ML20116B550

Draft Preliminary Rept on Design Interface Review of Seismic Reverification Program

ML20116B550
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	10/31/1981
From:	ROBERT L. CLOUD ASSOCIATES, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20116B547	List: ML20116B545 ML20116B550
References
NUDOCS 8504250410
Download: ML20116B550 (69)

Text

f ', , b) l C o t'l ( li U l r u lu let .

l I

i /

f_$

\l 1 I

A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE DESIGN INTERFACE REVIEW OF THE SEISMIC REVERIFICATION PROGRAM 1

I t

October 1981 - ,

Proj ect 105-4 ~ -

Report of work performed for Pacific Gas &

Electric Go. by R. L. Cloud Associates, Inc.

t I

Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.

2972 Adeline Street P.O. Box 687 3erkeley, CA 94703 West Falmouth, MA 02574 -

(415) 841-9296 (617) 540-5381 i 8504250410 811021 PDR ADOCK 05000275 '

P PDR d

-d 'O ,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

. Pdge 1.0 Introduction i 2.0 Obj ective and Scope a,

3.0 Program Methodology 3 3.1 Definition of Seismic 3

Qualification Interfaces 3.2 Review of Methodology 5 3.2.1 Listing g 3.2.2 Structures G 3.2.3 Equipment 4 3.3 Review of Structures and Equipment la 3.3.1 Containment Structure 1A 3.3.1.1 Design Information from PGandE to 13 URS/Blume 3.3.1'.2 Design Information from URS/Blume-

~~

to PGandE 3.3.1.3 Design Information from PGandE to 15 Equipment Suppliers and Qualifiers 3.3.1.4 Qualification of Containment .

,9 Structure and Equipment 3.3.2 InjakeStructure ii l 3.3.2.1 Design Information from PGandE ,q to URS/Blume 3.3.2.2 Design Information from URS/Blume li to PGandE 3.3.2.3 Design Information from PGandE to 20 Equipment Suppliers and Qualifiers 3.3.2.4 Qualification of Intake Structure 40 and Equipment 9

9 li)

~!

1

\ s 1 .

{ .

3.3.3 Turbine Building J3 i l

! 3.3.3.1 Design Information from PGandE '

A3 i

to URS/Blume ~

3.3.3.2 Design Information from URS/Blume to PGandE af 3.3.3.3 Design Information drom PGandE to 24

, Equipment Suppliers and Qualifiers 3.3.3.4 Qualification of Building and 46 Equipment 3.3.4 Auxiliary / Fuel Handling Buildings '

a s, 3.3.4.1 Design Information from PGandE to 31 URS/Blume

)

3.3.4.2 Design Information from URS/Blume A9

.to PGandE 3.3.4.3 Design Information from PGandE to Equipment Suppliers and Qualifiers 3e 3.3.4.4 Qualification of Buildings and 3o Equipment t

.'s ,

-3.3.5 Cranes- -

3;,

'.' 3.3.5.1 Containment Structure Crane

• 32, 3.3.5:2 Intake Structure Crane 39

, 3.3.'5.3 Turbine Building Crane 3g 3 3.3.5.4 Fuel Handling Building Crane g 3.3.6 Outdoor,yater Storage Tanks 9

3.3.7 General Equipment and Systems 4e 3.3.7.1 Piping Systems -

y 3.3.7.2 Valves 43 3.3.7.3 HVAC Components 47 3.3.7.4 Heating Ventilating and Air '

Conditioning Duct 4l 1

-3.3.7.5 Ra.-eve 4.uo 6 Effv& v

( F1 i awd d Elec.b1t4 d w tvu.we.,tnoev 01) t .

t I 1 .

3.3.7.6 Electrical Raceways N.

! 4.0 S e aries and Conclusions I 5.0 References - O N

4 e

i o

e b

ie' ,

9 e

5 011)

I .

APPENDICES i

Appendix 1.0 Information Across-Interface from PGandE to URS/Blume 1.1 Containment Structure -

1.2 Intake Structure 1.3 Turbine Building 1.4 Auxiliary / Fuel Handling Buildings 1.5 Cranes 1.6 Outdoor Water Storage Tanks '

Appendix 2.0 Information to PGandE Across Interface from URS/Blume 2.1 Containment Structure 2.2 Intake Structure 2.3 Turbine Building 2.4 . Auxiliary / Fuel Handling Buildings 2.5 Cranes .

2.6 Outdoor Water Storage Tanks Appendix 3.0 Information Across Interface from PGandE to Equipment Suppliers and Qualifiers 3.1 Mechanical Equipment

, . 3.2 Piping and Valves 3.3 HVAC - Comments and Ducting 3.4 Electrical Instrumentation and Control Appendix 4.0 Civil Engineering - Central File Index Aopendix 5.0 Mechanical Engineering - Central File In'dex Appendix 6.0 URS/Blume Supplier File at PGandE Appendix 7.0 Design verification Documentation of PGandE (iV)

.- .o

-e

• I ,

A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE DESIG INTERFACE REVIEW OF THE SEISMIC c

REVERIFICATION PROGRAM .

1.0 Introduction As a result of the discovery of a misappli floor spectra to the annulus area of the a Di blcation of s Plant Unit 1, a Seismic Reverification Pro o Canyon Power

- gram

• was estab-lished to determine if further errors exist i fication of the plant for the Hosgri 7 5 M n seismic quali-pro' gram was presented verbally to the Uearthquake. This Commission in a meeting at Bethesda S. Nuclear Regulatory 1981.

The NRC felt the program was valuable, Maryland o preliminary report on part of Task 3 of the Rev, but reques Program on a priority basis. - erification Task 3 of the original program is titled "D esign Interface Review" and consists of a reviewesign of seismic and quali- d fication information that was transmitted ack and forth'b

-between PGandE'and~ subcontractors during the e

~

the plant for the Hosgri earthquake .

on of quested in an early preliminary report was a reviThe par ew of the particular design interface that existed between PG

.. URS/Blume during the Hosgri re-evaluation andE and This report has been prepared in response t for a ' preliminary report on the URS/Blume o the NRC request Design Interface. - PGandE Seismic and must be considered a preliminary and as tidled. , as requested reportIt h Any omissions of significant other incompleteness fication program. will be addressed in the ovinformation o 1

erall reveri-

" Seismic Verification Program, Robert L i Inc., Berkeley, California, October 12, 1951 Cloud Associates,

~

I e

of ~ ,

1

.. . A 2.0 Objective and Scope i

The objective of this preliminary part of the verification program was to examine seismic Design and Qualification in-formation of three categories:

(1)

(2) that transmitted fron PGandE to URS/Blume (3) that transmitted fron URS/Blume to PGandE that received from URS/Blume by P'GandE and subsequently distributed , by PGandE, to those qualifying equipment The requirement was to perform an engineering review of this information in a se] etive manner, as described below.

It was reviewed to establish that correct building and equipment configurations were transmitted for analysis; that analysis was performed using applicable drawings with the correct re-vision, applicable equipment weights, etc.

Design spectra', building loads and other output of URS/Blume a

as' transmitted by'URS'/Blume and received by PGandE were sche-duled for examination with the objective of checking to see that URS/Blume-generated information was properly applied.

The methodology employed in this task is described in Section 3.2 herein.

The scope of the present effort is limited to the review of j the Design Interface of PGandE with URS/Blume.

i ~ Other design interfaces study.

will be reviewed in the overall re-verification The buildings and equipment reviewed in the present t

effort are those required for safe cold shutdown, and were requalified in the Hosgri reanalysis.

h

3 i

3.0 Program Methodology 3.1 '

Definition of Seismic Qualification Interfaces The seismic qualification interfaces of interest for the present effort are illustrated in Figure 3.1. As can 'be seen, there are three primary interfaces that are denoted by roman numerals.

The word interface refers to the process or activity in which certain engineering work is done in one organization, then transmitted ~to another.

In the receiving organization, the engineer-

~

ing work is used, and perhaps transformed or reduced, and transmitted on to other organizations.

. Referring to Figure 3.1, The three primary interfaces are:

I.

Development and assembly of structural configura:

tions, equipment locations and = asses , together with the description of the Hosgri .

earthquake.

This basic plant engineering des-cription and seismic loading .are forwarded to URS/Blume for dynamic analysis.

II.

URS/Blume receives the plant configuration des-cription.

From this information, URS/Blume develops analytical models ' of -the civil structures , and i

performs the dynamic analysis of the structures to determine their response to the Hosgri earth-

.! quake. This response, in the form of' amplified floor response spectra and building loads or building qualification reports, is then

-l transmitted to PGandE.

III.

. PGandE receives the civil / structural seismic res-ponse information and organizes and/or reduces <

1

=. ,\ ,

, 4l l

it into suitable forms for transmittal to

' third parties for use in qualifying' equip .

ment, and in some cases, buildings. ' Equip-ment as.used here refers to everything in '

the plant other than civil structures.

u I Figure 3.1, ill'strating the interfaces, has additional flow

- paths ~that indicate feedback loops across the interfaces and dashed lines that indicate possible indirect interfaces.

These additional cot:munications paths are listed to complete all possible interface interaction activity.

