions 3(a), (b), (h), (1),
16 and (m) were eliminated by Appeal Board Order of October 7, 1983.
17 Contention 4 alleges that the IOVP permitted deviations from 18 licensing criteria in certain specific instances.
This testimony 19 also addresses subparts 4.m. and 4.n.
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (iii)
k
(,
i I
4 i
l Ii.
CONTENTION 3.c. (RLC, JMB, RW) 1g i
d "The ITP ' failed to specify' all damping values used in vari-l 2
ous seismic : nodes in the containment and auxiliary buildings in that, for containment for the DE and the DDE, different damping 8]
values are used in different components of the system, but the
'j resulting values of damping for each mode in the modal analysis 41 are not specified.
For the auxiliary building, values of damping I
0 for each mode in the modal analysis are not specified, and the 5[
ITP has not specified what damping values, if any, were used for j
the soil springs."
l 6g i
7 Q.1: Did the IDVP verify the damping values used in the 8
ITP's analysis of the containment and auxiliary buildings?
9J A.1. : The IDVP verified that, as specified in the DCP Phase 10 I Final Report, Section 2.1.2, the appropriate value of damping 11 was used for all modes for the dynamic analysis of the auxiliary 12 -
building for the Hosgri and DE-DDE analysis.
The licensing basis 13 -h values of damping of 7% (Hosgri) and 5% (DE-DDE) were used for 14 ;
each mode, as required in Section 4.1 of the Hosgri Report and L
15 '
Section 3.7.1 of the FSAR.
The IDVP's verification is reported 16 i in Sections 4.2.7 and 4.2.9 of ITR-55.
The design retdew 17j packages (DRPs) in which these design reviews are found are re-18 ferences 16 and 23 in this ITR.
19 The dynamic analysis calculation package for the containment 20 building was not part of the IDVP sample, and therefore the damp-21 ing values used in this analysis were no' n fewed.
22 Q.2: Did the IDVP verify da's q " iny part of the con-23 tainment building analysis?
24 A.2: Yes. The polar crane within the containment was part 25 of the IDVP sample and did have a riynamic analysis.
The IDVP 26 verified that, as specified in the PGandE Phase I Final Repw t, 27 p Section 2.1.1, the licensing basis damping value of 7% for the 28
.i l
3-1
\\
9, c ',
{
\\,
\\(
i 1
Hosgri earthquake was met for this dynamic analysis.
In this i
I q
a conservative application of mass-stiffness proportional j
2[
- case, d
9 damping was used by the ITP which resulted in less than 7%
8 o
4 I; effective damping for most of the modes of vibration.
(See Sec-5 tion 4.2.14 of ITR-54 and Ref. 13 therein.)
U 6"
The IDVP also verified that the 7% damping value was used in n
1 the ' analysis of the containment annulus for the Hosgri earth-7 8
quake.
This value is the licensing criterion.
(See Sections 9q 2.6.6 and 4.1.1 of ITR-51.)
t 10l Q.3: Did the IDVP verify the damping value used for the it I
11 soil spring in the auxiliary building model?
g 12 j.
A.3: Yes. The IDVP verified that, conservatively, no con-13 tribution of soil damping per se_ was included.
(See Sections i
4.2.7 and 4.2.9 of ITR-54 and References 16 and 23 therein.)
14 t
15 Q.4:
Is the IDVP aware of any improper use of damping val-16 ues by the ITP for the analysis of the auxiliary building, con-17 tainment building, and the soil springs for the auxiliary build-18 ing model?
19 A.4: No. For the auxiliary building, the damping values 20 used in the analysis for the Hosgri and DE-DDE were those 21 specified as the licensing criteria.
For the soil springs used 22 in the auxiliary building model, no contribution of soil damping 23 per se was included, which gives a conservative result.
For the 24 containment building, the IDVP sample did not include the dynamic 25 analysis calculation package containing the analysis of the 26 building for the DE and DDE.
However, for the portions of the 27 d containment reviewed by the IDVP, the proper damping values were 28 employed.
3-2 J
a
3 p
i k
d
!i
=1 0
_ CONTENTION 3.d. (RLC, RW) m-2[
"The. ITP _ failed to verify that PGandE's use of the double algebraic sum method of calculation (rather than the sum of the 3!;;
squares method) was an acceptable substitution in the Phase I Final Report's calculation'of member: forces for the Hesgri event, b
4 where the double algebraic sum method is used solely for closely i
spaced modes, and the sum of the squares method is used Sy elsewhere."-
n 6f Q.1: Did the IDVP address the ' methods used for combining 7ll modal contributions in the evaluation of members in the DCNPP-l?
a 8
A.1: Yes, the IDVP did address this topic.
9[
Q.2: Do licensing criteria require. the use of only the g
I 10j' Square Root Sum of the Squares-(SRSS) method?
l h
11 il A.2: Yes.
This requirement is. stated in the Hosgri Report, 12 -i!
Section 2.2.2, as. it ' relates to the DE-DDE, and in Section 4.1, n
13 ?
as it relates'to Hosgri.
d 14 Q.3: Did the -ITP employ the double algebraic sum (DAS) 15 l; method when evaluating the DCNPP-1 for Hosgri loads?
