ML20210P482

Rev 0 to Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Idvp Verification of Design Analysis Hosgri Spectra, Interim Technical Rept 10

ML20210P482
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	10/29/1982
From:	ROBERT L. CLOUD ASSOCIATES, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20209B723	List: ML20209B717 ML20209B726 ML20210P155 ML20210P192 ML20210P260 ML20210P450 ML20210P482 ML20210P515 ML20210P536 ML20210P550 ML20210P575 ML20210P591
References
FOIA-86-151 NUDOCS 8702130396
Download: ML20210P482 (19)

Text

. . _ .

e.-

I RobertL. Cloud and Associates, Inc e .

. , . l R[G w

Interim Technical Report -

DIAELO CANYON WII 1

c. INDEP E DENI DESIGN VEIFICATION PROGRAM iRIFICATION OF DESIGN ANALYSIS EDSGRI SPECIPA IIR # 10 REVISION 0 s

e b -

8702130396 870203 PDR FOIA PDR HOLMES 86-1St 9

~

9

o

• Robert L. Cloud and Associates, Inc 9 e. f '

RLG o

Interim Technical Report -

DIABID CANYON UNIT 1 INDEFENDENI DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGPhi VERIFICATION OF DESIGN ANALYSIS HOSGRI SPECIRA IIR # 10 REVISION 0 0

C l

l l

0 Docket No. 50-275 -

License No. DPR-76 D

Project

~

'DIte'

/

elu/a

/

w~L LM ich8/n Project Manager /Date TecS. ical Approved P 105-4-839-010

} ..

Verification of Design Analysis Hosgri Spectra Contents

,, Pace No.

-List of Figures lii List of Tables iii Program Manager's Preface iv

.g .

1.0 Introduction 1 Purpose and Scope 1 Background 2 Summary 4 2.0 Independent Desi,gn Verification Methods 5 13 2.1 Procedures 5 2.2 Hosgri Design Bases 5 3.0 Determination of the Current Hosgri 6 Design Bases 4.0 Field Verification 7 5.0 Verificacion Spectra Inguts 8 6.0 Comparison of Design and Verification 9

,y Spectra Inputs 7.0 EOI Reports Issued 11 8.0 Evaluation of Design Analysis Hosgri Spectra 17 3 . 8.1 Interpretations 17 8.2 Recorexaendations 17 9.0 Evaluation of DCP Corrective Action 18

.h i

3 -

m . . , , . - - - . - , - . - _ , - - - - - , - ,-, -

eg

• Pace'No. .

10.0 Conclusion of Design Analysis Hosgri Spectra 19 t'

11.0 References 20

& Appendix A - EOI Reports Issued Appendix B - Torsion Appendix C - Hosgri Spectra for IDVP Phase I Samples O Appendix D - PGandE Open Items Appendix E - Key Term Definitions -

Appendix F - Program Manager's Assessment d

4 4

i m.

i

'O 1

lC I

ii I O g%

fW

G .

List of Picures

~

'O

-h Title Pace No.

1 Comparison of Verification and Design N-S 23 Spectra - Piping 4, .

2 Comparison of Verification and De. Sign,E-W 24 Spectra - Piping * - -+ y

. se c.

List of Tables C

k 1 Comparison of Verification and Design 25-26 Spectra-Equipment and Components 13

.Q -

C D

iii O

o PROGRAM MANAGER'S PREFACE DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - UNIT I INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM INTERIM TECHNICAL REPORT VERIFICATION OF DESIGN ANALYSIS HOSGRI SPECTRA

.,3 This report is the tenth Interim Technical Report (ITR-10) prepared by the DCNPP-IDVP for the purpose of providing a concl'usion of the program.

40 This report contains the results and conclusions of the IDVP for the verification review of Hosgri seismic inputs used in .the -

qualification process of DCNNP. This review consisted of a review of 9 qualification Hosgri spectra, a determination of current Hosgri spectra, and a verification of the DCP corrective action established to correct the deficiencies found.

'O As IDVP Program Manager, Teledyne Engineering Services has reviewed and approved this Interim Technical Report. The methodology followed by l TES in reviewing and approving it is described in Appendix F to this report.

!O ITR Reviewed and Approved l IDVP Program Manager l Teledyne Engineering Services iG '

. y- s-- -

R. Wray Assistant Project Manager e

iv lQ

Q . .

l

1.0 INTRODUCTION

O Purcose and Scone l l

This interim. technical report summarizes the

. verification review of Hosgri seismic. inputs into the qualification process for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power

Q - Plant- (DCNPP) . The review was performed by the Indepen-l . dent Design' Verification Program (IDVP) in three steps.