4 9

L 9

b em 4

9

• a , ,

k e

s i -

,i 8

k e

.A

. S 3.2 Review Methodology l

l '

It was convenient to develop an organized approach to'the review to minimize confusion, lost motion,and to ensure that a complete review was accomplished.

The following paragraphs describe the methodology that was devised for' use in the

, current preliminary effort. ,

<t The basic orientation of the review was to ensure that the applicable design and qualification information was used.for building and equipment qualificatica by studying.the engi-neering work itself.

i- Although casual observations were made I on QA/QC type questions such as independent checking, fol-lowing of procedures ,etc. , the ba' sic intent of the present ef-fort was to determine if the applicable eng.ineering data was t

' used in the seismic qualification calculations, regardless of the formality with which it was handled.

A second tenet of this effort was to perform a review that 3as both broad and complete, but also had the requisite -

df depth. ,

In order to accomblish 'this obj ective, two goals were set.

The first goal was to examine all the interface design information involving URS-Blume to verify consistency and general accuracy. The second goal was to review all i, -

I' _the interface information involving URS/Blume for two-select-ed buildings in complete and comprehensive detail. The two buildings selected were the ~ Intake Structure and the Contain-ment Building.

3.2.1 Listing ...

Having defined the design interfaces, the next step was to list the categories of information expected to flow .

across each of the 3 interfaces. These categories are listed in Figure 3.2.

f I

y w,n- - - , - - .,-v--%- - , - - , - - - . - , , - - - - , - , . - - - - , , - - _ _ ,

6 3.2.2 Structures .

To break the required information into more manage-able packages, the design information.was examined' separately for each building. The buildings are listed in Figure 3.2.2-1 with cognizant responsi-

~

bilities for major tasks. As indicated, there was a separate responsible PGandE building engineer for each structure.

The interface design information was studied sep-j arately for each building and is reported separately herein.

3.2.3 Ecuipment -

The overall cognizant responsibilities. for the

.j .

Hosgri requalification of equipment was divided between FGandE and Westinghouse, as listed in

' Figure'3.2.5-1. 'PGandE performed this qualifica-tion in-house with PGandE engineers in some cases, and utilized subcontractors for others. Subcon-tractor interfaces on equipment qualification are described in the body of this report.

!I The general strategy regarding equipment qualifica-l tion was straight forward. The flow of design l

spectra was traced from the URS/Blume report on the relevant building to the qualification document for the individual items or classes of safety related equipment. For this preliminary report, much of the specific seismic input for certain types of equipment-required more time to track than was available. When L

I' ,__ i

. 7 this occurred it is noted and the input will be reviewed in the overall report. -

A sizeable portion of Hosgri required.. equipment was qualified by Westinghouse.

design information sent The flow of seismic j to Westinghouse by PGandE was partially documented (See Appendix 3.1.1) .

The Intake Structure Hosgri spectra were sent to'

, Westinghouse April 15, 1977 These spectra are identicle to the current Hosgri spectra, through Ammendment 83.

i The Auxiliary Structure Hosgri spectra and control room slab update, April 11, 1977 and March 25, 1980 respectively are.also identical to the current Hosgri spectra, through Ammendment 83.

The spectra transmitted to Westinghouse for the

. Containment Structure on March 16 and 23, 1977 were superceded.;by'.the spectraJissued June 5, 1977.

Spectra could nos be located in PGandE files. On August 9, 1977, PGandE transmitted vertical spectra for the Containment Structure to Westinghouse.

,i-These spectra were thought to be valid until October 1981.

.c No re' cord was found of any Turbine Building spectra ever being sent to Westinghouse.

L

~

r i

t

'l

u_. _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . . . _ _ _ . ...

e INDIRECT ~

INTERFACES

-tx

,s

, .J 3 s

'x Ng

,s h

[ { /

LA 'j

'y

/

/ \.

\ /

/ l_)\ \ /

/-

/ \

\

N'

/ \ x FEEDBACK \  ! FEEDBACK / FEEDBACK \

/ \ \y M \x O k v( O PGandE URS/Blume PGandE EQUIPMENT /

O

=-

O -

=~

v =- '

1 II III ,

FIGURE 3.1: SEISHIC QUALIFICATION INTERFACES ,

oo

~

Interface 1 Interface II Interface III Building Drawings Floor Response Spectra Envelope Floor Spectra for all locations

~ -

Equipment Weights throughout plant Static g Loads and C. G.

Building Loads- Equipment Specifications Documentation of '

Verbal Discussion , Dynamic Analysis Test Specifications ,

Reports for all Definition of Buildings Purchase Orders Ground Motion h

FIGURE 3.2 INFORMATION CATEGORIES OF INTERFACE O

a O

. a. .. .- ,

4 INTAKE CONTAINMENT ~ AUXILIARY TURBINE FIELD CRANES ERECTED TANKS BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING PGandE, MODELING _

& DYNAMIC URS/Blume URS/Blume URS/Blume URS/Blume -

URS/Blume ANALYSIS URS/B - 4 j

1 1

2

• DEVELOP URS/Blume URS/Blume URS/Blume SPECTRA i

~

URS/Blume PGandE . PGandE URS/Blume URS/Blume QUAL C TIONS _

j -

i

• Westinghouse Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION OF BUILDINGS - COGNIZANT RESPONSIBILITIES .

Figu,re 3.2.2-1 ,

O

li ~

EQUIPMENT RESPONSIBILITY .

~ -

Reactor Coolant System W*

and Equipment Piping Systems 6" and W -

over connected to Reactor Coolant Sy. stem .

Secondary Systems PGa'idE & Subcontractors Safety Related Condui't PGandE

& Raceways 1

Safety Related PGandE Mechanical Equipment HVAC PGandE Instrumentation and PGandE --

Control Equipment

• Westinghouse FIGURE 3.2.3-1 RESPONSIBILITY OF EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION O

U4

'- o lg I 3.3 Reveiw of Structures and Eauiement The review of interface.information for structures and' equip-ment was performed using the methodology described in

. Section 3.2. To break the required information into more i managable packages, the design information was examined for the following categories:

1. Containment Structure

2. Intake Structure

3. Turbine Building

4. Auxiliary and Fuel Handling Building

5. Cranes

6. Outdoor Water Storage Tanks

7. General Equipment and Systems Sections 3.3.1 through Sections 3.3.7 discuss in detail the interface information for the above mentioned categories.

i 3.3.1 Containment Structure 1 .. _

The Containment Structure was originally investigated for the Double. Design Earthquake (DDE) by URS/Blume. Results of this investigation are given in the URS/Blume report dated

July 1970, "Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Containment Structure - Finite Element Method Dynamic Seismic Inalysis", (Reference 1). To comply with the 7.5 M Hosgri specification, the* Containment Structure was re-evaluated.

This re-evaluation is presented in the URS/BLume report, i "Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Containment ,,,

Structure Dynamic Seismic Analycis for the 7.5 M Hosgri Earthquake", May 1979 (Reference 11).

The following sections describe the transfer of information between PGandE and URS/Blume for the Containment Structure a

i 13 l and five major pieces of equipment. Generic equipment, such

, l as cranes, piping, heating, ventilating and air conditioning,  !

etc. are covered in Sections 3.3.5 through Sections 3.3.7.

3 . 3 .1. l' Design Information from PGandE to URS/Blume I - *

~

I The close and informal relationship.between PGandE and URS/Blume engineers resulted in sparse document-ation of design information, drawings, equipment

, weights, pipe loads, etc. from PGandE to URS/Blume'.

Appendix 1.1 contains all the transmittal ~ document-l ation for the ' period 1969 through 1981 for the Containment Structure. The documentation in Appendix 1.1 was obtained from Central Files in the Mechanical Engineering Department (Appendix 5) and Civil Engineering department (Appendix 4) and var-ious personal files of engineers at PGandE. In addition part of the information was obtained from N ~ URS/Blume's proj ect file. The. document supporting, -

D this informal interface process contains the person-al recollections of the PGandE engineer responsible

• for the Containment (Appendix 1.1, item #16) .

For the Hosgri re-evaluation (Reference 11) the j- dynamic model used_was the same as for the double

. design earthquake (DDE) analysis (Reference 1),

with additional annulus information provided by PGandE and field visits (Appendix 1.1, item #16) .

To verify that the documents used by URS/Blume to develop the original dynamic model (used subsequent-ly for the Hosgri ev-evaluation) were correct, a list of drawings was checked. This list, given in Appendix 1.1, item #14, was obtained from the Julv 1970 report on the Containment SEructure(Reference 1).

j .

-i

'~

' 14 I .

i The criteria established to check the referenced ,

drawings are tabulated.as follows:

1. These are Containment Structure - Unit 1 drawings.

'- 2. Since the reference drawings had no revision numbers, it was assumed that the ' drawings were current in July 1970.

3. When the drawings had no revisions dated later than July 1970, they were marked "O.K."

If revisions were made, these were so noted.

