ML20136B265: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 911: Line 911:
3.3.5.1.2                          Dome Crane The dome service crane is a maintenance crane                                                    -
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 presently considering retaining a consultant to evaluate the consequences of assumed failure.                                                      -
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 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                                                                I effort. It will be verified in the overall re-verification program.
This is documented in the {{letter dated|date=May 5, 1981|text=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                                                                I effort. It will be verified in the overall re-verification program.
l                                                                                                                                                                                    l 9
l                                                                                                                                                                                    l 9
I
I

Latest revision as of 02:34, 14 December 2021

Forwards Draft Preliminary Rept on Design Interface Review of Seismic Reverification Program & List of Insp Repts Addressing Seismic Insp Activities Since Jan 1978.Review Results of Implementation of Insp Requirements Also Encl
ML20136B265
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon, 05000000
Issue date: 09/30/1981
From: Faulkenberry B
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To: Jordan E
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML20136B092 List:
References
FOIA-84-293 NUDOCS 8601020491
Download: ML20136B265 (6)
v • d • e


Text

_. -

! # s  ;

A

j. . f ,

'E 'n NUCLE AH Htuvi ni v.. . . . . . . . . . . .

2 .. E REGION V 1990 N. CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD 4-  %.7 ' g'

[

SulTE 202. WALNUT CREEK PLAZA f- , e.,,e WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA 94596 1

September 30, 1981 MEMORANDUM FOR: E. L. Jordan, Deputy Director, Division of Resident, and Regional Reactor Inspection FROM:

B. H. Faulkenberry, Chief, Reactor Construction Projects Branch

SUBJECT:

RESULTS OF REVIEW 0F SEISMIC RELATED INSPECTION ACTIVITIES AT DIABLO CANYON-1/2 -- -

In accordance with our telephone conversation on September 29, 198.1, Region V reviewed all documentation covering seismic'related inspection activities performed at Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 since January 1978.

Enclosure 1 provides a listing of all the IE inspection reports, including paragraph numbers, that address seismic inspection activities. The inspection reports that document design area inspections are listed in paragraph A. Paragraph B provides a listing of the inspection reports covering hardware and QA type inspections.

Enclosure 2 provides the results of our review of the documentation -

covering the implementation of inspection requirements contained in  !

TI 2515/29. As described in the enclosure, there are six inspection  ;

action statements that the inspection documentation does not specifically i address as having.been performed. It is our belief that these action items were inspected; however, the style in which the reports were '

written was not adequate to allow identification of each TI inspection --

action item.  !

As reported to you by telephone on September 28,' 198.le inspection reports numbered 50-275/79-23, 80-02, and 80-10 document the inspection activities related to IEB 79-14. Inspection Report 80-10 covers the closecut inspection of IEB 79-14 for Diablo Canyon Unit 1.

  • I

~ B. H. faulkenber y, ml/Mlef-4  ;

l Reactor Construc 'on Projects Branch

Enclosures:

As stated cc: J. L. Crews, RV F*/A- W % .

8601020491 851125

____N:oA

~

l .

a.~ ~

l ,

RESULTS OF REGION V REVIEW 0F INSPECTION DOCUMENTATION

, s N COVERING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TI 2515/29 (TI For IEB 79-1 ,

A review of. TI 2515/29 ' inspection requirements and documentation of the inspections (provided in. IE Inspection Reports 50-275/79-23,

/80-02, and /80-10) identified the following- TI action statements ,

which are not clearly documented as having been performed:

TI ACTION STATEMENT COMMENT

~

1. (IV.1) " Review the organization. ..

who developed the inspection (no specific reference - but PG&E's elements." organization was previously reviewed by the NRC and is documented in IE Inspection Reports prior to January 1978) _

E (IV.1) " Interview one of.those persons (no specific discussion of an interview -

if available on site." but Braff's name does appear under

' individuals contacted' in the report which discusses the inspection walkdown)

3. (IV.1) "If documentation of the seismic (no ' specific refe~rence - but Report analysis is available at the site, inspect it in conjunction with the_ 79-23 does discuss PG&E's and their documentation of inspection consultant's actions to relate the seismic elements to determine that analysis to isometric drawings) pertinent paramsters and. values -

were identified as required by item 1 of the Bulletin."

4. (IV.1) "Also determine, to the extent possible, that acceptance criteria (no specific reference - although this were developed in a rational may be inferred since the inspector ,

4 way " reviewed the licensee's ' actions' and found them acceptable)- ..

5. (IV.1) " Inspections covering the area -

(no specific reference. May be described above will also be addressed in separate IE:RIV reports) conducted within the organi-zation'of three architect .

engineers. Selection...will ,

i be coordinated with the Vendor Inspection Branch by Technical '

Programs / Headquarters. "

6. (IV.4.D) "For sites where noncunformances (no specific reference - discussion is are identified, assure that  :

necessary improvements to quality provided which states the licensee has  :

assurance procedures related to an acceptable system for resolution design changes due to modifica- of discrepancies identified by the 7 inspection. Changes to quality  :

tions or maintenance are com- procedures are not specifically pleted within 120 days of.the date of the Bulletin." addre ssed. )

i e

c

_/

j .

(

Region V Inspections Relating to Seismic Issues Performed At Diablo Canyon 1/2

~

j Ganuary 1978 - September 1981) i

Reference:

IE:RV Kirsch /Vorderbrueggen Mem6 to G. S. Spencer Dated 13/20/77 (Attached) i

- -:- A.- - De s ign-Aet-ivMy--Inspections- -

j 1.

' 50-275/323/78-01 (Par. 3) r

2. 50-275/323/79-01 (Par.11, at-built drwg.)
3. 50-275/79-23 (Par. 3)
4. 50-27' 5/79-06.(item #02) 32?,79-04 (item #02)
5. 50-275/80-02 (Par. 5)
6. 50-275/80-06; 323/80-03 (Par. 5 drawings review; 9 siesmic interactions)
7. 50-275/80-10; 323/80-06 (Par. 5).
8. 50-275/81-10 (Par 2a, 2b) 1 B. Hardware Installations and QA Inspections L
1. 50-275/78-02 (Par. 5, 6, 7) ,
2. 50-275/78-03 (Par. 2, 3, 5, 6, 9,10)
3. 50-275/78-05/323/78-06 (all)
4. 50-275/78-09/323/78-09 (all)
5. 50-275/323/78-10 (all)
6. 50-275/323/78-21 (Par. 2, 3.b, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11)

-7. 50-275/323/78-15 (Par. 4.b, 6, 7, 8,11,12,13,15,16)

8. 50-275/323/79-01 (Par. 2, Sa , b, d, e, g, 8,9,10,12) i
9. 50-275/79-06; 323/79 allegations of poor construction quality
10. 50-275/79-07; 323/79-05 (Par. 3, 5, 6,11,13)
11. 50-275/79-12; 323/79-07 -(Par. 4a , 7,10, .11) l
12. 50-275/79-13; 323/79-08) Par. 3a , b , 4a ,' b, 5, 7, 8, 9,10)
13. 50-275/79-17; 323/79-09 (Par. 2, 4 abc, 6b, 8, 9)
14. 50-275/79-19 (Par. 2) -

.+.e,es.. .w e--=.e- -

s

15. 50-275/79-22; 323/79-12 (Par. 2, 3a, 5, 6, 7)
16. 50-275/79-23 (Par. 3) .
17. 50-275/79-26, 323/79-13 (Par. 2.b, 4a , 4c, 5, 6, 7)
18. 50-275/80-02; 323/80-01 (Par. 2.b, 4, 5, 8)
19. 50-275/80-06; 323/80-03 (Par. 5, 6, 9)

,,- 20. 50-275/80-10; 323/80-06 (Par. 3, 5, 7)

, 21. 50-275/80-16; 323/80-08 (Par. 2, 3, 4a , 7, 8,10,11)

22. 50-275/80-22; 323/80-11 (Par. 3b, 4a, 5) _
23. .