16 A.3: The 'IDVP verified in all the calculations of member 17 i loads for the DCNPP-1 buildings.within the IDVP sample that only 1
18 the SRSS method was relied upon by the ITP for member evaluation 19,;
to meet licensing criteria, as reported in the building ITRs.
l 20./
.The IDVP observed that forces and moments were determined in some 21 cases for member. loads on a DAS basis in turbine building 22 members.
However, the IDVP verified that the SRSS method was em-23 ployed in the final qualification of record.
(ITR-56, Rev. 1, 24 - )
-Section 4.2.8.).
25 1 Q.4:
Is the IDVP aware Of any improper methods used to
- 26 compute' modal combinations in the DCNPP-l?
27,
A.4: No. Appropriately, only the SRSS method was employed 280 ai 3-3
P, i
1' in the qualification of building members to meet licensing cri-2 teria.
3 i
1 4
5 6
7f i
8!
9 ll 10 f
11 l
12 13 Il 14 1 I;
i 15 ;
t!
16 l1 1
17 '
!.i 18 i
19 l a
20 I
21 22 ll 23 I
d 24 lI 25 29il 27 !j 28 1 3-4 ll i!v
m P,
e,
[
ll 1 (
CONTENTION 3.e.
(RLC,JMB,RW)
, e.
E !!
"The ITP's use of time-history modeling techniques for some j
accelerations, displacements and shell forces in the containment 8 (;
structure and Blume response spectra for other accelerations, y
displacements and shell forces in the same structure was 4h improper."
j q
4 5F Q.1: Did' the IDVP address the ITP's use of time-history l
modeling for some accelerations, displacements, and shell forces 6 !
s 7]
in the containment structure and the ITP's use of the Blume H
8l response spectra for other accelerations, displacements, and L
i 9
shell forces?
- 100, A.1: Yes. This is reported in Section 4.2.3 of ITR-54 and ii 11f Ref. 9 therein.
i 12 Q.2: What types of analyses did the ITP perform?
13 A.2: A time-history analysis was performed by the ITP in 14 both the vertical and horizontal directions.
This analysis was 15 used to compute in-structure response spectra for use in evalua-16 d tion of equipment, piping, etc.
17,
In addition, the structural member loads were determined i
18 from the horizontal time-history analysis.
The loads constitute l
the horizontal contribution to the seismic loading.
The vertical 19 20 contribution to the structural loading was computed separately 21 :.
from a response spectra analysis, using the controlling Newmark i
i 22 "
ground spectra for the Hosgri earthquake.
l t
v 23 Q.3: Was this method of combining forces used in the 3
L 24 original Hosgri evaluation for the DCNPP-17 l
l 25}
A.3: Yes. This methodology was approved by the NRC Staff a
26j in SER Supplement 7, Section 3.8.5.4.
27f Q.4:
Is this a proper method for obtaining the horizontal t
q 28y
'l, Y
3-5 c
I.
', lI l
6 i.t 1!
and vertical components of the seismic load on the structure and, j
2i if so, why?
h 8j A.4: Yes.
It is entirely proper to combine the results ob-l 4
tained from use of a time-history analysis in the horizontal j
5 0 direction and the results obtained from use of a response spectra l
i.
i 6h analysis in the vertical directions.
4 7 i; A time-history analysis is required to obtain accurate in-8' structure response spectra, therefore it must be performed.
9 However, for the member evaluation, it makes little difference i
10 technically whether seismic structural loads are computed on a t-11 time-history basis or a response spectra basis.
For this pur-12 "
pose, the two methods are equally acceptable alternatives for l
accomplishing the same results.
The licensing criteria do not c
13
- (
14L specify the exclusive use of one method over the other.
Peak 15 values for the different directions are combined by the square q
16 l root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) and either method may be 17h used to compute the individual peak values.
18 M Q.5:
Is the IDVP aware of any improper use of time-history 19,,
modeling for some purposes and Blume response spectra for others?
a 20 A.5:
No. The IDVP has concluded that this use of time-i 21 history modeling and Blume response spectra is entirely t
22 appropriate and consistent with licensing criteria.
23 loi O
24 :
4 F
26 [
-t 27 '
28N il d
3-6 s
f.
i:
s i'
CONTENTION 3 6 (RLC, RW, JMB, MJH) l 1i (f) The ITP's modeling of the soil properties for the con-2 tainment and auxiliary buildings was improper in that:
/
(1) in the soil structure interaction analysis of con-4 3g tainment for the DE and the DDE, use of boundary motion inputs to a
the model were improperly used; 4p (ii) the soil structure interaction analysis for con-tainment for the DE and the DDE uses a 7 percent damping value 5?
for rock, which is unconservative, especially for the DE; j,
(iii) the dynamic analyses of the containment for all 6
earthquakes omit any analysis of uplifting of the foundation mat; (iv) the modeling of the soil springs for the 7
auxiliary building does not specify soil properties; (v) in the modeling of the soil springs for the 8
auxiliary building, the motion inputs to the lower ends of the springs does not account for all soil structure phenomena that 9
could be expected.
h 10 Q.1: Did the IDVP address the issues in Contentior. 3 (f) n 11 (1) and (ii)?
q 12 '
A.1: No. The IDVP did not address those issues.