A review of the above mentioned drawings was per-formed, and it was found that revisions made after 1970 were minor (Appendix 1.1, item #14), and ,

would not affect the model in the horizontal direc-

. tion. ,

In the case of the annulus, the only drawing docu-mentation available are the four sketches sent to

.f URS/Blume from PGandE (Appendix 1.1, item #5), and the calculation sketch at URS/Blume (Appendix 1.1, item #17).~ These ske'tches are for Unit 2 annulus and not for Unit 1. Unit 2 drawings, as provided by PGand E, were used by URS/Blume to formulate i the seismic model because they were clearer and,,,

more easily read.

i' l

Thus, for the Hosgri ev-evaluation report (Refer-1 ence 11) the containment dynamic model used was a Unit 1 interior and exterior and a Unit 2 annulus.

According to URS/Blume thi.. posed no problem as they were under the impression the Unit 1 and Unit 2 were identical. This is identified in T .

.- . 15

]L . .

i Appendix 1.1, item #18. Use of Unit 2 annulus and' Unit 1 interior should have no affect on the shane '

of the annulus spectra, because of the axisymetric interior, as discussed in Appendix 1.1, item #18.

T,he only change in tha annulus regions covered by the 5 referenced frames will be affected due to l Unit 1 being mirror image opposite hand configura-tion from the Unit 2 model.

3.3.1.2 Design Information from URS/Blume to PGandE 4

Unlike the informal transmittal documentation from PGandE to URS/Blume, the documentation from l URS/Blume to PGandE was more formal. This is

verified by' reviewing the transmittal documents listed in Appendix 2.1.1. This Appendix contains l l transmittal documents sent to PGandE from February

) 1977 to the present. These documents were obtained ,

i -

- from'URS/Blume'during"the week of October 13, 1981.

l The contents of the transmittal documents marked with an asterisk are in Appendix 2.1.2.

', 3.3.1.3 Design Infor=ation from PGandE to Equipment

. Suppliers and Qualifiers 1,

T ,l' For the purpose of this interface review, the seismic I input information for the following equipment was L. evaluated:

L1 r, 1. Reactor Coolant System

2. Hydrogen Recombiner

3. Containment Purge Valves

4. Regenerative Heat Exchanger

5. Containment Cooling Fans e

i' '

. j

t .

.' . I

..G t

.i It was found that most of the design information for the above equipment was transmitted to Westinghouse (Appendix 3.1) . The accuracy of' this information-is discussed in the next section.

3.3.1.4 Qual'ification of Containment Structure and Equipment 3.3.1.4.1 Containment Structure A comprehensive design review of the Contain-ment Structure was originally completed on

2/28/77.' Thi.s review had one outstanding item - pipe ructure restraints. This item was cleared, and an mmend=ent issued on

~

1/16/78. The original review and the amend-ment were performed by PGandE and are given in Aependix 7.

1 -

~. Another design review of-the Containment- _

Structure was completed by PGandE on 1/22/79.

This design review addressed the structural adequacy of the Containment Structure for the postulated 7.5 M Hosgri seismic event (Appendix 2.1).

~

l -

Because of the recent development due to the discovery of an error in the annulus spectra,

( no conclusion can be drawn on the :truc tur_al

, adequacy.of the annulus. As'this s:ructure supports many equipment and piping systems, further in-depth review is necessary in.the overall reverification program. ,

c-

. a 17 I, *

• Equipment 3.3.1.4.2 A detailed review of equipment is given in

< Appendix 3.1. A su= mary is given below:

i 1. Reactor Coolant System Westinghouse (W) seismically qualified-the Reactor Coolant vessel for the Hosgri requirement as discussed in the W report,

" Summary Report, Seismic Evaluation of I Westinghouse Equipment for Postulated i

1 7.5 M Hosgri Earthquake, Diable Canyon Units 1 and 2, August 1979 (Appendix 3.1.2).

The seismic spectra used for qualifica-tion envelope the current Hosgri spectra for the interior concrete, and thus the seismic qualification is valid.

• ' b

2. Hydrogen-Recombiner ,

Westinghouse (W) originally qualified the Hydrogen Recombiner in the annulus region by test. These were transmitted to PGandE

~

as discussed in Appendix 3.1.2. Due to I the conservative nature of the test spectra

-utilized in the original qualification, it i

I, was confirmed that the Hydrogen Combiners l qualify to the new enveloped annulus I

spectra.

Continment Purge Valves 3.

The Containment Purge Valves were reviewed by T. N. Crawford as stated in the memo-to-4 file dated 6/11/79 (Appendix 3.1.2) . The zero period accelerations used in analysis i

l r .

. _2_.._-.. ,,_.. . _ _ . _ ..._ . _ _ . _ .. .- . _ _ _ _ _ . . .

,V- .

bt i ., - -

t 1

are more conservative than the current Hosgri spectra. Considering that the computations were correct, the contain-a ment purge valves are qualified to the i: -

7.5 M Hosgri earthquake.

4. Regenerative Heat Exchangers Westinghouse (W) performed the seismic ,

qualification of the Regenerative Heat i Exchangers using the Hosgri spectra as

discussed in Appendix 3.1.2.

. This qualification will require close scrutiny to proberly evaluate the con-clusion of the review.

[, 5. Containment Cooling , Fans

~

A detailed discussion of the qualification and review process for the containment cool-ing fans is given in Appendix 3.1.2. The end result of this- check shows that suoer-ceded spectra were utilized for qualifica-tion. In this particular case, the don-

! clusions are still valid because the spectra that were used envelope the current spectra.

l-6.

1 Besides the equipment reviewed above, other equicment- in the Containment Structure has not been reviewed for the current effort, but will be done in the Reverification Program.

O i

1

.- [q l

3.3.2 INTAKE STRUCTURE .

)

3.'3.2.1 Design Information from PGandE to URS/Blume

- PGandE's Civil Engineering file was. searched for

the design information transmitted from PGandE to 1

URS/Blume on the Intake Structure during and prior to the Hosgri studies (Appendix 4). No such infor-mation was found. The following information was taken from the file of the lead FGandE engineer 4 ,

responsible for the Intake Structure.

The seismic analysis of the Intake Etructure for the Hosgri criteria was initiated on April 26, 1976.

(Appendix 1.2). The relevant information such as civil / mechanical drawings and equipment weights

' were found to be transmitted from PGandE to URS/

Blume from April 26 to June 22, 1976 ('See Appendix

,.. 1.2). -

3.3.2.2 Design Information from URS/Blume to PGandE A two-phase work scope of the seismic analysis of the Intake Structure for the Hosgri criteria was found in a memorandum dated 5/6/76 from URS/Blume to PGandf (Appendix 2.2.1). Some weekly progress-

' reports from URS/Blume were found in the PGandE civil engineering file (Appendix 4) . ...

A preliminary report on the seismic analysis of

' the Intake Structure was issued by URS/Blume to PGandE on April 6, 1977. Modifications of this report were made on 5/9/77 and 2/14/78, and the final report was issued on.5/16/79. An additional report entitled "Diablo Canyon Intake Structure -

M k

. _ - - , , - - . , , - - . , _ , ,,...-+---.,-m-....,. 4 .. . , . . - , , - - - , , _ , , , ~ . , . ---r. . , ---------,<,,--..-r. . - - .

JD 1

4 l

, -. l t

j. Factor of Safety Against Overturning, Foundation Bearing Pressure,s", was issued on 11/13/78 (Ap- t pendix 2.2.2).

~

The design drawings used by URS/Blume to develop the mathematical model for the seismic analysis were reported in "DCNPP -. Intake Structure Dynamic Seismic Analysis for the 7.5 M Hosgri Criteria",

May 9, 1977 (See Appendix 2.2.2). These drawings were compared with the Intake Structure drawings .-

in the PGandE file (Appendix 1.2). A list of In-take Structur.e drawings current 1'y in URS/Blume files is also given in Appendix 1.2. It was found by com-paring the drawings used in developing the mathe-matical model of the Intake Structure with those in the PGandE file, that the PGandE file has later re-vision drawings. The revisions are based on spot checks. These minor changes will not affect the mathematical model used in the seismic' analysis.

u.

3.3.2.3 Design Information from PGandE to Equipment Suppliers and Qualifiers No information was found to be given to equipment suppliers.

I 3.3.2.4 Qualification of Intake Structure and Equipment 3.3.2.4.1 ,

Intake Structure "-

According to the lead PGandE engineer j

responsible for the Intake Structure, the building was qualified by using seismic response output produced in the URS/Blume 5/9/77 report (Appendix 1.2). The URS/Blu=e 5/16/79 report 4

L

l t .

. . . Al .

l

\

. gave smaller building response. There- .

fore, the building does not need to be '

requalified. However, the design ~ review of the Intake Structure (Appendix 7) was

. dated September 1976, and has not re-flected the Hosgri seismic requirement.,

Further investigation will be performed to determine the process of building

. qualification in the overall reverifica-tion program.

3.3.2.4.2 Auxiliary Salt Water Pumps The safety-related Class 1 equipment in-side the Intake Structure are the auxi-liary salt water pu=ps. They were qual-ified-by PGandE using the site design spectra (Hosgri criteria, see Appendix 2.2) for the reason that the building is

- essentially rigid, Although the 5/9/77 and 5/16/79 reports by URS/Blume differ in seismic structural responses, there is no need to requalify the auxiliary salt water pumps if the building is truly

~

rigid since the site seismic design spec-tra were used to qualify these pumps.

~ Rigidity of the building appears to be i a good assumption based upon a cursory examination of the drawings, but this as-sumption will be verified in an engineer-ing sense in the reverification study.