50a275/81-04; 323/81-04 (Par. 3b, 3c)

24. 50-275/81-17; 323/81-11 (Par. 3d) -

e l

[

l I l

.. i i

4 i

i  !

j i

1, .

. i I

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

+ et* se (ment. esto)

  • T'

~:_ GerE

'y . . FCJt INTRA-C?MDANY Un?7 Froen Division or Departrnent MECHANICAL AND MUC1 EAR ENGINEERING .

3 FILE No.

RE LETTEM or '

SueJtcT IntGrim Report to NRC - Cloud Associates *

.2 s' To Division or Diablo Canyon Unit 1 t Departrneht -

l.

< October 21, 1981 )

/

a MESSRS. D. A. BRAND q R. V. BETTINGER Attached is one copy,of " Report on the Design Interface

  • Review of the Seismic Reverification Program" for ycur review and l comments.

To maintain our schedule, comments will J' e retGIned to

] Dr. Cloud by 5 p.m.' Thursday, October 22, 1981.

1 Please have any comments to J. J. McCracken by 3 p.m., 5

! October 22, 1981.

t

/s E

l U '

, , '(.7llY *l'"

J. V. BOCCA ),

JVR(3381) : sal i' . ..

j cc: JJMcCracken .

i l

i Attachment b b

i I

r i

I I

e  ;

+

i i-  :

c potA-N-2'l3 I Pls

/i - a o/ ;

f i e a i . ROBERT L. CLOUD ASSOCI ATES, INC.

2972 ADELINE STREET BERKELEY, CALIFORNI A 94702 (4153 841 0206 ,

~

October 21, 1981 Mr. Jim Rocca Chief Mechanical Engineer Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Esale Street San Francisco, California 94106

Dear Jim,

Enclosed please find "A Preliminary Report on the Design Interface Review of the Seismic Reverification Program."_

Yours 'truly,' ,

G

[,/,

t l(.'iM]s:4I - "

. R. . Clo d c -

  • '~

~

n'

-D

~

m h hk ,

RLC :1j s Enclosure l

~.

~} '

} '

i i i i .

4 i A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE DESIGN l INTERFACE REVIEW OF THE SEISMIC 1

REVERIFICATION PROGRAM .

October 1981 Proj ect 105-4 Report of work performed for Pacific Gas &

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

Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc. l l

l 2972 Adeline Street P.0, Box'687 Berkeley, CA 94703 West Falmouth, MA 02574 (415).841-9296 (617) 540-5381 i m v " Ilv v au

TABLE OF CONTENTS f '

's Pa{e 1.0 Incroduction i 2.'O Objective and Scope . A 3.0 Program Methodology ,

3 -

3.1 Definition of-Seismic - -

Qualifiestion Interfaces #

3.2 . Review of Methodology 5

3.2.1 Listing 5' J

3.2.2 Structures G ,

3.2.3 Equipment G

3.3 Review of Structures and Equipment ,

lA 3.3.1 Containment Structure la

! 3.3.1.1 Design Info'rmation from PGandE to 33 URS/Blume 3.3.1.2 Design Information from URS/Blume 'l *e -

to PGandE ,

3.3.1.3 Design Information from PGandE to 16 Equipment Suppliers and Qualifiers 3.3.1.4 Qualification of Containment ig

~

Structure and Equipment 3.3.2 Intake Structure iq r,

f 3.3.2.1 Design Information from PGandE i gg to URS/Blume '

3.3.2.2 Design Information from URS/Blume li to PGandE l i

3.3.2.3 Design Information from PGandE to 20 Equipment Suppliers and Qualifiers 3 3.2.4' Qualification of Intake Structure '-

20  ;

and Equipment

~

e 4

li) .

6

t 3.3.3 Turbine Building J3 3.3.3.1 Design Information from PGandE A3 to URS/Blume .

3.3.3.'2

. Design Information from URS/Blume . af to PGandE ,

3.3.3.3 Design Information from PGancE to 24 Equipment Suppliers and Qualifiers 3.3.3.4 Qualification of Building and 46 -

Equipment -

5 3.3.4 Auxiliary / Fuel Handling Buildings at.

3.3.4.1 Design Information from PGandE to AS j URS/Blume 19 7 3.3.4.2 Design Information from URS/Blume ,

to PGandE 3.3.4.3 Design Information from PGandE to 3e Equipment Suppliers and Qualifiers 4

3.3.4.4 Qualification of Buildings and 30 Equipment -

3.3.5 Cranes 3g 3.3.5.1 Containment Structure Crane 32 3.3.5.2 Intake Structure Crane 34 ,

3.3.5.3 Turbine Building-Crane 3g.

3.3.5.4 Fuel Handling Building Crane ig 3.3.6 Outdoor Water Storage Tanks gg

3.3.7 General Equipment and Systems 4e Piping Systems 3.3.7.1 g

3.3.7.2 Valves 43 j 3.3.7.3 HVAC Components 47 3.5.7.4 Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning Duct 47 1 I

3.3.7.5 " - " ' -

  • Effvua i Fledtica l FixiWM W d i httvu.wp t a :w hI) ,

t 6

d. _. , .._ .. _ .. , _. . .., _ . - _ _. .... ..__, .._.._...--, .._.. .. .

I 1 3.3.7.6 Electrical Raceways if 4.0 Summaries and Conclusions 67

(,"$

~~

5.0 Re5erences .

e m-6 4

  • e A

h

I I

. . APPENDICES Appendik;1.0 Information Across Interface from PGandE to URS/Blume .

c l.1 Containment Structure

! ~-'

l.2 Intake Structure 1.3 Turbine Building _

l

1.4 Auxiliary / Fuel Handling Buildings 1.f Cranes 1.6 Outdoor Water Storage T'nks a

i Appendix 2.0 Information Across Interface from URS/Blume to PGandE .