~

o Determination of the current Hosgri design bases (DCM C-17 Revision 3) . .

9~ o Review of Hosgri spectra inputs into a sample of design analyses using the docketed Hosgri response spectra with two exceptions as noted in section 2.2.

o verification of recent corrective action already undertaken by the Diablo Canyon Project (DCP) to O_.

specify and control portions of the current Hossri design bases (DCM C-17 Revicien 3) .

~

This report also summa ~rizes the results of the RLCA review of seismic interfaces as given in'the " Preliminary Report on the Seismic Reverification Program, November 12,-

4, 1981". This report will serve as a vehicle for NRC review and be referenced in the Phase I Final Report.

Interim technical reports were discussed at the June 10, 1982 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-meeting

,9 in Waltham, Massachusetts. These reports will include analytical references, results, sample definitions and descriptions, methodology, a listing of Error and Open Item Reports, examination of trends and concerns, and a conclusion. -

'g In-Section 9.1 (6) of the Phase I Program Manage-ment Plan, Revision 1 (Reference 1) the following definition is.given:

Interim Technical Reports are prepared when a program participant has completed an aspect of their g- assigned effort in order to provide the completed analyses and conclusion. These may be in support of an Error, Open Item or Program Resolution Report, in support of a portion of the work which verifies acceptability, or in support of other IDVP action. Since such a report is a conclusion of the g program, it is subjecc to the review and approval of the Program Manager. The approved report will be submitted simultaneously to PGandE and to NRC.

3

, 9 .

Backaround 9

• On September 28, 1981 PGandE reportes: shat a

~ ,

diagram error had been found in a portion'lofithe seismic Qualification of the Diablo Canyon Unit 1:' Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP-1). This error resulted in an. incorrect application of the seismic floor response spectra for

' '} sections of the annulus of the Unit 1 containment building. The error originated when PGandE transmitted a JL sketch of. Unit 2 to a seismic service related ~

contractor. This sketch contained geometry incorrectly ~

identified as Unit 1 geometry.

!O As a result of this error a' seismic reverification program was established to determine if the seismic 4 qualification of the plant was adequate for the postulated 7.5M Hosgri earthquake. This program was presented orally to the NRC in a meeting in Bethesda, Maryland on October 9, 1981.

Robert L. Cloud and Associates (RLCA) presented a preliminary report on the seismic reverification program to the NRC on November 12, 1981 (Reference 2). *

This report dealt with an examination of thelinterface i m between URS/Blume and PGandE. In particular Hosgri -

response spectra were traced from th'eir origin within URS/Blume through a PGandE liaison to the various departments and disciplines. Actual calculations were checked and several cases of incorrect Hosgri spectra inputs into analyses were. reported. .

-m "

j The NRC commissioners met during the week of November 16, 1981 to review the preliminary report and the overall situation. On November 19, 1981 an oroer suspending license CLI-81-30 was issued which suspended PGandE's license to load fuel and conduct low power

,g tests up to 5% of rated power at DCNPP-1. This suspending order also specified that an independent design verification program be conducted to ensure that the plant met the licensing criteria. _

PGandE retained Robert L. Cloud and Associates as i n' program manager to develop and implement a program that would address the concerns cited in the order suspending license CLI-81-30. The Phase I plan for this program was transmitted to the NRC on December 4, 1981 and discussed with the NRC staff on February 3, 1982. Phase I deals with seismic service-related contractors prior

to June 1978.

i 3

1

c On March 19, 1982 the NRC approved Teledyne

)O Engineering Services (TES) as program manager to replace Robert L. Cloud and Associates (RLCA).' However, RLCA continued to perform the independent review of seismic structural and mechanical aspects of Phase I.-

The NRC approved the Independent Design G Verification Program Phase I Engineering ~ Plan on April 27, 1982. This plan dictates that a sample of piping, equipment, structures and components be' selected for-independent analysis. The results of these analyses are to be compared to the design analysis results.

49 The engineering plan also required that Nosgri spectra inputs into the qualification analysis.for all the samples be checked against the applicable Hosgri. -

spectra.

Due to confusion about which spectra were cu$ rent, 9 the plan also called for the verification program to identify the current seismic data developed by URS/Blume. If a specified acceptance criteria is exceeded in any case an Open Item Report is filed.