3.3.2.4.3 Buried Pipelines The buried pipelines connecting the Intake Structure to the Turbine Building were -

qualified by.PGandE with input from URS/

t .

i ..

u.-

q

! Blu::le. PGandE's qualification work was independently checked by Harding-Lawson Associates, using input from URS/Blume (See Appendix 7). The input used in the above two studi'es will ba

verified in the overall reverification program.

~

• ~

~ o G

e 4

4

F*- ~. .

T -

. . 23, i '

3.3.3 Turbine Building .

The Turbine Building was originally designated a seismic Design Class II structure and designed on the basis of a minimum horizontal seismic coefficient of 0.2,g. The ,

i-structure was later analyzed for the double-design earth-quake (DDE) and was found to require minor structural mofi-fication. This is presented in the ULJ/Blume report, "Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Earthquake Alalysis Turbine Build-ing, Unit 1", dated July, 1970 (Reference 2).

Because the building contains some design Class I equipment and because it is in close proximity to.the Class I Auxiliary Building, it was necessary to show that under the postulated 7.5 M Hosgri motions the building w6uld not have a failure which would impair either the Class I equipment contained in the Turbine Building or the Class I Auxiliary Building. For this reason, the Turbine Building was investigated for the

~

Hosgri inputs. This resulted in major strucutral modifica-tions, which are given in the URS/Blume report, "Diablo Canyon Nuclear Pocer Plant, Unit 1, Turbine Building Evaluation and Structural Modification for the 7.5 M. Hosgri Earthquake",

. March, 1980 (Refernece 3).

, The following sections address the interface issue between PGandE, URS/Blume, and Equipment Suppliers and Qualifiers

, for the Turbine Building.

3.3.3.1 Design Information from PGandE to URS/Blume The original design and analysis including the generation of drawings of the Turbine Building, I

were done by URS/Blume. Following the Hosgri re-quirement to re-evaluate the Turbine Building in 1977,'URS/Blume performed the analysis and re-evaluation. Design changes and drawings were

-i

s . 24-

] -

, generated by PGandE from URS/Blume input. These l I

were then checked and verified by URS/Blume. (This is documented in~Section 4, Appendix 1.3.)

In the case of the Turbine Building, a large number of transmittals were documented. Appendix 1.3 contains tran'smittal documentation for the period 1974 to 1979.

Relevant design information transmitted is given_in Appendix 1.3.

3.3.3.2 Design Information from URS/Blume. to PGandE Appendix 2.3.1 contains transmittal documents from URS/Blume to PGandE. They reference various spectra, design, analysis and test reports and other corre-spondence of technical nature.

The detail transmittals themselves have.not been

~

I , reviewed and will be a part of-the overall reverific-ation work. .

3.3.3.3 Design Information from PGandE to Equipment Suppliers and Qualifiers In the Turbine Building, the major safety related mechanical equipment system, per Hosgri requirement, is the Diesel Generator System. Since PGandE was its own qualifier, no interface between equipment vendor or suppliers was required.

The Diesel Generator System consists of six major components: ,

b t

• 45 I

4

1. Diesel Generators .

2. Starting Air Receivers ,

3. Fuel Oil Filter

4. Fuel Oil Priming Tank

5. Fuel Oil Strainer -

! 6.

Fuel Oil Transfer Pump The Mechanical Engineering Central File Index (Appendix 5) was reviewed to check for correct and current seismic inputs in the qualifying documents for the above mentioned components.

The specific. details of each component is dis-cussed at length in Appendix 3.1.5.

Results of this review show that the Diesel Gen-erator System was conservatively qualified to correct Hosgri seismic input.

3.3.3.4 Qualification of Building and temponents -

The Turbine Building design qualification responsi-

, bilities were divided between URS/Blume and PGandE.

4 The qualification of major seismic resistant com-

'ponents of the building' for the Hosgri evaluation j was perforded by URS/Blume and specific drawings which reflect the modifications are included in the

report entitled "DCNPP, Unit 1 - Turbine Building-Evaluation and Structural Modifications for the 7.5 M Hosgri Earthquake", March 1980 (Appendix 2.3.2). PGandE implemented modifications to quali-

, by the building frames, interior block and concrete walls and anchorage that were not qualified by URS/

Blume. Tables 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 contain the list of i

a

d

.o .

-a6

'} . .

1 PGandE drawings for these modifications, obtained i

from conferring with the responsible lead engineer.

The PGandE des'ign review is presented in the report "Hosgri Design Verification - Turbine ' Building",

l February, 1980 (Appendix 7).

1 Since the design review did not verify the interface procedures between URS/Blume, PGandE and the field.

(Figure 4-10-2, URS/Blume Report on Design Review, Appendix 7), these will be investigated in the over-all reverification program.

O 9 .

Me *e

.e-P t

..e 4

l

T i' .,

a7 TABLE 3.3.1 .

Drawings prepared by PGandE containing modification inform-ation for Structural Frames, Beams and Columns per Hosgri evaluation for the Turbine Building.

~

-i

-j. 463684 465135 465127 465136 465128 465137 465129 465138 465130 465139

1. 465131 465140 l

465132 465141 465133 465142 465134 ,

465143 TABLE 3.3.2 '- -

Drawings containing modification information for Equipment i Anchorage per Hosgri evaluation for t.he Turbine Building.

I l'

463671

463677 463672, 463678 l

463673 463679

, 463674 463680 463675 463681 --

, 463676 463682 463683 r

4 I

5 f

, J E

3.3.4 Auxiliary / Fuel Handling Buildings

- 3.3.4.1 Design Information from PGandE to URS/Blume PGandE's Civil / Structure file (Appendix 4) was

searched for the design information transmitted from PGandE to URS/Blume on the Auxiliary / Fuel Handling Buildings during and prior to the Hosgri studies. Specifically, Civil / Structure files No..'.

9.3, Auxiliary Building, and No. 9.31, Seismic Analysis , were searched thoroughly (Appendix 4).

E One transmittal issued by PGandE to URS/Blume dated April 16, 1971 was found. In this memo, the steam anchorage drawings of the Auxiliary Building were discussed (Appendix I.4).

After discussions with the lead engineer of PGandE

, who was responsible for the seismic analyses of A*

Auxiliary / Fuel Handling Buildings, it was learned ..

that during the DDE analysis, PGandE developed, with the assistance of URS/Blume, computer programs "Dybox-2" and "Shewal-4" to. compute the mass and i

stiffness properties of the mathematical model for the Auxiliary / Fuel Handling Building (Appendix'1.4).

l The computations tar computer were done at PGandE and the output was given to URS/Blume as input to compute the seismic response of the buildings (Ap-s pe,ndices 1.4 and 2.4.2 - May 9, 1977, pp. 8 and 9).

The lead engineer of PGandE also stated that for the Hosgri criteria, the original data (for DDE analysis) used as an input for Dybox-2 was checked against the as-built conditions. The, results of this check con-firmed that there were no changes in the concrete

. dimensions. Consequently, the DDE model was used

• t 6-i

. gg in the Hosgri study (Appendix 1.4). The same ,

statements were found in the URS/Blume Report of-May 9, 1977 (Appendix 2.4.2).

However, an examination of some telecon records

.(from 3/9/77 to 3/24/77, Appendix 1.4) kept in URS'/

Blume's file reveals that there were discussions on.

discrepancy of weights computed by PGandE in the E-W and N-S directions for the DDE model, and a dif-ference of 35% in the weight at Elevation 140',

computed by PGandE for the DDE model and URS/Blume's

'i computation in March 1977.

An average weight of weights in the E-W and N-S di-rections and the weight of DDE model at Elevation 140' were finally used in the Hosgri analysis, with..

no explanations as to how the weight difference was

. resolved. A detailed examination of the above will

~

be performed in the overall iwverification program.

3.3.4.2 Design Information from URS/Blume to PGandE The flow of information from URS/Blume to PGandE on the Auxilicry Building is documented in Appendix 2.4.-

l+ .

i Preliminary Hosgri spectra were issued by URS/Blume prior to the issuance of the May 9, 1977 (May 11, 1977 transmittal) Hosgri Final Report (Appendix 2.4.2).

During the qualification of the Auxiliary Building it was decided to make a separate more detailed finite element model of the control room due to its importance. This model is the basis for the control room qualification (Appendix 2.4.2). Since the final control room spectra are higher than the preli=inary

+

T:

' ^

• 3e j .

spectra, a detailed review of equipment qualification will be performed in the final program to be sure, the preliminary spectra were not used.

Spectra transmittals after May 11, 1977 provide additional, but not different,-information.

3.3.4.3 Design Information from PGandE to Equipment Sup-pliers and Qualifiers .-

Seismic quali.fication of major mechanical equipment

i. is addressed in Section 3.3.4.4.2. Seismic quali-fication of other equipment and systems is addressed in Section 3.3.7.

3.3.4.4 . Qualification of Buildings and Equipment

. 3.3.4.4.1 Buildings ,

The statement by the respodiible engineer at PGindE in Appendix 1.4 confirmed that the structural e'-

valuation of the Auxiliary Building was done based on the output from URS/Blume's 7.5 M Hosgri seismic analysis. No effort has been spent, becauce of time constraints, to spot-check the building qual-ification details. In the full length verifica-tion study, seismic input loads used for building verification report dated 1974, of the Auxiliary Building is in PGandE's Civil Engineering fil.e (Appendix 7). The design verification report has an attached note indicating revision for Hosgri.