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 j 3.2 Piping and Valves 3.3 HVAC - Comoents and Ducting 3.4 Electrical Instrumentation and Control Apoendix 4.0 Civil Engineering - Central File Index Appendix 5.0 Mechanical Engineering - Central File Index Appendix 6.0 URS/Blume Supplier File at PGandE Appendix 7.0 Design Verification Documentation of P'GandE liv)

E

i A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE DESIGN INTERFACE REVIEW OF THE SEISMIC REVERIFICATION PROGRAM .-

1 1.0 Introduction  :

1 As a result of the discovery of a misapplication of seismic ~

l

) floor spectra to the annulus area of the'Diablo Canyon Power 1 Plant Unit 1, a Seismic Reverification Program

  • was estab- i j

lished to determine if further errors exist in seismic quali-j fication of the plant for the Hosgri 7.5 M earthquake. This 4

program was presented verbally to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory I Commission in a meeting at Bethesda, Maryland on October 9 1981. The NRC felt the program was valuable, but requested a preliminary report on part of Task 3 of the Reverification

[ Program od a priority basis, i .

. Task 3 of.the original program is titled." Design Interface

) Review" and consists of a review of seismic design and quali-fication information that was transmitted back and forth l between PGandE~and subcontractors during the evaluation of k' 'the ' p lant for the Hosgri earthquake. 'The part of Task 3 re-

. quested in an early preliminary report was a review of the l l particular design interface that existed between PGandE and URS/Blume during the Hosgri re-evaluation.

This report has been prepared in response to the NRC request .

for a preliminary report on the URS/Blume - PGandE Seismic ,

j Design Interface.

It has been completed on a priority basis and must be considered a preliminary report, as requested and as titled. Any omissions of significant information or

}l other incompleteness will be addressed in the overall reveri-j fication program.

I 4

" Seismic Verification Program, Robert L. Cloud Associates,

] Inc., Berkeley, California, October 12, 1981. -

4 2_a---.. _._____-___n-

ot 2.0 objective and Scope The objective of this preliminary part of the verification program'was to examine Seismic' Design and Qualification in-

. formation of three categories:

(1) that transmittsd from PGandE to URS/Blume (2) that transmitted from URS/Blume to PGandE (3) that received from URS/Blume by PGandE and ..

subsequently distributed , by PGandE, to those qualifying equipment

' The requirement was to p'erform an engineering review of this information in a selective manner, as described below. It .

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

Design spectra, building loads and other output of URS/Blume 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 1 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 the Design Interface of PGandE with' URS/Blume. Other design '

interfaces will be reviewed in the overall re-verification- -

study. The buildings and equipment reviewed in the present -

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

e

_ _-_.-__m_ _ . . . - _ _ _ _

. . 5 3.0 Prograu Methodology 3.1 Definition of Seismic Quali.fication Interfaces The seismic qualificatior interfaces of-interest for the present effort are illustrated in Figure 3.1. As can be seen, there are th.ree 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-tiens,

  • equipment locations and masses, 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 develod's

~~

analytical models of -the civil structures, and 7~

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 {

transmitted to PGandE. l l

l III. PGandE reec. ves the civil / structural seismic res-ponst W r.ition and organizes and/or reduces

T 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.'

Figure 3.1, illustrating the interfaces, has additional. flow paths that indicate feedback loops across the interfaces and dashed lines that indicate possible. indirect interfaces. ,

These~ additional communications paths are listed to complete all possible interface interaction activity.

2 i I l

I 6 sde A e

,g . .. . .

g - . . .

, g -

.. ___----------a

, , f

' ~

3.2 Review Methodology It was. convenient to develop an organized approach to the review Eo minimize confusion, lost motion,and to ensure that a

. complete review was accomplished. The following paragraphs

-describe the. methodology that was d_evised for use in the current preliminary effort.

The basic orientation of the review was to ensure that the -

applicable design and qualification information was used for building and equipment qualification by studying the engi-neering work itself. Although casual observations were made 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 engineering data was used in the seismic qualification calculations, regardless of the formality with which it was handled.

l A second tenet of this effort was to perform a review that '

was-both broad and complete, but also. had the requisite

. depth. In order to accomplish 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 the. interface information involving URS/Blume for two select-~

l ed buildings in complete and comprehensive detail. The two buildings selected were the Intake Structure and the Contain-ment Building.

i

! 3.2.1 Listing -

l 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.

g 3.2.2 Structures l

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- _

1 bilities for major tasks. As-indicated, there was _

1 a separate responsible PGandE building engineer for i

each structure.

1 4

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

3.2.3 Equipment The overall cognizant responsibilities for the Hosgri requalification of equipment was divided between PGandE and Westinghouse, as listed in -!

j Figure 3.2.3-1. PGandE performed this qualifica- '

l tion in-house with PGandE engineers in some cases, and utilized subcontractors for others. Subcon-tractor interfaces on equipment qualification are --

2 described in the body of this report. I

.-_ . - I

-i The general strategy regarding equipment qualifica-tion was. straight forward. The flow of design ~ -

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 l required more time to~ track than was available. When  !

i y

'f & '1 4

  • gy-.-y- --m-., e'- . . -y-m* m c.- g., w9, y-3.#y ,vy- mr,,..- ,ve y- wp 9 9y-.p=%9-,-% w c-ey e a, ,,ym-q=y, w

/

this occurred it is noted and the input will be

~

reviewed in the overall report.

.s A sizeable portion of Hosgri required. equipment was qualified by Westinghouse. The flow of seismic design information sent 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. 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 spectra issued June 5, 1977.

Spectra could'not be located in PGandE files. On August 9, 1977, PGandE transmitted vertical spectra for the Containment Structure to. Westinghouse.

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

No record was found of any Turbine Building spectra ever being sent to Westinghouse.

l .

e

. . =

. ~

.- . T N

E M

/)W P

\

\u I U

Q .

E

\

\ /t *

/ \ K

,s f

~

C A

D E

h ?G N I

St EI E

\y /

f F Y

S E

x

/

/ xD C A

F J E d A R E

T N

I af n

N s k G O

' \

\ Pf I T

A C

s I

\ F I

I:C S

s s

Il K

C A h N GO L

A U

EhL.

B IF Q

/

'R D St 1 E EI C

~ E .

1

  1. " E I N / \~ ) F 1 1

S

- / Y 1

xD I

E

/ S

' l mA e

1

% l B

3 uW

/ E

/

S R:

\ R U

U

\ 1 G

I

!l , -l i

" \ F

\

/\ K h 2N C

A

,s J- B D

E '

GO IF SN '

E EI .,

, \ N / Ff %D A

/

/

[

d d n

a G

P

4 hi i

Interface I . Interface II Interface III

<s , , ,

Building Drawings Floor Response Spectra Envelope Floor Spectra for a11' locations Equipment Weights throughout plant Static g Loads and C. G.

Building Loads Equipment Specifications Documentation of Verb'a1. Discussion Dynamic Analysis Test Spec'ifications Reports for all

Definition of Buildings Purchase Orders Ground Motion a

'I e w <

j ..

l t

i ',

FIGURE 3 2 INFORMATION CATEGORIES-OF INTERFACE -

. i J

_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ __ t

i.

INTAKE CONTAINMENT AUXILIARY TURBINE BUILDING CRANES FIELD BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING ERECTED TANKS i

.- _yr;.

,j MODELiNG PGandE, - J' i & DYNAMIC URS/Blume URS/Blume URS/Blume URS/Blume W* - 3 ANALYSIS URS/Blum'h i URS/B - 4 l' E URS/Blume URS/Blume URS/Blume

j. QUA IONS URS/Blume PGandE PGandE URS/Blume- H-3' URS/Blume URS/B - 4 l

i

!