13 Q.2: Why not?
14 A.2: Those subparts of the contention address specific 15 !
details in the soil-structure interaction analysis for the con-16 tainment, and that analysis was not part of the IDVP sample for 17 -
the soils review.
18 Q.3: Did the IDVP sample any of the soil work, and if so 19 what did it sample?
20 A.3: Yes. The IDVP took an extensive sample of the soils 21 work, including the soil-structure interaction analysis of the 22 diesel fuel tank, the auxiliary saltwater piping, the sliding and 23 overturning analysis of the intake structure, a review of the 24 soils tests and others. These samples are described in ITR-68.
25 Q.4: Did the IDVP address the issue alleged in Contention 26 3(f) (iii) concerning base-mat uplift for the containment build-27 ing?
28,
u 3-7
i y
1 1h A.4: No. This particular calculation was not part of the 20 IVDP sample.
3 !!
LQ.5: Does the IDVP know whether uplift of the containment n
44 building was reviewed by the CAP?
50
-A.5: Yes. An important element of the IDVP verification of 6 !!
the CAP was to obtain an index of all calculations for each 7
building as a check on the completeness -of the CAP's review.
8
'This index indicated that overturning calculations were perfor:r,ed 1
9, (see ITR-54, App. A).
In addition, at a public review meeting on c
10f May 4,1983, the DCP described additional work performad en the 11h study of-tilting.
12,
Q.6: Turning to Contention 3(f) (iv), did the IDVP address
-13 the modeling of the soil springs for the auxiliary building and 14' f the soil properties upon which it is based?
15 A.6: Yes. The reviews of the soil springs in the auxiliary 16 building dynamic models are reported in ITRs-6 and -55.
17 Q.7: Are the soil properties specified in these models?
18 A.7: The calculations that derive soil spring 19 characteristics have a clear description of the properties used.
20 The properties of the soil are also presented in detail in the 21 FSAR, App. 2.5a.
The IDVP verified that the soil properties 22 chosen by the ITP were sufficient to model the soil springs in an 23 appropriate manner.
24,
Q.8: Turning to Contention 3(f)(v), did the IDVP address 25 tne issue of the motion inputs to the lower ends of the soil 26,
springs for the auxiliary building?
27 A.8: Yes.
28 4
3-8 1
h
~.
- - ~
=~
t,
.,-j I
+
1 4
1!
- Q.9: What was the motion input to the soil springs used in-I 2 d the'ITP analysis?
81-A.9: The time-history of the ground motion for both Hosgri l
4?
- and DE-DDE has an -associated response spectra that envelopes the h --
i 5j; design basis ground spectra for these licensing e: thquakes 4
6]
(4.3.1 of Hosgri Report;-FSAR, Figures 3.7-1 through 3.7-4)..For j
t n
both the DE-DDE and Hosgri earthquakes, the ITP assumed a fixed 7
base at. elevation 85' and used a : soil spring representation at a
8; 9[
elevation _.100'.
The input motion of the appropriate earthquake o
_ as used as input to both the-soil spring and the fixed base por-w 10 e
11 0 tion of the auxiliary building for both the horizontal motion and b
12 -
-the vertical motion.
f
~13 Q.10:
Is this an appropriate'model and method of performing i-14l!
seismic. dynamic analysis of the auxiliary building and its soil h
springs to ensure the design basis earthquake motion is correctly 15 j'V i
1'6 - U considered?
1 17jI A.10: -Yes. The model and method used constitute a reason-ish able approximation of the structure and its foundation.
This 19f conclusion is supported by parametric studies performed by both 1
the ITP and the IDVP.
These studies showed that large differ-20,
5 ences-in ~ the soil spring properties produce differences in the 21 g s
- 22 j!
auxiliary building motion that are negligible.
i n
_.11:
In the particular analysis done for the DCNPP-1 i
23y' Q
auxiliary building, were all soil-structure interaction phenomena 24 g 25 y,.
considered?
A.ll: No. However, any such omissions would not have a l
26 [l j
a 1
27h significant effect for the reasons stated in A.10.
c 28 L
~
3-9 i-4 P
l,!
F,
+
11-i
~ l~ i; -
Q.12:
Is the IDVP aware 'of any improper modeling of. soil h
2.;
properties'for the auxiliary and containment buildings as alleged Il i
3 ll in this contention?
Y 4 J A.12: Nc., To the extent these were within the scope of the 5 il' IDVP's review, the IDVP is aware of.no such improper modeling.
I!
i 6
7; 4
8, 9 oc d
10 I
4 f
11 l
12 1 13 14 15 16 "
q 17
18 s
19 I
20 I
21 22 23 i.-
24 26 27 '
28,
3-10
.-v
, - -,. -... -...,, -.. ~,,,.,. -. - -, - - -, -.. -
,...,. - - _. ~,,, -. - - -., -, - -. - ~... - -,., -. -
1 j
1 CONTENTION 3.g. (RLC, MJH, RW, JMB) i i
2 "The ITP's modeling of the crane in the turbine building was improper in that it models the crane only for a single (parked) b l
8 h position and load (unloaded)."
4j Q.1: Did the IDVP review the ITP's modeling of the turbine h
p 5
building and the effect of the crane thereon?
j j
h 6 !!