Interim Technical Reports (ITR) are issued to explain

, the progress of different segments of the IDVP technical as work.

The first interim technic.a1 report, " Additional Verification and Additional Sampling - Effective May 27,

! 1982" listed the recommendations given in Section.8.2.

g As a result of these recommendations, the DCP has

~"

initiated corrective action as decribed in Section 9.0.

l d ,

e p

l C

N . .

Summarv iG RLCA determined the current Hosgri seismic design bases (DCM C-17 Revision 3) and reviewed the Hosgri spectra inputs into a sample of design analyses using the docketed Hosgri response spectra with two exceptions '

as noted-in section 2.2.. As a result, a number of Error O and Open Item Reports (EOIs) were issued and generic concerns identified. Recommendations have been made to address these concerns, i

This report also presents the RLCA review of the recent Diablo Canyon Project (DCP) corrective action,

@ with respect to the control of Hosgri response spectra.

RLCA has verified that the DCP Design Criteria Memorandum (DCM C-17) was issued in a controlled manner-and that the DCM specifies portions of the current Hosgri design bases. In addition, RLCA verified that

, spectra have now been defined f~or areas which previously

'W had no spectra. The remaining work involves a review by the DCP of spectra used for Hosgri qualifications. After the DCP performs this review, RLCA will verify the correc.tive' action on a sampling basis.

C .

io

.$}

9

. 1 1 .

~

i.0' INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIF,ICATION METHODS

• ' 3} '

- 12 . 1 PROCEDURES RLCA performed the review of Hosgri spectra .

. inputs into the DCNPP qualification process in three steps. First, the spectra contained in the 11 Hosgri report were compared to spectra contained in the latest URS/Blume building reports. Second, the Hosgri spectra. inputs into a sample of design analyses were compared to the Hosgri spectra

• described in Section 2.2. Third, RLCA reviewed the DCP corrective action recently nitiated with J- ' respect'to'the specification and control of Hosgri design bases'. ,

2.2 HOSGRI DESIGN BASES The Hosgri design bases are defined as the 4 response. spectra, torsional combination methodology and interpolation methods to be used for design and analysis of DCNPP-1.

, The spectra used by RLCA were docketed Hosgri response spectra, with two exceptions: the revised

% November 19, 1981 annulus spectra and the additional turbine building spectra, included in the March 1980 Blume turbine building report that were not available in the Hosgri report (See Appendix C). The Hosgri report (Chapter 4) also specifies the methodology the IDVP used to combine 9 torsional response (See Appendix B) . The acceleration values for intermediate slabs and wall locations between slabs were established by linear interpolation methods.

The Hosgri spectra inputs, torsional

'3 4

combination methodolog'y, and interpolation methods,

, noted above, were established by RLCA as the accepted Hosgri design bases in November 1981.

These bases were used in all Phase I inicial and -

additional samples. Since comparisons are made

,O between verification and design analyses, the Hosgri design bases must be identical to obtain meaningful comparison results. Any differences l

between these noted Hosgri design bases and more

! current information were reported by RLCA as EOIs.

l 0

~

. , . 3.0 DETERMINATION OF THE CURRENT HOSGRI d

DESIGN BASES

~

The.Hosgri design bases discussed in Section 2.2 were compared by RLCA to the latest URS/Blume building reports (References 3,4,5 and 6). All of the Hosgri g design bases given in Section 2.2 were found to be the latest design bases in November 1981 with the

, following three exceptions:

o Auxiliary building NS spectra (Figures 4-110 through 4-127 in'the Hosgri report) were found

,e to differ from those in the October 1979

~[. URS/Blume auxiliary building report (EOI 920). .

o Intake structure accelerations (Table 4-53 in the Hosgri report) were found to differ from those in the May 1979 URS/Blume intake q '

structure report (EOI 967).

o Auxiliary building torsional combinational methods in the Hosgri report were found to differ from

• hose in the October 1979

, URS/Blume auxiliary building report-(EOI 1028).

Subsequent to No'vember 1981, the DCP has generated

revised and additional Hosgri response spectra. The comparison of'the November 1981 response' spectra to the current response spectra as c'ontained in DCM.C-17' 3 Revision 3.is being performed by the DCP and reviewed by the IDVP.

i9 M

lt

l 4.0 FIELD VERIFICATION O

RLCA field verified all buildings, piping, equipment and components that were included in the initial '

verification sample. In the process of analyzing the initial sample, several building locations were identified for which Hosgri response spectra had not O been defined. These building locations are listed below.

o Containment interior above elevation 140 feet (EOI 1009) 9 o Turbine building above elevation 140 feet (EOI 1010) o Pipeway around the containment exterior (EOI 1014)

U o Intake structure at upper auxiliary saltwater pump attachment point (EOI 1022) o Turbine building for certain areas at elevation 104 feet (EOI 1025).