  • Westinghouse .,

i Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 '

4 SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION OF BUILDINGS - COGNIZANT RESPONSIBILITIES

{ Figure-3.2.2-1 i

1 1

f i

j . * ".

. g 6

EQUIPMENT RESPONSIBILITY ,

Reactor Coolant System W*

and Equipment Piping Systems 6" and W over connected to Reactor' Coolant System

~

. . Secondary Systems PGandE & Subcontractors 9

Safety Related Conduit PGandE

& Raceways ,

Safety Related PGandE Mechanical Equipment '

HVAC PGandE i .

Instrumentation and PGandE

  • Centrol Equipment i
  • Westinghouse

?

FIGURE 3.2.3-1 RESPONSIBILITY OF EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION W M4 mW pw4 enw ceerh ea. hew a. - ,wm__ e,.

IA 3.3 Reve1w of Structures and Eauipment Theregiewofinterfaceinformationforstructuresand} equip-ment we,s performed using the methodology described .in

~

. . Sec' tion'3.2. To . break the required information into more 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.

3.3.1 Containment Structure The Containment Structure was originally investigated for the Double Design Earthquake (DDE) int 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.

Analysis", (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, "Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Containment Structure Dynamic Seismic Analysis for the 7.5 M Hosgri ']

Earthquake", May 1979 (Reference 11)'. l I

The~following sections describe the transfer of information l between PGandE and URS/Blume for the Coittainment Structure

-___..E.'_ --___x'__m__a.

, -. = _ . - . ..

a

\1 and five major pieces of -equipment. Generic equipment, such as cranes, piping, heating, ventilating and air conditioning, i

etc. ase covere'd in Sections 3.3.5 through Sections 3'.3.7.

. 3.3.1.1 Design Information from PGandE to URS/Blume

~

The close and informal relationship between PGandE 4

and URS/Blume engineers.resulted in scarse document- -

i ation of design information, drawings, equipment

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

Appendix 1.1.contains-all the transmittal document- ,

j .

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 URS/Blume's project file. The document supporting this. informal interface process contains the person- _

al recollections ~of the PGandE engineer responsible for the Containment (Appendix 1.1, item #16). i i

For the Hosgri re-~e valuation (Reference 11) the f dynamic model used was the same as for the double design , earthquake (DDE) . analysis (Reference 1),

J'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 th.e July

.1970 report on the Containment SEructure(Reference 1).

4 i

6

i 14 lJ The criteria established to check the referenced e -

drawings are tabulated as follows: .

l

~

1. These are Containment Structure - Unit 1 drawings. -
2. Since the reference drawings had no revision _

j 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- i formed, and it was found that revisions made after 1970 were" minor (Appendix l'.1, item #14), and

{ would not affec't the model in the horizontal direc-I tion.

t l In the case of the~ annulus, the only drawing docu-mentation available are che four sketches sent to 5 URS/Blume from PGandE (Appendix 1.1, item #5) and l the calculation sketch at URS/Blume-(Appendix-1,1, ~~

_ item #17). These sketches are for Unit 2 annulus

_ and not for Unit l'. Unit 2 drawings, as provided by PGand E, were used by URS/Blume to' formulate' '

.the seismic model because.they were clearer and '

more easily read.

j' Thus, for the Hosgri ev-evaluation report (Refer-

) ecce ll) the containment dynamic model used was a Unit 1 interior and exterior and a Unit 2 annulus.

According to URS/Blume this posed no problem'as i they were under the impression-the Unit 1 and

. Unit 2 were identical. This is identified in 4

3 l'

{:

e i 1-t .. . . .

1 l' .

}. .

c . .<

[; Appendix 1.1, item #18. Use of Unit 2 Annu,lus and 1

Unit 1 interior should have no affect on the s.hape .

j of the annulus: spectra, because of the axisymetric interior, as discussed in Appendix 1.1, iten #18. l l

The only change in the. annulus regions covered by the 5 referenced frames will-be affected due to Unit 1 being mirror image opposite hand configura- *[

tion from the Unit 2 nodel. ~

i. 3.3.1.2 Design Information from URS/Blume to PGandE .

Unlike the informal transmittal documentation from PGandE to URS/Blume,.the documentation from URS/Blume to PGandE was more formal. This is verified by reviewing the transmittal documents listed in Aopendix 2.1.1. This Appendix ,contains

{ transmittal documents sent to PGandE from February

1977 to the present. lhese documents were obtained
from URS/Blume during-the week of October 13, 1981.

i, The contents of the transmittal documents marked ,

I

! with an asterisk are in Appendix 2.1.2. -

1 i

j 3.3.1.3 Design Information from PGandE to Equipment '

[ Suppliers t.ad Qualifiers 4 ,

I i ~

-For the purpose of this interface' review, the seismic ,;

~

input'information for the following equipment was ,

evaluated: ,l t

i

1. Reactor Coolant System
2. Hydrogen Recombiner
3. Containment Purge Valves  ;

l.

4 ' Regenerative Heat Exchanger  ;

5.

Containsent Cooling Fans .

l i .

i 3

I i

=- -

.r--==, , - - , - . - - _ - - .

  • IG It was found that most of the design information

, for the above equipment was transmitted to

~~Jestinghouse (Appendix 3.1). The accuracy.of this information is discussed in the next s e c t' ion .

3.3.1.4 Qualification of Containment Structure and Equipment 3.3.1.4.1 Containment Structure l

i

{ A comprehensive design review of the Contain- i ment Structure was originally completed on l 2/28/77. This review had one outstanding i item - pipe ruuture restraints. This item .

was cleared, and an amendment issued on 1/16/78. The original review and the amend-ment were performed by PGandE and are given  ;

in Aupendix.7.

, f J

Another design review of the Containment ,

Structure was completed by PGandE on 1/22/79, d This design review addressed the structural !t adequacy of the Containment Structure for

  • the postulated 7.5 M Hosgri seismic evant l

(Appendix 2.1). --

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

no conclusion can be drawn on the etructural -

adequacy of the annulus. As this structure -

supports many' equipment and piping systems, l further in-depth review is necessary in the t overall reverification program. i i

, I i i i

t 1 . .

. . -- .-- ~ - .- .

l II l .

j l ,

l 3.3.1.4.2 Equipment 1 ., .

l A detailed review of equipment is given in H-  : Appendix 3.1. A summary is giyen below:

1. Reactor Coolant System Westinghouse (W) seismically qualified  :

the Reactor Coolant vessel for the Hosgri .

requirecent as discussed in-the W report,

" Summary Report, Seismic-Evaluation of Westinghouse Equipnent for Postulated ,

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

The seismic spectra used for qualifica-l tion envelope the current Hosgri spectra for the interior concrete, and thus the  !

seismic qualification is valid.