This will be investigated further in the Reveri-fication Program.

9 J

^

- . 31 .

. 1 s . .

I i 3.3.4.4.2 Equipment The major equipment of the Auxiliary Building was qualified either by Westinghouse and PGandE or i reviewed by Westinghouse. Table 3.3.5.4 sum-marizes.the qualification of mechanical equipment in the Auxiliary Building. The detailed infor maticn on this equipment qualification is given in Appendix 3.1.4. -

t e

O i .

a 1

3A j

3.3.5 Cranes 3.3.5.1 Containment Structure Cranes

. There are two cranes in the Containment Structure

.that required seismic evaluation per 7.5 M Hosgri specification. These are the Polar crane and the ,

Dome Crane. A brief discussion of the two cranes is given in the following sections.

3.3.5.1.1 Containment Polar Crane The Containment Polar Crane is a gantry crane with trolleys and consists primarily of welded structural steel members and full moment resis-ting bolted connection., Results of a 3-D.non-linear seismic analysis are presented in the -

URS/Blume report, "Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Containment Polar-Cranes Evaluation for

. the' 7.5 M Hosgri Earthquake.'.', dated J1y 1979 ,

. (Appendix 2.5.2). -

The drawings and other design information utilized for the modelin'g of thd cranes are not referenced in the report. Nor are there any transmittals i

documenting the transfer of these from PGandE to

. URS'/Blume.

!t At present the only documentation that substanti-ates the above mentioned report'are the cilcula-tions (Appendix 2.5.2). These documents basically.

reflect that the design review was completed by URS/Blume and that the results concluced are .

valid. The drawings included in the Appendix of the July 1979 report were checked against the G

9 t

e. g i

j

. . 33

, i-

}

model in the report (Appendix 2.5.2). This ,

preliminary review shows that the information was transformed correctly from the drawing's to the model.

t 3.3.5.1.2 Dome Crane The dome service crane is a maintenance crane located on top of the polar crane. PGandE was

~

in the process of designing modification to comply with the 7.5 M Hosgri Evaluation. As of May 5, 1981, PGandE halted this process and is 4

, presently considering retaining a consultant to evaluate the consequences of assumed failure.

This is documented in the letter dated May 5, 1981 given in Appendix 1.5. The documentation of seismic qualification.of this crane for the Hosgri requirement was not found in ,the current effort. It will be verified in the overall re-

. verification program.

i . .

0 W i

i

.}

~. .

. 3+

t 3.3.5.2 Intake Structure Crane 3.3.5.2.1 Design Ihformation from PGandE to URS/Blume Some design information for the seismic analysis of Intake Structure Crane was transmitted from

, PGandE to URS/Blume on 1/18/79, More design in-formation for crane, trolley assembly.and frames were respectively transmitted on 12/21/78 and-1/24/79. In February 1979, field measurement of, Intake Structure crane was performed (Appendix 1.5).

3.3.5.2.2 Design Information from URS/Blume to PGandE URS/Blume requested field measurement and trans-mitted SK-1-12-9 on 1/23/79. The' crane hoist engineering drawings were found to be transmitted on 3/5/79. The final seismic analyses report en-titled "DCNPP - Intake Structure Crane Evaluation

, for the 7.5 M Hosgri Earthquake", November 1979, was transmitted on 11/28/79 and documents the -

seismic design qualification information for this crane (Appendix 2.5).

3.3.5.2.3 Qualification of Intake Structure Crane

^

A quick review of the final report listed in Sec-

. t io'n 3.3.5.2.2 found many suggested design modi-i fications. They are: the installation of a seismic hold-down and lateral restraint mechanism, and minor structural modifications to transmit h$ri-zontal forces from crane legs to truck and then to the rail. These modifications to design draw-ings were made by URS/Blu=e and were also reported p in the above report. The modifications to construc-tion drawings were jointly made by PGandE and URS/

Blume. However, spot checks need to be made to in-sure that modifications to construction drawings were properly done.

1 c

,' 35 l 3.3.5.3 Turbine Building Crane 3.3.5.3.1 Design Information from PGandE to URS/Blume' In the case of the Turbine Building Crane, a formal transmittal of drawings and equipment weights was done on 7/22/75. The' transmittal,

' documentation giving the drawing number is listed in Section 1 of Appendix 1.5. Besides this design information, no other transmittals were found. .

3.3.5.3.2 Design Information from URS/Blume to PGandE The final report entitled "Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant - Turbine Building Crane Evaluation for the 7.5 M Hosgri Earthquake (Revised)", No-vember 1979, presents the design information required to modify the crane for the Hosgri criteria (Reference 3).

)

Qualification of Turbine Bullding Crane

~

3.3.5.3.3 ~

The qualification of Turbine Building crane was jointly performed by PGandE and URS/Blume.

Based upon design information presented in 3.3.5.3.2 above, URS/Blume modified the crane design to provdie tiedown of the crane trolley to the , bridge girder and lateral seismic res-traint to distribute the lateral seismic loads to both horizontal crane support girders (des-cribed in the Hosgri report given in 3.3.-5.3.2 above). PGandE and URS/Blume subsequently joint-ly revised the crane construction drawings. How-ever, spot checks need to be made to insure that

- modifications to construction drawings were pro-l perly implemented.

l t '

1

3G'

• j .

3.3.5.4 Fuel Handling Building Crane _

3.3.5.4.1 Design Information from PGandE to URS/Blume Very little documentation was found in PGandE's file on design information. transmitted to URS/

Blume. Based upon the recollection of the lead engineer for the seisric analysis of fuel hand-

" ling crane (Appendix 1.5), the latest revisions of crane manufacturer's drawings, original cal ,

culations, and material properties of crane werd' transmitted to URS/Blume. As is the ca'se for some I of the othe'r structures, the information was However, there passed on in an informal basis.

is no record of URS/Blume's correspondence file on crane which shows that URS/Blume received such information. Some spot checks need to be made to check the accuracy of design information trans-mitted. ~

3.3.5.4.2 Design Information from URS/Blune to.PGandE The final report entitled "Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant - Fuel Handl'ing Building Crane Eval-

' uation for the'7.5 M Hos'gri Earthquake (Revised)"

Several was issued on 9/6/79 (Reference 4) .

minor structural modifications to the existing lle crane structural system were reported in order to l

prevent eccentric loading of the crane runway and excessive loading on the trolley axis. ...

3.3.5.4.3 Qualification of Fuel-Handling Building Crane The qualification of fuel-handling building crane to satisfy Hosgri criteria was jointly performed URS/31ume prepared de-by PGandE and URS/Blume.

sign modifications per Hosgri report for this crane. PGandE and URS/Blu=e jointly revised the 0

I

' ~

37 i

subject crane construction drawings. Some spot checks will be made to insure that these modifi-cations were properly done.

e 9

t e

4 e

O 4*

8 5

4

. I l

e e

b e

1

j .

33 3.3.6 Outdoor Water Storage Tanks 3.3.6.1 Design Information from PGandE to URS/Blume PGandE's Civil / Structure file was searched for the i design information transmitted from PGandE to URS/~

Blume (Appendix 4). No relevant transmittals were found.

After talking to the lead engineer.of PGandE who was responsible for the seismic analysis of outdoor i water storage' tanks, it was learned that the seismic analyses of these tanks started in March 1977.

PGandE and URS/Blume engineers worked closely as a team and the information between PGandE and URS/

Blume was exchanged on a person to person basis in meetings, telephone calls, etc. (Appendix 1.6.)

An examination of telecon records kept in URS/Blume's file (Appendix 1.6) confirms the statement described above by the lead engineer of PGandE. Some design

information transmitted between URS/Blume and Hard-ing-Lawson on soil data and stability of tanks was also found in URS/Blume's telecon records. The

design information was found to be transmitted in-formally. Some checks are required in the overall reverification program to insure its accuracy.

3.3.6.2 Design Information from URS/Blume to PGandE The final seismic analyses were completed in- March 1979 and the design information transmitted on March 26, 1979 (Reference 5). Because the tank modifica-tions were being carried out in the field at the same time as the analyses were being performed, nu-l -

J w - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _

, 39 merous revisions were made to PGandE drawings to incorporate URS/Blume's findings. The above report, therefore, re'flects the actual confi'gura-1 tion and field condition of the tanks (Appendix 1.6). Although a team effort existed between,

PGandE and URS/Blume in transmitting the design i information, some checks need to be made to deter-mine the accuracy of the information transferred.

3.3.6.3 Qualification of Tanks '

.i The tanks were qualified jointly by URS/Blume and i PGandE, using Hosgri criteria as they worked to-gether. URS/Blume's Hosgri report (March 1979) documents the modificatio,ns-(Reference 5). The outdoor water storage tanks and components were

subsequently concluded to meet the Hosgri seismic requirement (PGandE's design verification report '

, for outdoor water storage tanks, dated 9/21/79 ,

(Appendix 7). ,

! )

. ~

O e

d 4

4 h

ll .

m-

. . -),

. .. 1 j

, fD

,1

[ 3.3.7 General Equipment and Systems A significant portion of the scope of this report is to review the~ interfaces between PGandE and various equipment suppliers an.d qualifiers. For most equipment, the practical way to check this interface is to examine the end resu.lt, the actual seismic qualification and note whether the current applicable Hosgri response spectra curves were used. .