A.1: Yes.
j 7'
.Q.2:
In the review of the turbine building, did the IDVP l
8 S consider it proper for the ITP. to account for only one position 9
and status of the turbine building crane (parked and unloaded)?
10 '
A.2: Yes. PGandE has committed to maintain the turbine 11[
building crane in the parked and unloaded condition until the 12 fi turbine building has been qualified for operating conditions.
13 (DCP Phase I Final Report, Section 2.1.4).
14 E Q.3: Did the IDVP also review the ITP's modeling of the 15 turbine building crane itself?
.16 '
A.3: No.
17 ll g,4: Why not?
18 "
.A.4: The IDVP chose one inajor crane at DCNPP-1 fo-in-depth 19 '
verification and, for this sample, the IDVP sought to choose the 20 most important crane at the site.
This was judged to be the 21 polar crane in the ~ containment, because of its
- function, 22 location, and complexity of design.
The IDVP's verification of 23 the CAP's analysis of the containment polar crane did not 24 identify any reason to expand the sample to any of the three 25 additional large cranes located at the DCNPP-1.
26 27 3-11
l'
\\
o e
CONTENTION 3.1.
(RLC,RW,MJH) i 1'
"The ITP's modeling of hydrodynamic forces for the intake 2y structure were improper in that sloshing effects for the inside p
water and hydrodynamic pressures on the outside of the structure 8j were not considered."
I 4
Q.1: Did the IDVP consider the modeling of hydrodynamic I
5 'l forces for the intake structure?
61 A.1: Yes.
t 7'
Q.2:
How did the ITP consider hydrodynamic effects?
8' A.2: The ITP considered the most significant effect of 9
hydrodynamic loading.
In the IDYF's view, the major forces and j
10 the only significant hydrodynamic loads are the inertial load of 11 J the water mass that acts directly against the inlet piers or flow 12 straighteners in a north-south earthquake.
The IDVP noted that 13l this force was considered in a ceaservative manner in the IDVP's 14 design review of the ITP's analysis of the piers.
(ITR-58, 15 Section4.2.9) 16y Q.3: Why is this the most significant force?
17 l' A.3: This is the most significant force because the water 18 mass in question is bounded by the flow straightener walls on the 19 north and south.
In the east-west direction the water is un-o 20 ;
bounded in a westerly direction, and the eastern boundary of the 21 water consists of' massive convergent concrete sections.
The flow 22 straightener walls must resist the large hydrodynamic inertia 23 '
load, primarily in north-south bending.
24 Q.4: Are there other significant hydrodynamic effects, such 25 as sloshing?
26 1; A.4: Sloshing effects will be present to a limited degree.
27 "
However, the sloshing loads in this configuration and type of 1
28 i i
a 3-12
. = _ _.
I h
1 i
Il 1!!
structure are not significant compared to the. loads discussed in 2 !!
- A.3..
t 8-!!
Q.5: Does the IDVP. conclude that the ITP adequately con-a 4j sidered hydrodynamic forces for the intake structure?
i
- j' A.5
- Yes. The. ITP considered the only significant hydro-5' 6 l{
dynamic loads acting on the intake structure in a conservative I
7:
manner.
8 h
9 i' t
10 "
N 11 12 13 1
14 15 16
- I 17 18 '
19 20,
21 22 23 24 25 26.i 27 28 3-13
ll l
il 1q CONTENTION 3.J.
(JMB,RLC,RW,MJH) l L
"The ITP's modeling of the intake structure by using 2q different models for horizontal and vertical seismic loadings and combining vertical and horizontal responses was improper in that 8j" the modeling of the crane combines linear and nonlinear analyses 4j for the different loads without justification."
1 5I Q.1: Did the IDVP address the modeling of the DCNPP-1 in-l 1
6j take structure?
7o A.1: Yes.
8 Q.2: Did the ITP use different models for the east-west and 9
north-south directions?
10 A.2: No. The east-west analysis, the north-south analysis, 11 and the vertical analysis were performed en the same model, with 12 appropriate changes in boundary conditions (see ITR-58, Section 13 4.2.3).
The analysis of this structure in all three directions s
14 was a linear analysis.
There is therefore no basis for any 15,
allegation that different nodels were used to analyze horizontal 16 1 and vertical loadings.
17 Q.3: Did the IDVP verify in detail the modeling of the in-18 take structure crane?
19 A.3: No. This crane was not part of the IDVP sample.
20 However, the IDVP does have some knowledge of how the crane was 21 modeled.
The crane was modeled ana analyzed separately from the l
building, except that the mass of the crane was considered in the 22 23 dynamic analysis of the building.
After the crane was analyzed,
(
24 the
- actions on the building were considered in the member 25 evaluation (DCP Phase I Final Report, Section 2.1.4).
26 Q.4: Was the analysis of the crane non-linear?
27 A.4: Yes, in the sense that the cable that carries the i
28 j
i, 3-14
I.
ll 1
crane load can only carry tension and not compression.
This 2
}
effect is only important in the vertical direction.
8 l
Q.5:
Is it appropriate to combine the results of a linear j
4 horizontal analysis with the type of non-linear vertical analysis l
5/!
' described in A.47 1
i
.6 l.