2. Hydrogen Recombiner Westinghouse (W) origin' ally qualified the -

Hydrogen Recombiner in the annulus region by test. These were transmitted to PGandE as discussed in Appendix 3.1.2. Due to the conservative nature of the test spectra--

utilized in the original qualification, it

~~-

was confirmed that the Hydrogen Combiners  !

qualify to the new enveloped annulus -

spectra. t

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

1 l

a 8 IG are more conservative than the current ,

Hosgri spectra. Considering that the computations were correct, the contain-

.- ment purge valves are qualified to the 7.5 M Hosgri earthquake.

4. Regenerative Heat Exchangers -

Westinghouse (W) performed the seismic -

qualification of the Regenerative Heat Exchangers using the Hosgri spectra as discussed in Appendix 3.1.2.

This qualification will require close scrutiny to properly 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 con-clusions are still valid because the spectra that were used envelope the current spectra.

Besides the' equipment reviewed above, other equiement in "

1.__ ._

the Containment Structure has not been reviewed for the current effort, but will be-done in the Reverification Program. .

e 4

e

19 4 . .

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

] 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 PGandE engineer -

responsible for the Intake Structure.

The seismic analysis of the Intake Structure for l 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 -

t 1.2).

3.3.2.2 Design Information from URS/Blume to PGandE A two-phase work scope of the a:eismic analysis of the Intake Structure for the Hosgri criteria was ,,