G o Auxiliary building ventilation rooms above elevation 140 feet and fan r'omo A above elevation 163 feet (EOI 1093) o Auxiliary building fan room B above elevation 163 feet (EOI 1097) 0 D .

)

5.0 VERIFICATION SPECTRA INPUTS '

O -

The RLCA field verification determined the support attachment points for piping, equipment, and components in the sample. Using these support attachment points, RLCA determined the applicable Hosgri response spectra from

O Appendix C for each sample. The spectra inputs for each support attachment point were then developed by RLCA by

~

considering the maximum torsional contribution (See Appendix B). ~

c RLCA used two methods to develop the spectra inputs. For analyses using the equivalent static method, the acceleration values were enveloped at the -

calculated frequency. For analyses using the modal superposition method, the entire envelope response spectra were developed.

O 9

3 s

S e

l l

L

6.0 'CO!! PARI' S ON OF DESIGN AND VERIFICATION SPECTRA 9 INPUTS Table 1 presents a comparison of design and verification spectra inputs for the sample of equipment and components. . The noted differences from EOI reports e can be classified.into four general groups: .

1. Incorrect spectra inputs used in design analysis. ~

EOI 983 (Class A Error)

O EOI 1002 (Class B Error)

EOI 1013 (Class B Error)

EOI 1102 (Open)

2. Correct spectra inputs used in design analysis, but referenced response O spectra differs from those listed in Appendix C.

EOI,1008 (Class C Error)

EOI 1011 (Deviation) -

EOI 1020 (Deviation) iO EOI 1072 (Deviation)

3. Incorrect damping values used in design analysis.

{.9 EOI 1053 (Deviation)

! 4. Inadequate interface control..

1 EOI 976 (Closed)

EOI 978 (Class C Error) -

EOI 981 (Closed)

,O EOI 986 (Closed)

EOI 1004 (Closed)

EOI 1005 (Closed) _

i EOI 1007 (Closed)

~~

EOI 1065 (Closed) g EOI 1068 (Closed) 1

'9

-g-

.\&

Four of the ten piping design analyses chosen for o verification analysis contained. inapplicable spectra inputs as shown below:

IDVD Analysis No. EDT No. Classification 101 1074 Class C Error 9

102 1084 Class C Error 104 1081 Class C Error

~

107 1063 Class C Error 9

These spectra inputs did not envelop and were more-than 15% lower than the Hosgri response spectra listed.

in Appendix C.

. Figures 1 and 2 presents typical spectra comparisons

. :. for a sample of the piping analyses. The balance of the piping spectra comparisons are presented in the piping ITR. These two figures were developed using internal plotting sof..are and are presented for information only.-

O For electrical eculpment and instrumentation.

Plalified by shake table testing, all spectra inputs were found acceptable for the seven groups, except for group VI (EOI 1013). Interim Technical Report Number Four discusses these inputs in further detail.

-O The Hosgri spectra inputs into span evaluation procedures for small bore piping will be discussed in detail in a future'ITR.

2 Q

O L

~

7.0 EOI REPORTS ISSUED D '

Forty-four error and op'en item 1 reports were issued as a result of the comparison between the Hosgri design bases' contained in the Hosgri report and in the latest URS/Blume reports, the comparisons of design and verification inputs and the quality assurance 9 reviews. Appendix A contains a detailed listing of file numbers, revision numbers, and potential reports.

EOI'920 notes differences between the NS Hosgri

~

response spectra contained in the Hosgri report and the response spectra contained in the URS/Blume auxiliary 3 building report. This open item report was combined with EOI 1097.as a Class A/B Error for the auxiliary building pending reanalysis of the building by the DCP.*

Open item 967 was issued for differences between e

, the absolute acceleration values contained in the Hosgri report verses the absolute acceleration values contained in the URS/Blume intike structure report. This open

. item was combined with EOI 1022 as a Class A/B Error for the. intake structure pending review of the structure by the DCP.

O EOI 976 was issued as a result of the RLCA -

preliminary report. This file reports that transmittals of containment exterior spectra from PGandE to Westinghouse could not be located. This file was later closed because of the IDVP review of the PGandE/ -

,) . Westingho'use interface.