A.5: Yes, I
7 Q.6:
Is the IDVP aware of any improper combining of linear 4
8 l, and non-linear analyses as alleged in tne contention?
9 A.6: No. The IDVP has not attempted to verify the modeling 10 of the intake structure crane.
However, based on its knowledge i
11 of the intake structure itself, including some knowledge of the i
12 modeling of the crane, the IDVP does not believe that there has e
13 l!
been any improper combining of linear and non-linear earthquake 14 h loadings in the ITP's analysis.
I 15 i,j 16'i 17 h 18.'l f
19 l
20 9 i
I 21 ji r
22 23 L I
24 25 l
26 h 27 :i 28,;
3-15
Il b
I!
F CONTENTION 3.k.
(RLC,MJH,JMB,RW) 1 "The ITP's modeling of the intake structure by using ductil-2 ity factors for steel and concrete was improper in that no p?
explanation or justification for ductility are provided, and in 8
i; that a post yield analysis was apparently done to determine pier 4 ij ductility characteristics, also without justification or listing
- l of results."
51 6[
Q.1: Did the IDVP address the use of ductility factors for 7h reinforced steel and concrete in the intake structure?
8J A.1: Yes. The IDVP verified that the ductility limits 9
employed by the ITP were consistent with the licensing basis i
10 ductility factors referenced in the Hosgri report.
(Hosgri 11 Report,Section4.1.3) 12 Q.2: Was the IDVP able to verify that ductility demands f
13 '
were properly estimated?
14 '
A.2: Yes. The IDVP reviewed the calculations for the 1
15 ductility estimates of the intake structure piers.
A post-yield 16 analysis was required to prove that the ductility predicted if 17 '
the Hosgri earthquake struck in a nort:L. south direction would be 18 within the limits of the licensing basis.
The analysis showed 19 that it would be.
20 Q.3:
Is the IDVP aware of any use of incorrect ductility 21 ',
limits or any incorrect calculation of ductility demands in the 22 ITP's analysis of the intake structure?
23 A.3: No. The IDVP has verified that the ductility limits 24 employed in the analysis of the intake structure were consistent 25 with the applicable licensing criteria.
The IDVP also verified 26 that the method used to determine ductility demands was proper.
27 28,
3-16
ig 4
4 1;
CONTENTION 2.n.
(RLC,MJH) a "The ITP's stress value for concrete in shear walls used in 2,
9 modeling the auxiliary building was improper in that the stress value (allowable) used for shear in the concrete walls is large, 8
is less conservative than what is provided in ACI 318-77, and may f
cause wide cracks."
4:
I 5
Q.1: Did the IDVP address the criteria for ev31uation of 6 ;;
shear walls in the auxiliary building?
it i
7 A.1: Yes.
8 Q.2: What allowable stress criteria were used by the ITP in 9
the shear wall calculations for the auxiliary building?
10 A.2: The licensing criteria required the use of ACI-318-63.
11 '
(FSAR, Section 3.8.1; Hosgri Report, Section 4.5.3)
The DCP used test-based allowable stress criteria as permitted by ACI-318-63, 12 13 Section 104.
Contrary to Governor Deukmejian's assertion in his 14 Answers to PGandE's Second Set of Interrogatories (No. 88), the 15 U DCP did not use the value "10(sqrt(f'c))"
in its wall 16 '
evaluations.
17 Q.3: Does the application of these criteria to the DCNPP-1 18 raise a concern about " wide cracks" in the auxiliary building 19 concrete?
20 A.3:
In the event of an earthquake of Hosgri magnitude at 21 DCNPP-1, it is the opinion of the IDVP that any concrete cracking 22 that occurs will not compromise the structural integrity of the 23 buildings.
24 Q.4:
Is the IDVP aware of any improper use of stress values 25 used for the auxiliary building concrete?
26 A.4: No. The IDVP has concluded that the IIP employed the 27 appropriate licensing criteria.
28,
3-17
q p
]
6 1g CONTENTION 3.o. (RLC, JMB, RW) 2' "The ITP has not demonstrated, and the IDVP has not U
verified, that the DCP modeling of the seismic response of the 3j fuel handling building is proper, in that the DCP has nat adequately justified the use of the translational and torsional 4a response of the auxiliary building as input to the fuel handling J
building nor has it demonstrated the validity of the dynamic 5j degrees of freedom selected.
(ITR 57.)"
a 6
Q.1:
Did the IDVP verify that tne ITP's modeling of the 7'
seismic response of the fuel handling building was proper?
h 8.
A.1: Yes. This is reported in ITR-57.
9 ii Q.2:
Did the ITP use translational and torsional response 10 obtained from the auxiliary building analysis as input to the i
11 aaalysis of the fuel handling building?
12 h A.2:
Yes.
13 Q.3: Was it good engineering practice to use these 14 ;
auxiliary building responses as input to the analysis of the fuel I
15 i handling building?
16 y A.3: Yes. The fuel handling building was included in the l
17 model of the auxiliary building.
A more detailed model of the 18 fuel handling building was then used to determine local 19 responses.
The fuel handlir,g building rests on the auxiliary 20 building, and in an earthquake the excitation experienced by the c
21 fuel handling building will be the motion of the auxiliary 22 building, as modeled by the ITP.