~

The mechanical equipment seismic. qualifications are reviewed in the section addressing the individual buildings and will be not included here. This sec-tion will deal primarily with the review of seismic qualification of the following equipment and systems.

1. Piping Systems

2. Valves

3. HVAC Components ,,

4. HVAC Ducting .

5. Electrical Equipment & Instrumentation

6. Electrical Systems - Raceways and Conduits e

a 6

f s

B e

l .

fl Piping Systems 3.-3.7 .1 This section of the report will address the transmittal

. of seismic design information from PGandE to consultants-engaged in analysis of piping systems and supports.

As was noted in a summary by the PGandE Pining Groun,

'the piping analysis was assigned to consultants URS/Blume

~

and Earthquake Engineering Systems (EES) . Similarly for support evaluation, URS/Blume, EES, and EDS Nuclear, Inc.

, were used as the primary consultants.

For support evaluation the seismic design input consists of either a spacing table with seismic ~ factors or.the actual support force output from a piping analysis com-puter model. PGandE.uses a design guide for the seismic factors which they transmit to the consultants. .

This will

, be a significant interface. to examine. For instances, where piping computer analysis output is used for des.ign, then,the valve qualification is totally dependent.on the

' design input to the piping analysis.

The transmittals for piping analyses appear to be in complete form for documents sent to EES. The only problem is that the transmittal cover sheet does not list the con-tents of the entire attachment. The transmittal might only read problem number and " appropriate spectra attached".

To trace the flow of information it will be necessiry to find the contents of the transmittals. This task may be accomplished by further examination of PGandE. files or perhaps by examining EES files.

For the scope of piping assigned to URS/Blume, very little correspondence was located during the time frame I

4A

• of Unit 1 piping analyses. However, URS/Blume has not yet been contacted to provide any transmittals cliey may have sent or received, This will be implemented for the

. long term reverification effort. .

9 9

e d

4 e

O* e 6

l O

D D

h

.i s

4

..-c, ,

r a,,, ..~. , -

. . , , ,.-. .- , ,,. ,_,, .-n - , . , . , - - , - . .

, 43 i - .

} 3. 3.7 . 2 VALVES

' A' preliminary review was performed on seismic design inform-ation transferred across interfaces between PGandE and

., vdivequalifiers. This review addresses the' safety related vhlvesthatrequiredseismicrequalificationtomeetthe Hosgri requirements.

3 ,

The valves reviewed consist of the minimum required active j

valves for hot shutdown and/or cold shutdown and the valves

, required in case of a single failure. The containment purge

, ;', valves are addressed in Section 3. 3.1.3. l l

The valves reviewed are listed in Tables 7-3A,3 and 7-7, 7-7A of the Hosgri Seismic Re-evaluation Report (Reference 6). Copies of these, tables are contained in Appendix 3.2.

3. 3.7 . 2.1 Definition of Interfaces  :

{ :. -

, A number of PGandE and contractor interfaces *

.t existed. Review of available documentation to date,shows that the primary interfaces for valve requalification were:

PGandE-EES - 'PGandE for piping analysis PGandE -- EDS ~- PGandE for valve qualification PGandE-~ Westinghouse - PGandE for valve qualification where EES ---- Earthquake Engineering Systems , Inc.

EDS ---- EDS Nuclear Inc.

3 Westinghouse-- Wesringhouse Electric Corp.

\ .

~i

• 4+ .

t I

EES, using data proveded by PGandE, produced computer models of piping systems. Comput'ar analyses were then performed to determine the

. dynamic characteristics of- the piping system under earthquake loading. Results were then -

- returned to PGandE.

Earthquake loading was determined from acceler ,

. ation response spectra provided by PGandE to EE3'.

I PGandE transferred the relavant results of the completed piping analyses, valve accelerations, and pipe loading to EDS and Westinghouse. EDS and Westinghouse then p, roved that the valve meets certain criteria under the given loading conditions. This was done by either analysis or testing. Results were then returned to PGandE.

~

3. 3.7 . 2. 2 Transmittals Between EES and PGandE- .

• No documentation has been found concerning transmittals of information from PGandE to EES at'this point in time. A search-for this ,

l.

documentation is being continued.

Some records of EES transmittals to PGandE

- have been found to date. A complete set of EES transmittals to PGandE has~not been compiled i

yet.

Copies of transmittals located thus far are located in Appendix 3.2.2.

~

h- .

j

~

l .

. YS i

3. 3.7 . 2. 3 Transmittals Between EDS and PGandE 4

A limited amount of documentation of informa-tion transfer from PGandE to EDS has been found to date. Complete document.ation of re-

- qualification information for the valves being reviewed here has not been compiled at this point in time.

Some records of results sent by EDS to PGandE have been located. A complete set of EDS trans-mittals to PGandE for the valves being reviewed has not been compiled as-of this date.

Copies of transmittals. located thus far are lo-cated in Appendix 3.2.2.

3. 3.7 . 2. 4 Transmittals Between Westinghouse and PGandE Some information on PGandE transmittals te West-

. inghouse has been located in PGandE files, how-ever, insufficient records have been found to fully document information flow from PGandE to

,i Westinghouse.

The onIy evidence of information returned from f Westinghouse to PGandE found to date is a Westinghouse document containing valve seismic ,

qualification forms-submitted to the NRC. A copy of this document was sent to PGandE.

, Documentation of transmittals between Westinghouse and PGandE located to date are contained in Ap-pendLx 3.2.2.

E

'l .

[ .

. es. -

3. 3.7 . 2. 5 Reverification Effort .

For valves on flexible piping systems, the accel-eration response of the pipe must be known in order to obtain the valve accelerat. ion's, and to derive the pipe loadings on the valves. This is' a result obtained from the piping analyses.

Therefere, the validity of a valve qualification depends cas information transferred two steps ear .

lier: from PGandE to the piping analyst and from the return of the analysis resu.lts from the piping-analyst to PdandE.

With the documentation availabic to date, no evi-dence was found to indica.te whether the valve ac-celerations have ever been verified as being correct b'efore being transmitted to the valve qualifiers.

To perform a thorough review of the information -

transferred across interfaces, the following pro-cedure will be followed: ,

1 Locate and examine documentation of correct a

Hosgri spectra transmitted to piping analysts.

' )

i i

I

2. Locate and review transmittals of piping ana- ,

lysis results to PGandE, particularly valv,e i acceleraticns. The accuracy of the piping mo-del is also to be checked.

3. Locate and review transmittals of valve acceler-ations from PGandE to valve qualifiers.

4 Cross check data returned to PGandE from piping analysts with data transmitted out of PGandE to the valve qualifiers.

, - . . , . ~ . - =-,,--y.- ~. . - - - , . - , --,---n- -I--, e-+-, w,-.my, , .+ - ...g.~.--,-- - -

-,v-- - -

w , - - - , -.- - - -

-t--. --v-.m- - -

I .

. f7 l 3.3.7.3 HVAC Components i

An independent engineering review of the seismic qual-ification was performed for the Safety Related HVAC

, equipment (References 7 and 8) by EDS Nuclear, Inc.

l This EDS review concluded that the majority of the HVAC equipment is seismically qualified to the Hosgri re-

. quirement, and that with minor modifications, the re-mainder will also be.

As part of this interface review, the seismic acceler-ations that were used as input was checked for correct-ness. Out of 5 inputs checked, one of them was in-correct. ,

The f:I. eld work is given in Appendix 3.3.1. Since the qualification accelerations are larger than the Hosgri

,' accelerations, these particular errors were not of .

consequence. . .

3.3.7.4 leating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Duct 3.3.7.4.1 The majority of HVAC ducts required for cold shutdown has been qualified by PGandE, with.

the remainder of the engineering being done by EDS Nuclear. PGandE architects, HVAC engineers, and civil engineers all colla-borated on the duct design. Informatio$

flow between these groups is docu=ented in Appendix 3.3.2.1.

3.3.7.4.2 The HVAC information in Appendix 3.3.2 was supplied by the' responsible PGandE engineer.

Containmene duct computations could be easily

. be' found. This will be reviewed at a later date.

4r 4- . .

i 3.3.7.4.3 A random sampling of the duct qualification calculations was checked for seismic input (Appendix 3.3.2). Six of the twenty-seven

HVAC details listed in Appendix 3.2.2.2 were chosen at random. In contrast t.o the random

. sampling shown above, all seismic inputs to .

I the Fireproof Ducts were checked against current Hosgri Spectra (Appendix 3.3.2).

3.3.7.4.4 Five HVAC Details have Hosgri accelerations.'

correctly.used and one (Detail 4, Drawing

504566) has Hosgri accelerations greater than the value in the calculations. All spectra for the Fireprorfed Ducts were found to be

. correctly used (Appendix 3.3.2.3).

3.3.7.4.5 One HVAC Detail (Detail 4, Drawing 504566) will be analyzed at a later date.

t I

e l .

b 1 .