found in a memorandum dated 5/t /75 from URS/Blume 2

to PGandE (Appendix 2.2.1) . Sotu weekly progress

~~~ ~

l.

" ~ ' reports from URS/Blume were fount' in the PGandE j

civil engineering file (Appendix 4). .

, A preliminary report on the seismic analysis of

) the Intake Structure was issued by URS/Blume to i 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 -

i

Fcctor of Safety Against Overturning, Foundation Bearing Pressures", was issued on 11/13/78 (Ap-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 Str'ucture 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 Structure drawings currently 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.

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

_ 3.3.2.4 - Qualification of Intake Structure and Equipment 3.3.2.4.1 Intake Structure According to the lead PGandE engineer responsible for the Intake Structure, the building was qualified by using seismic response output produced in the URS/Blume 5/9/77 report (Appendix 1.2i. The URS/Blume 5/16/79 report

~.*=.-.,,...-.,e+ . . . -

&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 seismfc 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 pumps. 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 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/

4

~

Blume. 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 studies'will be verified in the overall r'everification -

program.

  • = k e

e 9

i P

l l

% 4 0

1 i

i l

l

  • * .w o on --wm m .. w s.+, . . . . . . ,, . _ , _. _

. A3

3.3.3 Turbine Building 3

TheTurhineBuildingwasoriginallydesignatedaseismic

! Design Class II structure and designed on the basis 'of a minimum horizontal seismic coefficient of 0.2.g. . The structure was later analyzed for~the double design earth-

' quake (DDE) and was found to require minor structural mofi-

~

i fication. This in presented in the URS/Blume report, "Diablo

, Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Earthquake Analysis 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-1 Auxiliary Euilding, it was necessary to show that under the postulated 7.5 M Hosgri motions the building would not have a failure which would impai 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 Power 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 j PGandE,.URS/Blume, and Equipment Suppliers and Qualifiers  !

] for the Turbine Building.

3.3.3.1 Design Information from PGandE to URS/Blume ,

i i

l

, The original design and analysis including the j generation of drawings of the Turbine Building,  ;

4 were done by URS/Blume. Following the Hosgri re- l quirement to re-evaluate the Turbine Building.in l 1977, URS/Blume performed the analysi.s and re-  ;

4 evaluation. Design changes and drawings were  !

l

i ai

. gsunrated by PGandE from URS/Blumn input. These

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

1 , ,

1 .

i In the case of the Turbine Building, a large number

. of transmittals were documented. Appendix 1.3 contains

, transmittal documentation for the period 1974 to 1979.

J Relevant design information transmitted is given'in Appendix 1.3. ,

t I

3.3.3.2 Design Information from URS/Blume to.PGandE i

j Appendix 2.3.1 contains transmittal documents from

URS/Blume to PGandE. They reference various spectra, l design, analysis and test reports and other corre-spondence of technical nature.  ;

~

i 1

The detail transmittals themselves have not been reviewed and ~ will be a part of the overall reverific-

$ ation work. '

i 3.3.3.3 Design Information from PGandE to Equipment Suppliers

and.. Qualifiers i
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

)

1 components:

i l  !

k i  !

I l .

v i

i

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

I.

a5

1. Diesel Generators s 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 s.l.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 Components The Turbine Building design qualification responsi-bilities were divided between URS/Blume and PGandE.

The qualification of major seismic resistant com- --

~ ~ ~

~

~~

ponents of the building for the Hosgri evaluation was performed 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

    • ~*e* ~~-- -..

, - ab PGandE drawings for these modifications, obtained

, from conferring with the responsible lead engineer.

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

rebruary, 1980 (Appendix 7),

i

~

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, 1 Appendix 7), these will be investigated in the over-i all reverification program.

I

/

-m h

O.

e . . . ,

r r

a 4

I I

f

,, . - - - r-e,--- e -- <

. . 37

, TABLE 3.3.1 Drawingh. prepared by PGandE containing modification inform-ation for Structural Frames, Beams and Columns per Hosgri

~

evaluation for the Turbine Building. ,

463684 465135 465127 465136 465128 465137 ~'

465129 465138 465130 465139

.; 465131 465140 465132 465141 465133 465142 .

j 465134 465143 TABLE 3.3.2 Drawings containing modification information for Equipment -

Anchorage per Hosgri evaluation for t.he Turbine Building.

463671 463677 ..

i 463672 463678 463673 ,

463679 l - 463674 463680~

463675 463681 -

1 j 463676 463682 .

463683 i

A 4

e

___._______YI_75.i'_E'__-____ -._ T is s. t A ..#12.um2_e..x.2..wu-_mmmm_w____________-_.____._____._______.____._.____.____m__ _ . _ ._ _ _____ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

2$

3.3.4 Auil$ary/FuelHandlingBuildines t.

3.3.4.l~' 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/Blu'me 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).

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 1.4).

After discussions with the lead engineer of PGandE who was responsible for the seismic analyses of 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 stiffness properties of the mathematical model for the Auxiliary / Fuel Handling Building (Appendix 1.4)...

The computations by computer were done at PGandE and the output was given to URS/Blume as input to compute the seismic response of the buildings (Ap-pendices 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 4

%am..,-, , .- .

A9 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 computation in March 1977. '

An average weight of weights in the E-W cnd 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 reverification program.

1 3.3.4.2 Design Information from URS/Blume to PGandE ^

The flow of information from URS/Blume to PGandE on the Auxiliary Building is documented in Appendix 2.4. ~

Preliminary Hosgri spectra were issued by URS/Elume 1

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 preliminary w emw me ew- -m ..a w

30 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, 1,977 provide additional, but not different, information.

3.3.4.3 Design Information from PGandE to Equipment Sup- -

pliers and Qualifiers Seismic qualification-of major mechanical equipment 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 responsible engineer at PGandE in Appendix 1.4 confirmed that the structural e-I 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, because 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 file ,

(Appendix 7). The design verification report has ,

an attached note indicating revision for Hosgri.

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

6

~

f l

. 31 3.3.4.4.2 Equipment The major equipment of the Auxiliary Building was qualified either by Westinghouse and PGandE or reviewed by Westinghouse. Table 3.3.5.4 sum-marizes the qualification of mechsnical equipment in the Auxiliary Building. The detailed infor-mation on this equipment qualification is given _

in Appendix 3.1.4.

89

. . i.

9

- e~<m.m.-e.-

' 33 model in the report (Appendix 2.5.2). This preliminary review shows that the information

was transformed correctly from the drawings to the model.

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 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 I effort. It will be verified in the overall re-verification program.

l l 9

I

    • ~M '

"**89 **-"*"*- _y- F . ._ -_...sn es * *h --- - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ~ ' ' - - '

3+'

. 3.3.5.2 Intake Structure Crane g,..,

3. 3. 5. 2,.1 Design Information from PGandE to URS/Ri.ume . .

w.,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 j crane (Appendix 2.5).

i 3.3.5.2.3 Qualification of Intake Structure Crane A quick review of the final report listed in Sec- ..

tion 3.3.5.2.2 found many suggested design modi-  :

fications. They are: the installation of a seismic ,

hold-down and11ateral restraint mechanism, and rl minor structural modifications to transmit hori-

~

i zontal forces from crane legs to truck and then ,

to the rail. These modifications to design draw-l' ings were made by URS/Blume and were also reported in the above report. The modifications to construc-  !

t tion drawings were jointly made by PGandE and URS/  !

Blume. However, spot checks need lo be made to in- [

sure that modifications to construction drawings were properly done. -

t e

t

3 a, i s 3.3.5 Cranes 3.3.5.1 . Containment Structure Cranes -

4 .

There are two cranes in the Containment' Structure l.

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 '

f the 7.5 M Hosgri Earthquake", dated J1y 1979 (Appendix 2.5.2).

The drawings and other. design information utilized for the modeling of the cranes.are not referenced in the report. Nor are there any transmittals

, documenting the transfer of these from PGandE to --

l URS/Blume.

... . .  ;- c c ._ .

At present the only_ documentation that substanti- i ates the above mentioned report are the calcula- ~

tio6s (Appendix 2.5.2). These documents basically' h 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 1

3 t

35 3.3.5.3 Turbina 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 equip'ce:.t weights was done on'7/22/75. . The .. transmit t al 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 (Revisedl", No-vember 1979, presents the design information required to modify the crane for the Hosgri criteria (Reference 3).

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

Based upon design information presentad 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 c.rane support girders (des-cribed in the Hosgri report given in 3.3.5.3.2 above). PGandE and URS/Blure 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-

. perly implemented. '

-_-.__~_?_-____._.___:_*:

- _ " T* 2_TY:_T ' ' *_----'~:

-- - * . _ _ . _ _ . - _ . _ ..--_._-.__-.____-_-____________-_.-_----_---._L_.--

t l . 3G 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 seismic 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 were transmitted to URS/Blume. As is the case for some of the other structures, the information was passed on in an informal basis. However, there .

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 1 check the accuracy of design information trans-mitted.

3.3.5.4.2 Design Information from URS/Blume to PGandE The final report entitled "Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant - Fuel Handling Building Crane Eval-uation for the 7.5 M Hosgri' Earthquake (Revised)"