Th1s excitation includes both 23 ;
translational and torsional response.
24 = i Q.4: Were the appropriate dynamic degrees of freedom 25 i selected for the modeling of the fuel handling building?
26 A.4: Yes. The ITP developed a large comprehensive model 27 for static analysis of the fuel handling building using the 28,
h 3-18
I i
i n
ih Stardyne Computer Code.
Following widely used engineering
}!
2]
procedure, the large static model was divided into smaller parts l
i 8 [!
and then condensed into two dynamic models with fewer degrees of l
1 4 ll freedom to make it manageable for dynamic analysis.
The Guyan 5h reduction technique in the Stardyne code, a reliable method which l
6' has been in standard use for many years, was used.
A sufficient 7
number of dynamic degrees of freedom was included to adequately 8
determine peak accelerations.
These peak accelerations were then 9,
used to obtain static loads which were applied to the large i
10 0 static model for purposes of member evaluation. The IOVP verified this process and the data transfer from dynamic models to static 11 12 models (ITR-57, Section 4.2.4).
13 Q.5:
In the judgement of the IOVP, were the modeling and 14 analysis of the fuel handling building performed properly?
15 A.5: Yes.
16 1 17 0 i
18 19 20 21 22 23 u o
24 ;,
2s '
26 0 27 28 '
3-19
ii 1,il CONTENTION 3.p. (RLC, JMB, MJH, RW) t 2d "The ITP has not demonstrated, and the IDVP has not
'l verified, that the DCP seismic model of the slabs in the 3 ll auxiliary building is proper, in relation to the use of vertical q
and rotational springs to model the columns, and the motions used 4h as input at the ends of the springs not connected to the slabs.
i j
In addition, in the study of the diaphragms, the ITP has not l
5j adequately accounted for the inplane flexibility of these slabs, q
and has not adequately demonstrated that stresses are within i
6h allowable limits at all elevations.
(ITR 55.)"
s 7
Q.1: Did the IDVP verify ITP's modeling of slabs in the 8L auxiliary building for the purpose of determining response of 9
those slabs to vert. leal seismic inputs.
J 10 L A.1:
Yes, as reported in IB-55.
11 '
Q.2: Why was it necessary for the ITP to model certain 12 slabs in the auxiliary building and how was the modeling 13 :!
accomplished?
14[
A.2: As reported in ITR-55, Rev.
1, the ITP performed 15 ;l calculations to determine which slabs had natural frequencies 16 !!
less than 33 Hz and therefore required more detailed modeling.
17 f Twelve such slabs were identified as requiring more detailed 1
18 l modeling to generate floor response spectra. This consisted of 19 developing a
finite-element model of the slab and using 20 appropriate boundary conditions to represent the walls and 21 supporting interior columns.
22 Q.3:
In its analyses of the vertical response of auxiliary 23 building slabs did the ITP incorporate in its models vertical and 24 ;
rotational springs to represent the supporting columns?
25 A.3: Yes.
In addition, the ITP incorporated rotational 26 springs to represent the supporting walls.
27,
a 28 3-20
,y,
_ _ =...
_~
'i,_
s,
[
b Il Q.4: What were the motions that the ITP input to the slab t
2l i
model?
3 i
h8j A.4: Vertical motions at the slab elevation, obtained from
{
4 fj the~ response of the auxiliary building as a whole to vertical j
n 4
5 i
j ground motion, were. input to the slab model.
6 Q.5: At what points on the model were the vertical motions-l u'
7:-
input?
8i A.5: The motions-described in A.4 were input to the slab at 9]
its wall. boundaries, and to the grounded ends of the vertical 10l springs representing the supporting columns.
11 Q.6: Did the IDVP verify that the details of modeling i
12 o described ' in A.2 and A.3, and the choice and locations of input t
ii 18 ij motion described in.A.4 and A.5 were proper?
j.
14li A.6: Yes. The IDVP verified that the modeling of the slab 15 ii and the supporting columns, and the choice and locations of input 16-.
motions 'were proper for the purpose of evaluating the vertical 17 response of the slab.
The IDVP conclusion is based upon the 3
18 '
following considerations:
19 '
a)
.The vertical response of the slab is primarily a r
20 function of the stiffness characteristics and mass 21 distribution of the slab
- itself, which are well l
22j-represented by the finite element model of the slab.
23 b)
Incorporating vertical springs, which represent the
-24?
- axial stiffness of the columns, is an appropriate 25i refinement in the modeling of the slabs.
26 ;!
c)
Based upon the differences in amplitude of motions at t.
27j the floor elevation of the slab and at the elevations
.t 28 3-21 i.
1
, -.- -,,.__-. -..~..
. - -..-. _, -,- -. - - - -~. - - -
8 one floor above and below, the choice of auxiliary 1 ll 2 l input motions other than described in A.4 would not 3h clearly represent a refinement.
4.!
Q.7:
In the study of the diaphragms, did the ITP adequately 1
5 account for the in-plane flexibility of the auxiliary building
}
a 6e slabs?
i 1
i 7'{
A.7:.Yes. The dynamic analysis was based on rigid 8 :
A three-dimensional static finite element analysis, 9
which included in-plane slab flexibility, was used for member I
10, '
evaluation. This is documented in ITR-55, Appendix E.
