ML20212L196
| ML20212L196 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 03/24/1982 |
| From: | Reich M BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| To: | Kuo P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209B373 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-151 NUDOCS 8701290362 | |
| Download: ML20212L196 (3) | |
Text
-
BROOkHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY QQ[
~
~
~
ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES. INC.'
4t.of Nuclear Energy W W Idom1 New York 11973
$E
($16) 282s 1;<
FTS 666' Ms.
March 24. 1981 l
& !N~
l d>i ;p S i fpuo
' ural Engineering Branch 1
gg0 side.
D
_ f!allt Avenue itar Regulatory Comet ssion s 95 20014 N I"'8
-3 b you will recall on March 2,1982, we presented our results for the
. R$31b Caryon Plant Yortical Seismic Response and Piping Systen studies at the 5melear Regulatory commission Bethesda, Mo., Air Rights III Building Offices.
_ At De end of the meeting, we were asked to review the PG4E 2-0 mode and to recaltslate the s Htetra with the beam to column connections of the third floor
' rtstrained.
Furtsennore, it was requested that our comparative tables be updatse to reflect differences in frequency and peak spectral values.
With reggrds to piping, it was agreed that we also carry out multiple input Spalhis for the two previously selected systemt.
Lastly, we were asked to i
r a camposita systens analysis that would simultaneoulsy evaluate the of the structure and piping systems.
Eicept for the multiple input piping study and the composite system analysis, these additional tasks were completed and the results were presented te yl.ms and Dr. M. Hartzman on March 17th at BNL.'
We expect to complete the piping studies shortly, while performance of the composite analysis awat ts istC's 6pproval.
The objective of this letter is to amplify the results of the tad to review the PG8E 2-D model described in the URS Blume report entitled
- 0151o Cartyon Nuclear Plant Unit 1 Containment $tructure, Dynamic Seismic
~ Analysis for 7.5e Hosgri Earthquake" dated, May 1979.
As shown to you and Dr. Hartzman at the March 17th meeting, the computer sofbtfons of the 2-0 PG4E model as given to us by David Lang of LRS on October IS,19M could not be repitcated with computer solutions obtained at BM..
Substg9ent to this setting parameters of the model were varied as suggested in l
tal hone discussions with you and additional computer solutions were nod.
None of these parametric solutions, however, correlata well with
,, IR5 81uma results given in their report.
The first set of the above r m e..
@Q 4?w' Ir
.L _ gf Q
lid 7 l
y
~s t
, Bra,[ht. ' Roo March 24,1982
-j
%~
" teP runs were made based upon information given to BNt. and NRC at the San flod meettng on October 16, 1981.
t reistibn given to you by URS/Blume and relayed to us on March 22ndSubseq
.r.egs(dtng He connections between the beams and crane wall for the first,
' seen end third floors which we were now told to consider as fixed.
These tifisms also result in a mismatch wtth the spectra contained in the se report.
W.
4; Considering the lack of agreement between BNI. and URS Blume solutions, and the apparent uncertainty in the model parameters it is our recommendation Etist de obtain a listing of the computer input / output for the runs used to Mate the spectra 31 von in the UR$/Blume report mentioned above.
I
= (,. - -
.. y.c. ".,
+
- - ~.
$1ncere y j ;l '
Morr1 s keft. Head structdralAnalysisDivision
..F"
..q. m._
i Y
..,- E -
~N p
i.
17.' '.a -
y
.5 9 *-
ry
.Y $
L
-h ?.,
1.
9...
^
)
- y e,., -f -,
Y' g-w;
'Ml:
h v, b.
r.
N$id W. O ~t
...h I
s_ m
.a yss-ra
'p. bud
- 4. '
'of the verification studies undertaken by 884.
3 kissic review involves a computer run of the 2-D model shown in the UQ$ be-n report dated May 1979 entitled "Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (/ k;l i
- s Inenet Structure Dynamic Seismic Analysis for-the 7.5M HOSgt!
cc r fle a ft e, E
j y
In carrying out this wod questions pertaining to the useber Counetflow e
? details (i.e., boundary conditions) have arisen. In spite of s e vered
- y.
telephoes discussions with PG8E personnel these details have not been Cokt[05;ve[ (t}
f l
~
Cekdifieh il
' resolved.
In fact there are confilets between the boundary 1
$5en over the telephone and those described in the report and those 3 Nt.u u
C<.S p c.c f ( ?
ly to BE. and NRC in October 1981.
In order to complete this
, thin work it is necessary to have the complete computer listing of the s q of e
tI
. ~ eutput used to develop the data given in the IRS /Blume report.
' i, L.
!...i.
q s
s.. y g:-
g',
i x
l d,
k;,.
TN-Y
.-