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

minor structural modifications to the existing

_ _ . _,; crane structural ~ system were reported in order to prevent eccentric loading o'f the crane runway 1 and excessive loading on the trolley axis. l 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 by PGandE and URS/Blume. URS/Blume prepared de-sign modifications per Hosgri report for this crane.

~

PGandE and' URS/Blume jointly revised the l

1

37 subject crane construction drawings. Some spot checks will be made to insure that these modifi-

- s, cations were properly done.

e

  • e
e. e- .

4 E

38 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 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 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. )

j 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 i

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-

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

29 merous revisions were made to.PGandE drawings

., to incorporate URS/Blume's findings. The above report, therefore, reflects the actual configura-tion and field condition of the tanks (Appendix 1.6). Although a team effort existed between PGandE and URS/Blume in transmitting the design information, some checks need to be made to deter- _

mine the accuracy of the information transferred. .

3.3.6.3 Qualification of Tanks The tanks were qualified jointly by URS/Blume and PGandE, using Hosgri criteria as they worked to- .

gether. URS/Blume's Hosgri report (March 1979) documents the modifications (Reference 5). The outdoor water storage tanks and-components were

~

j subsequently concluded to meet the Hosgri seismic

requirement (PGandE's design verification report for o'utdoor water storage tanks, dated 9/21/79 (Appendix 7). -

i -

l

~

a a

0

-r- 1 I

i

__1__1_______________1_________.___ ,__

+0

  • ' ~

3.3.7 General Ecuipment and Systems A significant portion of the scope of this report i is-to review the interfaces between PGandE and various equipment suppliers and qualifiers. For

~

most equipment, the practical way to check this '

interface is to sKamine the end result, the actual seismic qualificacion and note whether~the current applicable Hosgri response spectra' curves were used. .

4 The mechanical equipment seismic qualifications are reviewed in the section addressing the individual J

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 P

O.

e g

\

I 4

i l

l

      • worS+ - a pw , - , ~ . . . .

4l l l

j

3. 3.7 .1 Piping Systems Thi section of the report will address the transmittal of seismic design information from PGandE to consultants ,

engaged in -analysis of.. piping systems and suoports.

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

~

I the piping analysis was assigned to consultants URS/Blume and Earthquake Engineering Systems (EES). Similarly for j support evaluation, URS/Blume, EES, and EDS Nuclear, Inc.

were used as the primary consultants.

i- 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 i 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 design,

~

. then the valvs qualificaricn is totally dependent on the design input.to the piping analysis.

l .

l The transmittals for piping analyses appear to be in complete form for documents.sent to EES. The only probleh  !

t- 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 soectra attached".

. To trace the flow of information it will be necessary to l find the contents of the transmittals. This task may j be accomplished by further examination of PGandE files or  ;

perhaps by examinin'g EES files.

For-the scope of piping assigned to URS/Blume, verv 2

little correspondence-was located duringLthe time frame t

1 4 1 '(

t i

..- . . . . . _ . _--___.;, . , _ , - - _ . . - _ _ , _ ._.~.._,___...~a._...,,.. , _ _ ,

, 43

3. 3.7 . 2, VALVES A preliminary review was performed on seismic derign inform-ation transferred across interfaces between PGandE and valve qualifiers. This review addresses the' safety related valves that required' seismic requalification to meet the Hosgri requirements.

The valves reviewed' cons'ist of the minimum required active 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.

The valves reviewed are listed in Tables 7-3A,B 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 4

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 FGandE-- Westinghouse -+- PGandE for valve .

qualification ,

where EES ---- Earthquake Engineering Systems , Inc.

EDS ---- EDS Nuclear Inc.

Westinghouse-- Westinghouse Electric . Corp. I e

f 4

e

, .e- - . , - . - , , - , - , - - - , - . , -- y ,-.e-- w y w --~ ,, ya

tr

. o

, EES, using data proveded by PGandE, produced computer models of piping systems. Computer

. analyses were then performed to determine the dynamic characteristics of the piping system under earthquake loading. Result 5 were then returned to PGandE.

Earthquake loading was determined from acesler-

' ation response spectra provided by PGandE to EES.

FGandE transferred.the' relavant results of the

completed piping analyses, valve accelerations, and pipe loading to EDS and Westinghouse. EDS .

and Westinghouse then proved 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

~~

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 yet.

dopies of transmittals located thus far are

, located in Appendix 3.2.2.

e

"-w- r -r--- -- -

,e -

---r- w-v * -r -

-m+- - w- e- -

r-- --

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. -

Som'e records of results sent by EDS to PGandE

'l 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 trrnsmit5als to West-inghouse has t an located in PGandE files. How- -

ever, insuffici ent records h' ave been found to fully document information flow from PGandE to Westinghouse.

The only evidence of information returned.from

- c 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- 1 pendix 3.2.2. l l

l 1

    • A* wN-

-e+w ,em e-e--, .,%.g._ _ ,

. . 46

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 accelerst. ions, and to derive the pipe loadings on the valves. This is a result obtained from the piping analyses.

Therefore, the validity of a valve qualification ,

depends on information transferred two steps earl -

lier: from PGandE to the piping analyst and from i the return of the analysis results from the piping ,

analyst to PGandE.

With the documantation available to date, no evi -

dence was found to indicate whether the valve ac-celerations have ever been verified as being correct before 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 ,,

Kosgri spectra transmitted to piping analysts.

. 2. Locate and review transmittals of piping ana-j lysis results to PGandE, particularly valve .

accelerations. The accuracy of the piping co- ,

del is also to be checked.

i l

3. Locate and review transmittals of valve acceler-

~

i ations from PGandE to valve qualifiers. '

.i 4 Cross check data returned to PGandE from piping '

analysts with data transmitted out of PGandE.to ,

the valve qualifiers.

_d.m___________

+7 l l

....s c l j

3.'.7.3' HVAC Comp,onents 1

e. I u .

An' independent engineering review of the seismic qual-ification was performed for the Safety Relacsd HVAC .

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

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.

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

e The field 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 Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Duct 3.'. 7.4.1 The majority of HVAC dacts recuired for cold .

shutdown has been qualified by PGandE, with the remainder of the. engineering being done by EDS Nuclear. P.GandE architects, HVAC '

enginen.rs, and civil engineers all colla-borated on the duet design. Information -

flow between these groups is documented in Appendix 3.3.2.1, 3.2,.7.4.2 The HVAC information in Appundix 3.3.2 was supplied by the responsible PGand2 engineer.

Containment duct computations'could be easily

~

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

4 e

______m- -______.______m. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --_-#. . - . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ __ _ - . . _ _______-______-__--.m_ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. e

~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 to the random sampling shown above, all seismic inputs to 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 3 Drawing 504566) has Hosgri accelerations greater than the value in the calculations. All spectra for the Fireprorfed Ducts were found to be -

1 correctly used (Appendix 3.3.2.3).

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

S 9

3 r

-.l r

'I

. 4

4-o 3.3.7 5 Electrical Equipment and Instrumentation

~,

- A, preliminary review was performed on seismic design information transferred between PGandE and electrical equipment and instrumentation vendors and qualifiers.

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 Hosgri Report is included in Appendix'3.4.1. Table 10-1 is a complete list of the safety related electrical equipment and instru-mentation.

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

they 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 ~ supplied ,

NSSS equipment. The remaining electrical equip-ment and instrumentation was qualified by PGandE.

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

\

. 50 Of the PGandE qualified equipment, it was qualified either by analysis or by testing at Wyle Laboratories.

The Wyle Labs and PGandE interface, allowed PGandE and Wyle 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 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 P.GandE The only evidence of transmittals from Westinghouse to PGandE. encountered to date is the existence in the PGandE files of the Westinghouse report " Summary Report on ' Seismic Evaluation for Postulated 7.5 M Hosgri". (Reference 9) .

3. 3. 7. 5.4 Transmittals from PGandE tc Wyle Labs' -

~

4

.~~ 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 i

procedures. Two of these that were examined are Wyle Labs Test Procedure No. 3642-and Test Report No. 58255 (Reference 10).

____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____--___.___________...-___-__.__--__-_______..___---..---_.____-_________m___.a_ _ . - . _ _ _ _ __ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ___-_____ _.__ __-___

S'l '

3.3.7.5.6 Transmittals Regarding Requalification by Analysis i No documentation has been found to data regarding requalification of electrical equipment or instru-mentation by analysis, by either PCandE or other Parties, i 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 l equipment and instrumentation was requalified for Hosgri requirements by applying certain criteria to ,

previously performed tests and analyses. j i

The test spectra used in the previous tests are included in Appendix 3.4. These are identical to -

Figures 10.-2 to 10-12 in the Mosgri report. The Westinghouse report states that the 5-9-77 spectra were used and that the Blume and Newmark spectra l were enveloped. ,