11,
Q.8: Did the ITP adequately demonstrate in its analysis of 12 the auxiliary building that stresses are within allowable limits 13l at all elevations?
14 A.8: Yes. This was the purpose of the three-dimensional 15 analysis cited in A.7.
16 Q.9: Does the IDVP conclude that the ITP used any improper 17 ;
modeling or methods of analysis in evaluating the auxiliary 18 building as alleged in the contention?
19 !
A.9: No. Based on the sample reviewed by the IDVP, the ITP l
modeled and analyzed the slabs properly.
j 20 21 22 23 l
i l
24 l
25 26) i 27 l i
{
28l 3-22 i
,~.
i 1
I b
3 1 li CONTENTION 3.g. (RLC, MJH, RW) t 2i "The ITP has not demonstrated and the IDVP has not verified, 4
that the soils palysis for the buried diesel fuel oil tanks is 8
proper in that the values of the exponent shown in figure 14 of i<
ITR 68 have not been demonstrated to be appropriate and the vari-4d ation of shear velocity with depth is not properly justified.
(ITR 68)".
l Il 6 11
.Q.1: Did the IDVP verify that the ITP's soils analyses for 7 h the buried diesel fuel oil (DFO) tanks were proper?
80 A.1: Yes. The IDVP performed independent analyses and 9H parametric studies on the DF0 tanks.
The ITP corrective action 10)1 program performed similar studies.
The IDVP verified that tne 11 ITP studies were correct and appropriate and in agreement with 12 the IDVP independent analysis.
13 Q.2: Were the values of the exponents in ITR-68, Figure 14 14 !i the appropriate values?
15 ]I
~
A.2: The values of the exponents in the expressions for
- 16y shear modulus plotted on Figure 14 of ITR-68 are judged to be 17j acceptable.
Studies by the IDVP demonstrated that the end 1
18 1 results are not sensitive to values of the shear modulus.
19 4 Q.3: Did the ITP
- justify, and the IDVP verify, the 20 ;
variation in shear wave velocity with depth in the analysis of 21 j the buried DF0 tanks?
22j A.3: Yes. The IDVP verified that the variation in shear 23 h
- v. ave velocity with depth for the rock used by the ITP was an 24 acceptable representation of the data obtained from geophysical 8
-l, i
25 e tests.
It should be noted that the IDVP considers the axial 26 1 (tangential) force in the tank wall to be the most important 27 h indicator of the extent of the demands exerted upon the tank.
In 28 none of the many cases investigated by the ITP and the IDVP did
'I 3-23 0
l l
t 1 !!
this force exceed 40 percent of the elastic buckling strength of 2j the tank with the soil resistance to tank buckling completely 8 ll neglected.
In reality the buckling resistance of a buried tank 4 :p is substantially increased by the soil resistance to deformation.
l i
3 5
The IDVP believes that no credible changes in the assumed 6
stiffness of the rock would lead to magnitudes of the tank axial g
7 force approaching the buckling strength.
8 i Q.4: Does the IDVP believe that the ITP's soils modeling 9p and analyses for the buried DF0 tanks were appropritte?
10 a A.4.
Yes. The ITP's modeling and analyses performed to 11l evaluate the DF0 tanks were appropriate.
12j 13 i
14 !i i
1 15 G q
16 i d
17,
18 i
19.j 20 21 22 23 i
24 25 i; 26 ;
27 28 1 3-24 1
h p.
f 1 ';
CONTENTION 3.r. (RLC, RW, MJH) p 2
"The ITP has not demonstrated and the IDVP has not verified
!l that the soils analysis for the auxiliary saltwater piping and i
3 circulating water intake conduit is proper in that the selection of the modulus versus strain curve utilized is not justiftad.
4,!j (ITR 68.)"
3 5 !!
Q.1:
Has the IDVP verified that the modulus versus strain 6
curve utilized in the ITP qualification of the auxiliary
't 7t saltwater piping and circulating water intake conduit is 8 ::
justified?
9[
A.1: Yes. As part of the IDVP's review summarized in 10 ITR-68, Secti:,n 6.2.2, the IDVP verified that the form of the 11,[
curve used follows an accepted approach and that it reflects test 12 data which is tabulated on Figure 23 in that same ITR.
13 1
14.i 15 !..
16$
17 18,
19 20 21 1
22 '
23 24 a
25 26 q 27 28 3-25
'O.
i, _
i 1
i1 [
CONTENTION 3.s. (RLC, RW,-JMB) 2 "The ITP has'not demonstrated and the-IDVP has not verified i
.that the seismic analysis of the turbine building --is _ proper in 8
that - bolt bearing capacities were taken from an inappropriate-4
- source.- (ITR 56.)"
.4 I
l 5t Q.1: Has ~the IDVP verified the ITP's' use of bolt -bearing 6,
. capacities in its-seismic analysis of the turbine building is -
t 4
i i
7-proper?
I i
8l A.1: =Yes.
The IDVP has verified the ITP's use of bolt l
t 9 h bearing capacities as reported in-ITR-56, Section 4.2.11.
i i
if 10{
=q.2: Did the ITP use appropriate-bolt bearing capacities.
