ML20150D430
| ML20150D430 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1988 |
| From: | Sholly S MHB TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES |
| To: | Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-19 NUDOCS 8803240225 | |
| Download: ML20150D430 (2) | |
Text
-
". % B Q* TECHNICALASSOCIA7ES
?!
TECHNICAL CONSUL TANTS ON ENERGY & THE ENVIRONMENT Dale G Bndenbaugh 1723 Hamtlion Avenue-Suite K Richard B Hubbard San Jose. California 95125 Gregory C. Minor Phone:(408) 266 2716 7 January 1988 YRLEDOM OF INFORMATK)N Mr. Donnie H. Grimsley, Director ACI R QUEST Division of Rules and Records f-O I g p ) o Office of Administration and Resources Management i
U.S. Nuclear Re ulatory Commission j,_ l 7
Washington, D.
20555 l
RE:
FOIA Request for Records Concerning 1975 NRC Seismic Design Audit of Diablo Canyon
Dear Mr. Grimsley:
Pursuant to the Freedom of information Act and 10 CFR Part 9, Subpart A, "Freedom of Information Act Regulations', please make available at the Commission's Washington, D.C., Public Document Room single copies of records 1/ in the following category:
A.
All records in NRC's possession or control concerning a seismic design audit of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, conducted by NRC from April 28 through May 2,1975.
This request includes documents from both the NRC technical and legal staffs (since both were represented during the audit).
A copy of a May 19,1975, internal memorandum (minus certain attachments) summarizing the results of the audit is attached in order to facilitate your search. Note that the memorandum identifies NRC attendees and participants in the audit.
l l
l l
1/
As used here, "records" has the definition provided in 10 CFR 9.3(b) of the Commission's regulations. Furthermore, "records" are considered to be those in the possession of the NRC, its contractors, its subcontractors, or others as l
provided for in 10 CFR 9.4.
BBo32go22590o107 DIA PDR I
q % a ea-19
.g.
If you or any members of your staff have any questions concerning this request, please contact the undersigned directly by telephone at (408) 266-2716. Your prompt attention to this request will be appreciated.
Sincerely, C
Steven C. Sholly Associate Consultant
~
h l
i i
l..'
r.
1.>
,.f e
UNITED UATES NUCLEAR REGUL ** TORY COMU.lsSION
{
8 W ASHING *,0N. D. C. 20555
'iAY 19 575 R. R. Maccary, Assistant Dittetor for Engineering Division of Technical Review HIGHLIGHTS OF PM,9 DIARLO CANYOH PLANT SEISMIC DESIGN AUDIT hrom April 28th to May 2nd the members of the Structural Engineering brcnch and Mechanical Engineering Branch have per-formed a seismic ' design audit of the Diablo Canyon Plant at.the l
PG&E office in San Francisco. Present for the applicant were
)
PG&E, Westinghouse and John A. Blume Associates engineering i
s ta f f.
In an earlier meeting held in Bethesda on April 4,1975 I
between the NRC staff and the applicant, general guidelines and scope for the teismic oesign audit were discussed in considerable detail as part of the preparatory work for the subject audit.
A list of the attendeec is enclosed.
The primary objective of the NRC staff was to conduct a seismic
(
design audit of the subject plant.
The results of the audit would then be used as basis for judging seismic design adequacy of the plant.
Highlights of the audit are sumarized below.
1.
NRC staff opened the meetings by first stating the objective of the audit program and defining the specific scope and depth of the week long audit plan.
2.
PG&E, its NSSS vendor; Westinghouse and PG&E consultant John A.
B1tane Associates rede presentations on the seismic design criteria, methodology and procedures used in the subject plant.
The presentations generally followed the technical subjects included in the plant FSAR and were judged as satisfactory by the NRC staff.
3.
A sample list of Category I structures, systems and components of the Diablo Canyon plant covering safety functions similar to those included in Table X-1 of Appendix X to the Rasmussen Report was reviewed for their adequacy of seismic design qualification 4
s e
tJ*L3j ommy
'c *1'
.g c e r : rc l* ** 'lf '
t
\\
t R. R. Maecary hay 1 9 1975 and documentation.