The report also states that the vertical spectra  !

used were:taken as 2/3 of the horizontal cpectra. j

~' - ~ ~~~

However, in'a conversation with the cognizant engineer j from Westinghouse, he states that specific vertical ,

t Hosgri spectra were.used in the t,equalification of ,

each item of equipment. .The engineer also stated '

that the vertical spectra for control room equipment were selected with consideration for the node point closest to the equipment location.

Requalification was performed by Westinghouse by f ~ ~ee-qv-,. , w -- . , - . ,,,-1 s - - - - +- - - - . -w-- - -,. -,.- - -- a ew-- , . -

-,,-e,

SA c .....

comparing the applicable HosgrLi sp'ectra to test spectra used in the initial pre-Hosgri qualification.

The positive results of this comparison were com-

, municated to PGandE by Westinghouse in W'estinghouse 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 Wyle test procedures were reviewed and approved by-PGandE personnel:

1. A PGandE memo, dated 11-9-77, from O. Steinhardt contains comments on test sp.ectra contained in Wyle Test Report No. 26286.
2. Wyle Test Procedure No. 3642, dated 11-30-77, is signed and approved by PGandE personnel. .

Documentation on these two iters is contained in Appendix 3.4 PGandE internal memorandum indicate that General

. Electric was. involved..in Wyle Labs requalification

- ' ~ 5 thsts of the 4.16kV. Vital Switch'gear (Appendix 3.4) .

Further investigation will be required to determine 2 General Electric's role on requalification. If ,

necessary, information transmittals across that interface will be examined.

i

~

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 t

A preliminary review of requalification of electrical' '

equipment and instrumentation was conducted by check-ing a 50% sample of Zero Period Accelerations (ZPA's) i from the Hosgri Evaluation listed in Table 10-1 of the Hosgri report.

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

The Hosgri ZPA's in Table 10-1 were found to be correct.

In eac'a case , the ZPA levels used to qualify each item 4af equipment, as listed in Table 10-1, were greeter 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 PGandE and qualifiers, the following procedure will be u~ndertaken:

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

---e ,. m - - , -

M to see if they envelop the applicable Hosgri spectra.

1

! 2. Requalification analyses will be examined to check if the applicable. seismic information was l applied. In addition, the analysis criteria used for qualification, if applicable, will be

~

examined.

/

l

~

I 4

1 4

.I

+

8 e

d f

.]

1

3. 3.7 . 6 Electrical Raceways
3. 3.7 : 6.1 The supports 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 slec._

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 addition the program employed in September 1981 by PGandE to requalify the raceways in the Annulus.section of Containment was checked. The Annulus region was 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 ~~

ina.ry spectra differing from the 5/9/77 spectra was issued fer Containment. Different spectra (7/21/77) superceding the 5/9/77 Hosgri Report 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 c.an take advantage'of 7%

damping for the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (Regu-

SG latory Guide 161, Appendix 3.4.2.3). The Hosgri spectra for most locations lists only 2%,-3%, and

's 4% damping. Possibly the incorrect accelerations resulted from interpolations of the 4% Hosgri spectra. Detail S415 used Hosgri. spectra issued before May 9, 1977.

PGandE's Elect'rical Raceway Seismic Requalifica-tion Program for Unit 1 (Appendices 3.4. 2. 2, Item 1) was also checked (Appendix 3.4.2.3, Item

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 su= mary, two of the ten Raceway Details (S414, S432) were stressed above the allowable.

factor of safety (Appendix 3.4.2.3, Item 3). Two additional Raceway Details (S93, S147) show no requalification after the Hosgri spectra were ~

issued on May 9, 1977.

e

_ .3: - - .

Y e

a

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 design 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 sample checking was performed. To accomplish the basic objective, the review was performed on a building by building basis. The findings by building are reported below.

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

'These drawings were reviewed against current revisions. --

No changes were sufficient to require re-modeling.

There were few formal transmittal from PGandE to URS/

Blume in the early time period, bacause 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.

. .. 58 With the exception of the' annulus, the containment building models were based upon applicable drawin~gs.

s.

UR5/Blumeperformedtheseismicanalysisofthecon-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 discussed subsequently.

Intake Structure J

The seismic analysis of the Intake Structure was based

~~

upon information contsined in a transmittal from PGandE in 1976. This transmittal was examined. URS/Blume

~

~ I '

issued a report on the seismic analysis of the Intake Structure in April 1977. After modifications, it was a

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

The qualification of auxiliary salt water pungs was based upon the ground level. motion, which considers

the. building to be rigid. Dur to the low elevation of

o.

  • gg

. s 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.

The building had to be modified to qualify it for the Hosgri earthquake.

All_ relevant drawings have been 7 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-lated equipment.

Auxiliary / Fuel Handling Building

~~ ~

The Hosgri'requalification of the Auxiliary Building -

i was performed with the same models used in the earlier .

DDE analysis. This model.was developed jointly by .

PGandE and URS/Blunn using specialized computer pro-grams for computing building properties. Reports of reviews of building properties 'and configurations were noted prior to initiation of the Hosgri analysis. The applicable drawings were used and referenced _in the building analysis. Records of discussions on model properties, however, suggests that limited checks on

~

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ u_ _ - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - -

~

,- , manc and stiffness should be made in the verification study.

a ,

In. addition, a separate refined finite element analysis

, was used for the control room. Spectra from ~this re-finedanalysiswhichwerehigherthanthepreliminary spec,tra were used-for qualification (mainly by Westing-house) of control room equipment.

Cranes For most of the cranes, the design information was pro-vided to URS/Blume on an informal basis. For each of thefmajor cranes in the plant, URS/Blume issued a com-plete design report. In addition, a design review was completed by URS/Blume for the Containment Polar Crane.

J;' 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 reflectdd the as modified drawings would be beneficial.

Outdoor Water Storage Tanks The information transmittal from PGandE to URS/Blume ,

for qualification 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, 5

'4 i

)

i

)

m 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 areh will be reviewed in much more detail in the final program because there was an indirect interface and because ofLinformation communications.

CONCLUSION In the course of this preliminary work a great. deal of material has been examined. A certain amount of assurance ,

has been established that there are no additional explicit I

- errors, and several areas have been found that suggest more detailed review in the reverification-effort.

As discussed at the outset, this review was conducted on the engineering material itself. The present findings and con-clusions are independent of the normal convolutions of the 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. ..

1 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- '

laced ~ 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

. . GA

...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 wrong spectra. The reviewer compared it to the correct spectra and found it was satisfactory in view of a large _

safety factor.

The documentation on the unistrut design' details were mis-leading'to the reviewer and one or two conduit supports appeared to be qualified with the wrong spectra. There will be reviewed thoroughly in the final report, but it is ex-pected that resolstions will result, since deeper inquiry did produce resolutions in other cases.

In conclusion, the limited review performed to date showed explicitly that the reactor coolant system 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 found where.further review is indicated, primarily because of a lack of ready documentation of the applicability of the design information. --

F e

f r

e

, , , - . , ,, ,a- - - - - - - - - + .

e e

63 REFERENCE' LIST s

~

1. Diab 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 crane evaluation for the 7.5 M Hosgri Earthquake (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.
5. Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant -

Units 1 and 2 -

Outdoor Water Storage Tanks - Dynamic Seismic Analyses

~

for.the'7.5 M Hosgri criteria (revised), March 1979. -

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

7.. " Engineering Review of Hosgri Seismic Qualification l of Design Class 1 HVAC Equipment", EDS Nuclear Inc. l February 22, 1979. l l

8. "Diablo Canyon Nuclear-Plant, Seismic Qualification -

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

l

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

1 I

l l

a. -o - - , e ,w y yir w -~ ---.

G+

o

~

10 . . Kyle Labs Test Procedures No. 3642', and Test Report 4

No. 58255.

11. Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Containment Structure. Dynamic Seisnic Analysis for the-7.5 M Hosgri Earthquake, (URS/Blume', May 1979).

s

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

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

~

6 e

f i

4 f

~ - ,--- ._ . ,

I l -

I 1

I

.7__,.._..... .

4 s... s

=* ee j

of Unit 1 piping. analyses. However, URS/Blume has not ye't been contacted to provide any transmittals they may I

have'sent.or received. This will be implement'ed for the long term reverification effort.

e e

h I

I 6

9 1

9 l

i i-m

't 1

9 i

I 5

(

l 4

e kl lj

  • I *.

s:

ROBERT L. CLOUD ASSOCIATES, INC.

825 UNIVERSITY AVENUE SERMELEY. CALIFORNIA .4710 4is i .4i.. ..

l P 105-4 -

December 3, 1981 Mr. :-George A Maneatis Senior Vice President Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 94106

Dear Mr. Maneatis,

Enclosed please find

  • copies of:

Design Verification Program Seismic Service Related Contracts Prior to June 1978 ..

December 3, 1981

. 5 This program is designed to address the requests of Attachment 1 to the " Order Suspending License", CLI-81-30. ,,

I i

l You- tru ',  ;

'. L. Clo d R

RLC: hec Enclosure

. Fo/A-TH-WIS l7/af

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20136B265&oldid=3375195"