~
- 11h, A'.2: Yes. The turbine building is a Seismic Class 2
4
-12l Structure.
Therefore, the criterion in design is to protect the l
i l
18l structure against collapse.
Consequently, the turbine structural i
[
14i[
members, including steel member connections, are designed for the
!l 15j Hosgri earthquake on the basis of ultimate design strength.
In i
i i
16 ll: determining the ultimate bearing capacity of certain bolts in the j
l lower chord bracing connections, the ITP utilized a later edition 17 '
j 1
18h of the AISC Code than referenced in the Hosgri Report.
Based on 19[
test data (J.W. Fisher and J.H.A.
Struik, " Guide to Design l'
20 !!
Criteria for Bolted and Riveted Joints," John Wiley & Sons, N.Y.,
1 i
21'j
- 1974,
- p. 112), the actual bolt bearing capacities are greater o
22 i!
than those derived from this later code.
The IDVP is satisfied a
23 that-the bolt' bearing capacity used by the ITP is proper.
j 24h i
F s
i 25 L p
j 26 27 t
y i
4 28ll.
!i t!.-
3-26 l
0
__i ;
.--.--.L_-.._,
0 1
pl 1
CONTENTION 3.t. (RLC, JMB, RW) 2 "The ITP has not demonstrated and the IDVP has not verified l
that the seismic analysis of the turbine building is proper in 3 l!
that the use of four' different models for the vertical analysis ij has not been justified.
(ITR 56.)"
4 b fi 5'
Q.1: Has the IDVP verified that the ITR's use of four 6h separate models for the vertical analysis of the turbine building
'l 7
is justified?
8 A.1: Yes. As reported in ITR-56, Sections 3.0 and 4.2.10, 9l the IDVP found the use of four models is a reasonable way to e
10 determine the variation in response over the plan area.
It
.I 11 "
should be noted that the vertical stiffness of the elements which 12 connect the separate areas represented is small.
is ",
Q.2: How does one determine the proper number of models to 4
14 p
use in evaluating a complex structurc?
l A.2: The choice of models depends on the configuration of 15 16,
the structure and the methods applied.
The number of models is 17y not as important as how they are used and the way conclusions are 18
' drawn from them.
- i Q.3: Was the ITP's analysis of the turbine building proper?
19 l
20 A.3: Yes. The analysis was proper.
L i
21 :
22 23 9
24 '
25 26 i 27 '
28 ji 3-27
O.
t, P
d it 1 l CONTENTION 4.m.
(RLC,RW) n 2h
" Contrary to QA program commitments in FSAR Section 17.1,-
n documented _ evidence is inadequate to demonstrate that rupture 6
3 il restraints outside and inside containment have been properly designed and installed to provide protection against rupture in l;
4 high pressure piping."
e 5 l!
Q.1:
Did the IDVP address the integrity of rupture b
6 ;l restraints outside and inside containment?
h 7 !;
A.1: The IDVP verified the structural integrity of rupture I!
8U restraints outside containment.
Rupture restraints inside U
9[
containment were not within the scope of the IDVP as described in 10 the IDVP Program Plan.
11 ;
Q.2: What were the results of the IDVP review of rupture L
12 0 restraints outside containment?
13 A.2:
In Phase II, the IDVP performed in-depth design 14,
reviews of the design and qualification of a sample consisting of 15 [
15 design review packages for rupture restraints, in addition to 16i:
a review of the ITP program and methodology.
These reviews are 17 documented in ITR-65, Rev.1.
The IDVP concluded that the design 18 of the rupture restraints outside containment will meet the 19 ?
criteria of the licensing documents when the ITP program is D
20 I complete.
21 l Q.3: Did the IDVP accept any deviation from licensing 22 [
criteria relating to the design of rupture restraints outside I
23 L containment?
24 A.3: No. No such deviation exists.
25 26 27 h E
28 '
J 3-28
^
O, o,
t I!
I 1
CONTENTION 4.n.
(MJH,RLC) 2]
"For the containment exterior shell review the ITP review used the AISC Code rather than Section III of the ASME Code l
]l 3
contrary to the commitment in Table 3.2-4 of the FSAR."
l 4
Q.1: Did the IDVP address the containment exterior shell 5
qualification?
6 l
A.1: Yes.
7 Q.2: Did the ITP use the AISC code rather than Section III 8
of the ASME code as required by the FSAR?
9 A.2: Contrary to the statement in the contention, Table 10 '
3.2-4 of the FSAR does not require the use of the ASME Code for 11 l[
the shell structure, only for certain portions.
The IDVP did not 12 1 verify the qualifications of all areas listed in Table 3.2-4 of 13 the FSAR, since they were not in the IDVP sample.
The IDVP did 14 verify the qualification of the equipment hatch in the 15 containment-shell.
For this item, the ITP used the ASME Code as 16 4 required by Table 3.2-4.
(ITR-54,Section4.2.5).
r 17 ll Q.3: Has the IDVP accepted any deviations from licensing 18 j; criteria in its verification f' portions of the containment 19 L exterior shell qualification?
20 A.3: No.
21 :
u gg !
23N h
24 '
25 s If 26 j 27 g
9 i
28 j..
L 3-29
-