EOI 978 reports inapplicable Hosgri spectra input

[ :into the Westinghouse analysis of the regenerative heat

. exchange. This file was resolved as a Class C Error.

, EOI 981 was issued as a result of RLCA preliminary-l" report and-notes a concern for the. input into buried piping analysis. This file was closed because this piping is included in the IDVP review of the Harding- -

f_ Lawson soils work.

) EOI 983 notes inapplicable seismic inputs into nine of twenty electrical raceway support calculations. This j file number combines with EOIs 910 and 930 as a Class A Error.

u lG

. - . . , , . _ . - . _ . _ , , , . - . , ~ - _ _ . ..._.._.. _-. .._.__ _ .__.. __- _ . _ _ __

.~

,e' EOI 986 issued as.a result of RLCA preliminary O' report notes a concern that the preliminary control room spectra is significantly lower than the final control room spectra. This file is combined with.EOI 1097 as a Class A/B Error pending re-analysis of the auxiliary building by the DCP. '

. .y G.

EOI 1002 notes inappliedble input into the EDS -

Nuclear analysis for two HVAC'componen'ts. This files.is

• resolved as a Clasa.BnEt4org; . ,

EOI 1004 issued as a result of.the RLCA preliminary .

report notes a concern that spectra inputs into.-

C . electrical equipment analysis-had not been checked-by the IDVP. This item was later closed because the engineering program plan explicitly covered seismic inputs into electrical equipment analysis.

EOI 1005 issued as a result of the RLCA preliminary

@ report notes a concern about the lack of spectra transmittals between PGandE and the seismic testing consultant Wyle Laboratories. This item was later closed because the engineering program plan specified e::plicit checking of-the spectra used by Wyle Laboratories.

G. EOI 1007 is similar to EOI l'004.

EOI 1008 notes reference,in the main annunciator ,

design analysis to spectra other than those contained in the Hosgri Report. This item is classified as a Class C Error.

EOI 1009 notes areas in the containment structure ,

. above elevation 140 that support Class I components for walen spectra has not been generated. lThis item combines with File 1014 as a Class A/B Error pending the DCP review of the containment structure. , "

,9 EOI 1010 notes that response spectra for the o turbine building above elevation 104 feet have not been"

~'

generated. Design Class I items are supported at this

( elevation of the building. This item combines File 1026

!.O as a Class A/B Error pending the DCP review of the L turbine building.

?

EOI 1011 notes spectra input into the design

, analysis for the diesel generator oil priming tank that ,

are not identical to those in the Hosgri report. This 3

item is classified as a deviation.

N

(

-y- w-y ,-ee- T-w ee =- - - , - 89

D .

i s.h ,

e- '5

..  :! ol. .

ag JJ. ' f EOI 1013 notes that test response spectra for '

equipment group VI qualified by testing is lower than l ,

-/ the-required'. response spectra. This item is determined i

t to be a Class B' Error.

Si EOI 1014 notes that spectra has not been generated

' .c for t'he pipe rack. This file combines with EOIs 977 and .

1009 as a Class A/B Err 6r pending the DCP review of the 1 containment structure. -

EOI 1015.was resolved as a closed item after the IDVP determined that correct damping values had been p used in the design analysis for the diesel generator oil priming tank.

EOI 1020 notes a reference'in the auxiliary saltwater pump design analysis to spectra other f sthan those contained in the Hosgri report. This

' O 1 file was resolved as a deviation because the acceleration values were found to be identical for

./ the two curve's.

eor 1022 was issued because. spectra have not been

provided to the upper support attachment point of the o

auxiliary saltwater pump. This item combines with EOIs 9,67 and 988 as a_ Class A/B error pending-the DCP review ,

of the intake structure.

EOI[1025 noces an area of the turbine building at elevacion 104 feet for which spectra have not been

'O pr;ovided. This item combines ~with File 1026 as a Class A/S Error pending the DCP review-of the turbine building.

~

l EOI'1026 was issued because the Blume report on the turbine building contained spectra that were not contained in the Hosgri report. These spectra were

> 0 utilized in the design verification program for areas that contained samples for independent analysis. This item combines with Files 982, 984, 989, 1010 and 1025 as a Class A/B Error pending the DCP review of the turbine -

building.

'4 EOI 1028 notes differences between the Hosgri

, report and the latest URS/Blume report on the auxiliary-

building'in methodology for combination of torsion.

This item remains open.

l l O$

l

.t5