1

-j '

- = . _ . .

=. . .. . _ - . _ _-____

i .

-i - ,

. 4*

4 3.3.7 5 Electrical Equipment and Instrutaentation .

A preliminary review was performed on seismic design information transferred between PGandE and electrical

equipment and instrumenta' tion venders and qualifiers.

I This review focuses strictly on design information used in requalifying safety related electrical equip-ment and instrumentation to meet the Hosgri seismic requirements.

The Hosgri Seismic Re-evaluation Report (Reference 6) was used to derive the list of safety related electrical equipment and instrumentation. A copy of Table 10-1 from the Hos'gri Report is included in Appendix 3.4.1. Table 10-1 is a complete list of

, the safety related electrical equipment and instru-mentation. -

1 Although the cable trays are included in Table 10'-1,

[ t' hey are reviewed separately and are addressed in Section 3.3.7.6. .

3.3.7.5.1 Definition of Interfaces ,

The responsibility for electrical equipment and

! instrumentation seismic qualification was divided between PGandE and Westinghouse. Westinghouse was responsible for qualifying Westinghouse supolied NSSS equipment. The remaining electrical equip-ment and instrumentation was qualified by PGandE.

The interface between PGandE and Westinghouse allow-ed PGandE to sand Hosgri spectra information to Westinghouse, and for Westinghouse to send the

,- results back to PGandE.

. I. .

g~

• g- --r gw---* v w , , - , , y-p, , p w

)

j -

So i

l l

Of the PGandE q'ualified equipment, it was qualified j either by analysis or by testing at Wyle Laboratories. '

. The Wyle Labs and PGandE interface, allowed PGandE

' -an'.Wyle d Labs ,to exchange information regarding Hosgri spectra, test spectra and test procedures.

Also, Wyle transmitted test results back to PGandE across this interface. ,

3. 3.7 . 5. 2 Transmittals from PGandE to Westinghouse i

No documentation has been found in the current work regarding the transmittal of information from PGandE

~

to Westinghouse. .

3.3.7.5.3 Transmittals from Westinghouse to PGandE The only evidence of transmittals from Westinghouse to PGandE encountered to date is thee 'xistence in the PGandE files of the Westinghouse report "Su= mary Report on Seismi,c Evaluation for Postulated 7.5 M t'

Hosgri". (Reference 9) .

! 3.3.7.5.4 Transmittals from PGandE to Wyle Labs i .

1 i

No documentation has been found to date regarding the transmittal of spectra or test procedure informa-tion from PGandE to Wyle Labs.

3.3.7.5.5 Transmittals from Wyle Labs to PGandE The only transmittals from Wyle Labs to PGandE found thus far are Wyle Labs test reports and test procedures. Two of these that were examined are Wyle Labs Test Procedure No. 3642 and Test Report No. 58255 (Reference 10).

i

o g.

3.3.7.5.6 Transmittals Regarding Requalification by AnalyEis No documentation has been found to date regarding requalification of electrical equipment or instru-mentation'by analysis, by either P5andE or other Parties.

3.3.7.5.7 Westinghouse Requalification Review of the Westinghouse report," Summary Report on Seismic Evaluation for Postulated 7.5 M. Hosgri",

(Reference 9) showed that Westinghouse electrical equipment and instrumentation was requalified for Hosgri requirements by applying certain criteria to previously performed tests and analyses.

The test spectra used in the crevious. tests are included in Appendix 3.4. ,

These are identical to Figures 10-2 to.10-12 in the Hosgri report. The' ,

Westinghouse report states that the 5-9'77 spectra

'were used and that the Blume and New= ark spectra were enveloped. .

The report also states that the vertical spectra used were taken as 2/3 of the horizontal spectra.

However, in a conversation with the cognizant engineer from Westinghouse, he states that specific vertical Hosgr'i spectra were used in the requalification of each item of equipment. The engineer also stated that the vertical spectra for control room equipment were selected with consideration for the no'de point closest to the equipment location.

Requalification was performed by Westinghouse by b

- y,,. -.-_ = , . , , , - - -. . , ,

. .,-,w.,-, _m -

V

. . Sg i

I comparing the applicable Hosgri spectra to test spectra used in the initial pre-Hosgri qualification.

The positive ~results of this comparison were com-

, municated to PGandE by West.inghouse in Westinghouse

, Proj ect Letter PGE-4231, Revision 1, dated September 5,'1980 sent to D. V. Kelly (Reference 12).

3.3.7.5.8 Wyle Requalification Tests Though no documented transmittals from PGandE to Wyle have been found to date, there is evidence that i Wyle test procedures were reviewed and approved by PGandE personnel:

1. A PGandE memo, dated ll-9-77, from O. Steinhardt contains c.omments on test spectra contained in Wyle Test Report No. 26286.

t

2. Wyle Test Procedure No. 3642, dated 11-30-77, is signed and approved by PGandE personnel.

Documentation on' these two items is contained in Appendix 3.4.

PGandE internal memorandum indicate that General

Elec'tric was involved in Wyle Labs requalification tests of the 4.16kV Vital Switchgear. (Appendix 3.4) .

Further investigation will be required to deti'rmine

' General Electric's role on requalification. If necessary, information transmittals across that l

interface will be examined.

e 4

--a

. / .

l' 53 t

3.3.7.5.9 Requalification by Analysis ,

For equipment requalified by analysis, as indicated by note 5 in Table 10-1 of the Hosgri report, no information has been found to date.as to who had performed these analyses. Investigation in this area will be continued.

3.3.7.5.10 Preliminary Review of Electrical Equipment A preliminary review of requalification of electrical equipment.and instrumentation was conducted by check-ing a 50% sample of Zero Period Accelerations (ZPA's) from the Hosgri Evaluation listed in Table 10-1 of the Hosgri report. -

The Hosgri ZPA's listed were cross checked against the ZPA's of the applicable up-to-date Hosgri spectra.

The Hosgri,ZPA's in Table 1021 we're found to be -

correct.

In each case, the ZPA levels used to qualify each item of equipment, as listed in Table 10-1, were greater than the Hosgri required ZPA's.

~

3.3.7.5.11 Reverification Approach Should further investigation fail to uncover...

records that satisfactorily document the transfer of seismic:requalification information between l

PGandE and qualifiers, the following procedure will j be undertaken:  ;

l

1. Actual test spectra used in requalification tests will be examined. They will be checked j i

., p 1

rg

}

! to see if they envelop the applicable Hosgri spectra.

2. Requalification analyses will be examined to check if the applicable seismic information was

' applied. In addition, the analysis criteria

• used for qualification, if ape'icable

. , will be examined.

• 49 6 4

e 9

4 see 9

i i

6

i'  ? -.

p ,

65 \

i-l

3. 3.7 . 6 Electrical Raceways ,

l

3. 3. 7 . 6.1 The support's for the Electrical Raceways are found indiscriminately throughout the main buildings. With in excess of six hundred

- unique types of support details.

The PGandE Civil Engineer responsible for sleef.;

trical Raceways provided the qualification do-cumentation. Each support detail is qualified to the Hosgri by simplified computation. Each Detail is assumed to span a maximum of eight feet.

3. 3.7 . 6.2 - With such a large volume of material, a random sampling approach was employed. The Hosgri seis-mic accelerations were checked for ten support details (Appendix 3.4. 2.3) . In addi, tion the program employed in September 1981 by PGandE to requalify the raceways'fh the Annulus section The Annulus regioh was of Containment was checked.

closely examined for' the following three reasons :

No transmittals of Annulus drawings from PGandE to URS/Blume were located and URS/Blume does not, at present, have the drawings. Prelim-

~

inary spectra differing from the 5/9/77 spectra was issued for Containment. Different spectra (7/21/77) superceding the 5/9/77 Hosgri Repor_t was issued (Appendix 2.1.2).

Seven of the ten calculations checked (S86, S93, S166, S251, S370, S415, S432) did not use correct seismic accelerations for 4% damping.

The bolted cable trays can take advantage of 7%

damping for the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (Regu-t

1 ,

S(a 4

t.

latory Guide 161, Appendix 3.4.2.3). The Hosgri spectra for most locations lists only 2%, 3%, and 4% damping. Possibly the incorrect acceldrations resulted from interpolations of the 4% Hosgri

- spectra. Detail S415 used Hosgri, spectra issued before May 9, 1977. ~

t PGandE's Electrical Raceway Seismic Requalifica '

tion Program for Unit 1 (Appendices 3.4.2.2, .

Item 1) was also checked (Appendix 3.4.2.3, IteIm

2) using the'same Raceway Details as above. Four of the ten calculations examined were incorrectly noted on the check list (Appendix 3.4.2.2, Item 1).

3.3. 7. 6. 3 In summary, two of the ten Raceway Details (S414, S4'32) were stressed above the allowable factor of safety (Appendix 3.4.2.3, Item'3). Two I additional Raceway Details -(S93, S147) show no .

requalification after the Hosgri spectra were.

issued on May 9, 1977 9 9 e

9

'l

=

.- , . - . . . - , . - - . . . . - . ., ,-------..,1-- - - - - . - - - , , - - - - - - -

-l .

+ 67 4 4-I

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS .

