ML20236B016
| ML20236B016 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 07/18/1977 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Morrissey J PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236A877 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-214 NUDOCS 8707280306 | |
| Download: ML20236B016 (4) | |
Text
,
I l'"
DISTRIBUTION Docket Files _ W,
NRC PDR Local PDR LWR-#1 File DVassallo JUL 181977 gEams Docket Nos. 50-275 DA111 son and 50-323 EHy1 ton ELD IE(3)
Pacific Gas & Electric Company HSmith ATTN: Mr. John C. Morrissey Vice President & General Counsel bec: JRBuchanan, NSIC 77 Beale Street TBAbernathy, TIC San Francisco, California 94106 ACRS (16)
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA - DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS - UNITS 1 AND 2 We have reviewed the draft specifications concerning your proposed criteria for the seismic reevaluation of outdoor storage tanks, piping systems and mechanical and electrical equipment. Our consents, which were previously provided to your personnel by telephone, are l
provided in the enclosure.
You should provide responses to these comments as soon as practical in order to resolve any items that might later become problems.
Sincerely.
Orignal Signed by John F. Stolz John F. Stolz, Chief Light Water Reactors Branch No. 1 Division of Project Management
Enclosure:
As Stated cc w/ enclosure:
See Page 2 l'
ll? //
M
/
/
LWp,.Q#,,
LWR-#1 0,,,c E r DAl1isifn:Dj JSM 7//g/77 7/g/77 8707280306 870721
- u' * *0VERNM Ef4 PalgTtfie' OFFICE 41974 *a $2M '
4 JUL '181977 Pacific Gas & Electric Conpany cca Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq.
Mr. John Forster Pacific Gas and Electric Company 985 Palm Street 77 Beale Street San D31s Obispo, California 93401 San Francisco, California 94106 Mr. William P. Cornwell Andrew J. Skaff, Esq.
P. O. Box 453 California Public Utilities Comission Morro Bay, California 93442 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, California 94102 Mr. Jaws O. Schuyle.r, Nuclear Project Engineer Mr. Frederick Eissler, President Pacific Gas & Electric Company I
Scenic Shoreline Preservation 77 Beale Street Conference, Inc.
San Francisco, California 94106
)
4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara, California 93105 Mrs. Thelma Hirdler 811 Fair Oaks Avenue Ms. Sandra A. Silver Arroyo Grande, California 94420 5055 Radford Avenue North Hollywocd, Califernia 91607 Mr. W. C. Gangloff Westinghouse Electric Corporation Mr. Gordon A. Silver P. O. Box 355 5055 Radford Avenue Pitt.sburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 North Hollywood, California 91607 Yale I. Jones, Esa.
Paul C. Valentine, Esq.
100 Van Nece Avenue 400 Channing Avenue 19th Floor Palto Alto, California 94301 San Francisco, California 94102 Hs. Raye Fleming David F. Fleischaker, Esq.
1746 Charro Street 1025 15th Street, N. W.
San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Washington, D. C.
20005 Neil Goldberg, Esq.
Ms. Elizabeth E. Apfelberg Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering 1415 Cazadero l
1666 street, N. W.
San Luit Obispo, California 93401 Washington, D. C.
20006 Brent Rushforth, Esq.
N. M. Newark Center for Law in the Consulting Engineering Services Public Interest l
1211 Civil Engineering Building 10203 Santa Monica Drive i
University of Ill.inois Los Angeles, California 90067 Urbant., Illinois 61801 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Bruce Norton, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer 3216 North 3rd Street 3100 Valley Center Suite 202 Phoenix, Arizona 85073 l
Phoenix, Arizona 85012 i
or ric s >
sWRNAMs>
DATs >
NRC FORM 318 (946) NRCM 0240 W un s. oorsawuswr enewrins orrscai seve s s.ed i
t 1
ENCLOSURE Comments on PG&E Draft Specifications for Outdoor Storage Tanks and Mechanical and Electrical Equipment.
A.
Outdoor Storage Tanks (1)
Item 1.d indicates that ductility may be allowed in certain cases.
If ductility is used specify where and how much.
(2) Item 1.f indicates that an equivalent method may be used in lieu of a vertical response analysis.
If equivalent methods are used, describe the methods and indicate where they are used.
(3) The specification indicates that you will employ the methods of TID 7024 in tank analysis.
We believe these methods give conservative results provided the natural frequencies of the water columns are far from those of the tanks.
Indicate how you will handle this concern.
(4) The specification indicates that you will use the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section VIII, to develop acceptance criteria for stresses to be employed in the analysis.
Compare the requirements I
of Section VIII to those of Section III, Section ND l
for Class 3 tanks and describe why you believe Section VIII is preferable.
i l
l I
i
1 B.
Pipino Mechanical and Electrical Equipment I
(1)
Item a. on the first page indicates that preliminary soectra.
will be used in the evaluation.
Comnare these preliminary spectra to the final spectra.and justify the adequacy of I
your approach.
i (2) ltem e on the first page indicates that actual material properties may be used.
Describe where actual material properties are used.
3 and provide appropriate details to justify the-adequacy of this I
approach.
i (3) Item d. on the first page indicates that earthquake loads will be combined with normal operating loads.
Items 1.a, 2.a and 3a also discuss load combinations. Provide specific load combination i
formulas similar to those.normally provided in the Safety Analysis l
Report.
(4)
The first page irJicates that reanalysis may not be used in cases where simpler methods suffice; With regard to the simpler methods mentioned:
j (a) How will the comparison between the increase in load to the available margin be performed? Some clarification of this item
)
is needed.
(b) Define " acceptably high seismic input" in the statement:
" Equally acceptable methods include comparison to analyses of similar equipment performed for different plants with acceptably high seismic input." Clarification of this item in a more specific manner is needed.
(5) Item 1.c indicates that the effect of torsion will be included by augmentinp horizontal response spectra in accordance with i
the criteria to be used for structural evaluations.
It is our understanding that, for the structures, you will be calculating j
the structural stress due to torsion and then adding this to I
the calculated earthquake stress rather than augmenting spectra.
l We do not understand how you would be augmenting spectra to account for torsion in the reactor coolant system analysis.
Describe the procedure fo'r the reactor coolant system in detail and clarify this point.
(6)
Items 2. and 3. do not indicate that torsion will be accopted for piping other than the reactor coolant loops and for mechanical i
equo..ient.
Justify this approach.
(7)
Items 1.d. 2.d and 3.c indicate that compressive loads up to 0.9 critical buckling may be allowed (apparently for piping supports).
However, the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code allows only 0.67 critical buckling.
Justify your approach.
t.