The audit staff found that all the Category I structures, systems and components included in the list were properly qualified (i.e.,100% successful qualification as com-pared to 27% failure to demonstrate adequacy indicated in Appendix X of the Rasmussen Report).
4.
Following the above item 3 overall qualification audit, two structures and four components and systems (i.e., containment building, turbine building, steam generators, reactor coolant pump, steam generator support and pump support) were selected for detailed auditing by going through check list items.
In addition, the analyses and test reports of six electrical equipment items (i.e., diesel generators, hot shutdown panel, main control console, nuclear instrumentation system, reactor trip switchgear and pro-tective relay board) were also selected for detailed auditing.
Except for the turbine building and a few missing data pertaining to the components and systems, which PG&E will provide in a future transmittal to the NRC staff for confirmatory review, the results of the detail audit of these structures, systems and conponents were found satisfactory and acceptable.
(
5.
Some of the audit staff took a field trip to inspect selected Category I systems and components.
The group concluded that the selected components and systems had been qualified for service under seismic loads by acceptable testing and analyses. The group also reconmended and PG&E agreed that the installation of field run Category I piping (2-1/2 inch diameter and smaller) be reviewed by the PG&E engineering staff to ensure that the accept-able field installation procedures were fully implemented.
6.
The audit s,taff also reviewed the applicant's and its vendor's design control programs.
The methods of design control and co-ordination utilized by PG&E, Westinghouse and PG&E consultant (JAB) were reviewed and discussed.
It was established that 1
adequate control procedures were followed in checking and approv-i ing engineering calculations and drawings.
The design control program implemented in seismic design of Diablo Canyon was judged satisfactory and acceptable.
7.
The ACRS questions related to seismic design of the Diablo Canyon plant were ' discussed. The discussion yielded some I
technical viewpoints, which fonn part of the bases for formu-I lating future respense to the ACRS questions.
(
pg=mq v '173724
r R. R. Maccary g 3,g 8.
The NRC audit staff also reviewed various computer programs used for the design of Category I structures, systems and com-ponents by PG&E, JAB and Westinghouse.
For programs that are not available in public domain the program verification pro-cedures adopted by PG&E and its vendor / consultant were found to follow the criteria acceptable to NRC staff.
9.
A few items, for which additional information is required, have been identified during the course of the audit.
The information pertaining to the items will be provided in two to four weeks by PG&E and its vendor / consultant for NRC staff confirmatory review.
At the closing of the audit meeting, NRC audit staff concluded that i
based on the above described results of the seismic design audit, the seismic design methodology, procedures and design controls implemented for the plant were in general found satisfactory and acceptable.
The audit staff also expressed their appreciation for the cooperation and support provided by the technical staff of PG&E and its vendor / consultant.
As a final note, the week long seismic audit effort was carried out in an expeditious manner with adequate depth of auditing.
It is concluded that the objectives of the audit were properly implemented.
.V f
^
J. Knig t ief Mechanical Engineering Branch i
Div sion of Technical Review i
M a
. C. Shao, Chief Structural Engineering Branch Division of Technical Review
Enclosures:
1.
List of Attendees 2.
Diablo Canyon Seismic Audit Agenda 3.
Seismic Category I Audit Check List 4.
Detailed Seismic' Audit Check List 5.
Additional Information to be Provided by PG&E and Westinghouse 6.
Comp, uter Program Verification f
, cc (Next Page) 173725
l i
l l
R. R. Maccary
~4~
g 19m 9
c f
cc w/ enc 1:
B. Rusche f
E. Case F. Schroeder A. Giambusso R, DeYoung V. Moore H. Denton L. Davis
- 0. Parr D. Allison D. Jeng G. Bagchi P. Y. Chen V. S. Noonan l
ec w/o enc 1:
SED Members MEB Members
(
t een 9
e j
Ad@B 8
ENCLOSURE 1 LIST OF ATTENDEES
(
1
\\
\\
173727
ENCLOSURE 1 LIST OF ATTENDEES NAME TITLE ORGANIZATION D. V. Kelly Ch. M & N Eng.