This report has'been prepared in response to the NRC ' request for a preliminary report on the PGandE Hosgri Reverification Program. As requested, it covers a review of the applicabi-lity of seismic design and qualification information for the Hosgri earthquake that may be considered to be associated with de' sign interface between PGandE and URS Blume'. As illustrated in Figure 3.1, the design applicability was reviewed for the entire seismic chain beginning with basic plant design infor-mation developed at PGandE, through the URS/Blume interface, then back to PGandE.and on to the equipment qualifiers.

In this preliminary report, the goal was to review applicabi-lity of all major design issues and identify all detailed equipment qualifications for later review, although a certain level of sa=ple checking was performed. To accomplish the

, basic objective, the review was performed on a bu.ilding by building basis. The findings by buil'dtng are reported below.

Containment The Hosgri evaluation was performed using the original models for the DDE evaluation based upon 1970 drawings.

These drawings were revidwed against current revisions.

No changes were sufficient to require re-modeling.

There were few~ formal transmittals from PGandE to URS/

Blume in the early time period, because engineers from the two organizations were working together as though in one organization.

The annulus area lacked formal transmittals and was found to have been modeled using the Unit 2 configura- .

tion, as was known. l l

h i

.; ' i .

1 -

i j

t With the exception of the annulus, the containment building models were based upon applicable drawings.

URS/Blume performed the seismic analysis of the con-tainment building and supplied several well documented reports'to PGandE.

PGandE received the well documented seismic results' from URS/Blume. Building response spectra were supplied to equipment suppliers to permit equipment qualification.

The applicability of the design information for the fol-lowing major equipment was verified:

Reactor Coolant System (RV, SG, PCP, Piping)

Hydrogen Recombiner Containment Purge Valves Regenerative Heat Exchangers Containment Fan Coolers Other equipment is disc 6ssed subsequently. -

Intake Structure ,

The seismic analysis of the Intake Structure was based upon information contained in a transmittal from PGandE in 1976. This transmittal was examined. URS/Blume ,

issued a report on the seismic analysis of the Intake i

Structure in April 1977. After modifications, it was  ;

finalized in 1979. The drawings used to prepare the model were outdated, but building revisions were minor 1 and did not affect the analysis.

The qualification of auxiliary salt water pumps was based upon the ground level motion, which considers the building to be rigid. Dur to the low elevation of.

s N

1 .

S1 pumps within the building itself, this is considered ,

a sound assumption. Nevertheless, it will be checked in the reverification effort.

- Turbine Building .

There was no design interface between PGandE and URS/

Blume in the initial aspect of the design and qualifi-cation because URS/Blume had design responsibility for the building. Although URS/Blume designed the building, the drawings were prepared by PGandE Design Drafting.

i The building had to be modified to qualify it for the Hosgri earthquake. All relevant drawings have been obtained, and a complete design verification effort completed by PGandE was documented. The in-depth veri-fication was left to the final program since this buil-ding is less important than certain others. .

The diesel generator, including the fuel system and '

starting air reviewers, was reviewed. The correct seismic input information was used for this safety re-1ated equipment.

I Auxiliary / Fuel Handling Building The Hosgri requalification of the Auxiliary Building was performed with the same models used in the earl.ier t DDE analysis. This model was developed jointly by PGandE and URS/Blume using specialized computer pro-grams for computing building properties. Reports of l

reviews of building properties and configurations were noted prior to initiation of the Hocgri analysis. The l

applicable drawings were used and referenced in the building analysis. Records of discussions on model

- properties, however, suggests that limited checks on i

l i-

%D 1

C o.

mass and stiffness should be made in the verification study. .

In addition, a separate refined finite element analysis was used for the control room. Spectra from this re- ,

fir.ed analysis which were higher than the preliminary ,

spectra were used f'or qualification (mainly by Westing-house) of control room equipment.

! Cranes . '.

For most of the cranes, the design information was pro- i vided to URS/Blume on an informal basis. For each of the major cranes in the plant, URS/Blume issued a com-

. plete design report. In addition, a design review was completed by URS/Blume for thd Containment Polar Crane.

These are positive findings, however, in.some cases the qualification report does not have a complete record of drawings upon which models were based. -- .

Also during the Hosgri requalification, some of the cranes were modified wiht the addition of holddowns, lateral restraints, etc. Additional checks to ensure analysis reflected the as modified'drawir;.s would be beneficial.

1 .

I 5 a Outdoor Water Storage Tanks The information transmittal from PGandE to URS/Blume-for q'ualification of the outdoor tanks was done on an informal basis since the two organizations were working together as a team. Substantial modifications were made to these tanks in the course of the Hosgri requal-ifications. Indirect interfaces existed in the analysis of these tanks via Harding-Lawson, soil consultants, 9

9

- .. ,w,7-- .-..,,% .-.,-- we.m-- w- ,. -r y :-n- +-,,.r-,,--g-,e-,--,

,,,. ,. -. - - - , , , - - - r,, - . , . -,- -,-.

- .( ,

.g

~;

i since-one of the modifications was to dig out under ,

the tank foundation and strengthen this structure.

Communications were informal in many cases. Based upon the information that has been reviewed, there

. is no reason for concern. However, .this area will-be reviewed in much.more detail in the final program i

because there was an indirect interface and because of information communications. '.

CONCLUSION .

7 In the course of this preliminary work a great deal of i material has been examined. A certain amount of assurance has been established that there are no additional explicit errors, and several areas have been found char. suggest more detailed review in the reverification effort. .

As discussed at the outset, this revieu was conducted on the engineering material itself. The present finaings and con-clusions are independent of the normal convolutions of the a design process, and whether work was,done formally or in-formally, with the exception of course that informal trans-mittals, etc. require additional verification of the end product.

l;

~

The analysis of the major buildings in the plant were based upon drawings that represent the correct building configura-tion, even though in many cases drawings were revised after the analysis was complete. The major items of safety re-

lated equipment in the Containment Building were qualified

-with correct response spectra. The Containment Building .

and Intake Structure were scrutinized in more depth than the other buildings. The Inlet Structure and the safety related auxiliary pumps were qualified using applicable drawings and N

j .

0 $ ,

c.a. . -

spectra.

As with any review of any design project, some errors.and some mistakes real or apparent will be found. In the pre-sent limited effort certain such findings arose. In one case, an item of HVAC equipment was qualified with the ,

'! The reviewer compared it to the correct

wrong' spectra.

spectra and found it was satisfactory in view of a large safety factor. ,

The documentation on the. unistrut design. det' ails were mis-leading to the reviewer and one or two conduit supports l- appeared to be qualified with the wrong spectra. There will I be reviewed thoroughly in the final report,.but it is ex-

. pected that resolutions will result, since deeper inquiry did produce resolutions in other c5ses.

In conclusion, the limited review performed to date showed i

explicitly that the reactor coolant sys, tem and other major _

equipment. were , qualified. using . correct design information

.and no information has come to light thus far that calls the safety of the plant into question. - Some areas have been

. i- found where further review-is indicated, primarily because f of a lack of ready documentation of the ' applicability of the design information.

f 1

4 c .

l l-I l

l l

l.

,* 1~ a

~i .

L5 I

^

' REFERENgE LIST

1. Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Containment

. Structure, - Finite Element Method' Dynamic Seismic Analysis

{ (URS/Blume, July 1970)

2. Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Earthquake Analysis, Turbine Building, Unit 1 (URS/Blume, July 1970) ,,

3. Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant - Turbine Building I

crane' evaluation for the 7.5 M Hosgri Earthqu'ake (revised)

November 1979.

4. Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant - Fuel Handling Build-ing crane Evaluation for the 7.5 M Hosgri Earthquake (revised) September 6, 1979. .

~ -

i j. 5. .Diablo Canyon Nu. clear Power Plant - Units 1 and 2 -

Outdoor Water Storage Tanks - Dynamic Seismic Analyses for the'7.5 M Hosgri criteria (revised), March 1979.

l'

6. Seismic Evaluation for Postulated 7.5 Hosgri Earth-quake - Units 1 and 2 - Diablo Canyon Site - PGandE.

I

7. " Engineering Review of Hosgri Seismic Qualification of Design Class 1 HVAC Equipment", EDS Nuclear Inc.

February 22, 1979. ,

"Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, Seismic Qualification 8.

' of HVAC Equipment", EDS Nuclear Inc., August 24, 1979.

,t

9. Summary Report on Seismic Evaluation for Postulated 7.5 M Hosgri.

l E .

l: - _. -- . - - . - _ . . _ _ . _

. -pqq o

1 .

l' -

f

10. Wyle Labs Test Procedures No. 3642, and Test Report ,

No. 58255. . .

11. Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, bnitNo.1, ,

Containment St'ructure, Dynamic'Seisnic-Analysir for ,

the 7.5 M Hosgri Earthquake, (URS/Blume, May 1979).

~

f

12. Westinghouse Project Letter PGE-4231, Rebsion 1, ,

September 5, 1980 to D. V. Kelly. -

?

1 9

0 t

+

e O g 6' e

I I

i -

+

e e

--,,-..e._.,,.a. ~ , . , - . - . _ . - _ , _ , . , , , , . - - , . , .- --.,,,,,,m.,., . , , , _ . - - , , , , , , --_g-.y,,,, . ,~,e n