PG & E M. J. Gormly Project Mech. Eng R. V. Bettinger Chief Civil V. J. Ghio Senior Civil E. P. Wollak Supyg Civil & Prof. Civil F. W. Brady Civil Eng V. S. Noonan Mech Eng NRC/MEB P. Y. Chen Mech. Eng J. P. Knight Chief Mech Eng.Br.
L. D. Davis OELD NRC/ OELD D. C. Jeng Sec. Leader Structural NRC/SEB l
L. C. Shao Chief Structural Eng. Br.
G. Bagchi Structural Eng.
I W. J. Lindblad Project Eng.
PG & E D. Nielsen Senior Electrical & Proj. Eng.
B. Young Senior Electrical R. Gallagher Vice Pres.
JAB Ass.
D. Javeri Proj, Eng.
G. T. Downs Supvsg Structural Analysis E Electro-liech.
R. M. Laverty Senior ME PG & E J. W. Dorrycott Proj. Mgr g
W. C. Gangloff Prof. Mgr W
T. E. Canbell Mgr Support Structure Design y
D. F. Miller Mgr System Structural Analysis W
P. G. Smith Mgr Structural Development g(TagaDiv.)
/,
173723
4 P
I ENCLOSURE 4 DETAILED SElsi1IC AUDIT CHECKLIST i
173737
_thl% LOGOATC7J Detailed Scismic Audit Cheel: list - Structures
' ' Plan t
. llame :
DIABID CANYON POWL*R PLANT YPC'
\\
Utility:
PCandE Company OIIN
. NSSS:
Westinghouse IkIN -
A-E:
PCandE Company, J. A. Blume & Associates,,
I! ION i
s Structure - flame:
Containment I
e DCScription (Include 5 ketches): Exterior Shell:
Cylindrical Wall,140'ID x 2'-10 thick hemispherical demo roof. Interior Structure:140'ID x 142 106'0D x 49'high x 3' thick cylindical crano wall, anchored into base slab, 34'00 x 8' thick x 11'high reactor wall. 4' thick fuel transfer canal walls & floor. 3'-7' concrete main operating deck Structural steel annulugigtforms between ext. shell and crarr. wall. Foundation: 15' reinforce Stanicy Han 1 - Roger Villatuya (JAB) concretc basc' mat.
f Responsible Checker and/or Reviewer:
David C. Landes (Reviewer), R. Y. Chandivala (JAB) l Pertinent Reference Drawings: 443231 thru 443237, 443239, 443240,'443241,
'g 443243, 443251 thru 443254, 443272, 44327,3, 443276, 443277, 443283 thru 443285, 443286 thru 443287 1
v
)I Seismic Input - accelcration:
Ground P.cSponse Spectra location:
Surf ace / foundation i
lhichcombinesinput Time IIistory: Hypthetical time history, developed to produce an envelope spectru i
' Calif) earthquakes. In addition, to these two 'ime historiesfrom time histories of March
, arbitrary modifications were
.ntroduced following meetings with AEC Staff, ft:- the purpose of making the criteria more
- ense rvative.
l'.ethod of Analysis -
Model typc (ccch direction): Axisymmetric finite eletaent modet.
The
'oundation rock mass and the containment structure are modeled as one structure system,
- onsidar rock-structure interaction (FSAR Fi to gure 3.7-5) rbitrary Loadi putc C0dc; "DNomic Stress Analysis of Axisynnetric Structures under
-6 Sukmar Chosh and Edward Wilson UC Report No. EERC 69-10 Soil Structure Interaction:
Soil is included in the model.
Soil darnping:
Structuroi damping: 27. (DE), 5% (DDE)
Combination - 3 Co m onents: Largest Horizontal component added Torslo:Mensidera tion: -^xicymaetric Strue,tu're, ) :
9-s.
173738
-.