Latest revision as of 02:34, 24 September 2022

Text

Draft Preliminary Rept of Project 105-4, Seismic Reverification Program
	ML20100M047
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	11/12/1981
From:	; ROBERT L. CLOUD ASSOCIATES, INC.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20100L849	List: ML20100L956; ML20100L993; ML20100M047; ML20105B081;
References
	FOIA-83-130 0666, 666, NUDOCS 8412120198
	Download: ML20100M047 (80)
	v • d • e

DRAFT ora Rereegate copy PRELIMINARY REPORT, SEISMIC REVERIFICATION PROGRAM r'

ember 12, 1981 Proj ect 105-4 Report of work performed for Pacific Gas &

Electric Co. by R. L. Cloud Associates, Inc.

i l

i

Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.

125 University Ave. P.O. Box 687 l

Berkeley, CA 94710 West. Falmouth, MA 02574 (415) 841-9296 (617) 540-5381 -

N , C. 8. . G LOG f fJ.~/.JER 1

l 8412120198 840604 PDR FOIA 0666 REYNOLDB3-130 PDR l

C.6X OS

,i DRAFT !

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1

1.0 Introduction 3 2I. 0 objective and Scope 5 3.0 Program Methodology

5 f3.1 Definition of Seismic Qualification Interfaces 7 3.2 Review of Methodology 7 3.2.1 Listing 8 3.2.2 Structures 8 3.2.3 Equipment 14 3.3 Review of Structures and Equipment 14 3.3.1 Containment Structure Design Information from PGandE to 15.

3.3.1.1 URS/Blume Design Information from URS/Blume 17 3.3.1.2 to PGandE Design Information from PGandE to 18 3.3.1.3 Equipment Suppliers and Qualifiers 18 3.3.1.4 Qualification of Containment Structure and Equipment 22 3.3.2 Intake Structure l Design Information from PGandE 22 3.3.2.1 to URS/Blume Design Information from URS/Blume 22 1

3.3.2.2 to PGandE Design Information from PGandE to 23 -

3.3.2.3 Equipment Suppliers and qualifiers -

24 6

3.3.2.4 Qualification and Equipment of Intake Structure l

NPC !.!0~."S!MG LOG NUE.ER (i) 0666

DRAFT 3.3.3 Turbine Building 26 3.3.3.1 Design Information from PGandE to URS/Blume 26 3.3.3.2 Design Information from URS/Blume to PGandE 27 3.3.3.3 Design Information from PGandE'to Equipment Suppliers and Qualifiers 27 3.3.3.4 Qualification of Building ind

+ Equipment 28 3.3.4 Auxiliary / Fuel Handling Buildings 31 3.3.4.1 Design Information from PGandE to 31 URS/Blume 3.3.4.2 Design Information from URS/Blume to PGandE 33 3.3.4.3 Design Information from PGandE to ,

Equipment Suppliers and Qualifiers 33 3.3.4.4 Qualification of Buildings and Equipment 34 3.3.5 Cranes 36 i

3.3.5.1 Containment Structure Cranes 36 Intake Structure Crane 37.

3.3.5.2 Turbine Building Crane 39 3.3.5.3 Fuel Handling Building Crane 4C 3.3.5.4 Outdoor Water Storage Tanks 42 3.3.6 3.3.7 General Equipment and Systems 44 3.3.7.1 Piping Systems 45 3.3.7.2 Valves 47 3.3.7.3 HVAC Components 51 3.3.7.4 HVAC Ducting 51 3.3.7.5 Electrical Equipment and Instrumentation 54 NTC L:::= r";G LOG NU.t..CIR

-(ii) 0666 ~

DRAFT 3.3.7.6 Electrical Raceways 60 4.0 Summary and Discussion 63 5.0 Conclusions 70 6.0 References 72 e'

i i

l l

l l.

I l

i NPG LICENSING LOG NUMBER .

ais.>

0666 L

p.

L LOG BOOKS 1.0 Information Across Interfacc from PGandE to-URS/Blume 1.1 Containment Structure l.2 Intake Structure

=; 1.3 Turbine Building -

1.4 Auxiliary / Fuel Handling Buildings 1.5 Cranes ,

1.6 Outdoor Water Storage Tanks 2.0 Information Across Interface from URS/Blume to PGandE 2.1 Containment Structure a

2.2 Intake Structure 2.3 Turbine Building 2.4 Auxiliary / Fuel Handling Buildings 2.5 Cranes 2.6 Outdoor Water Storage Tanks 3.0 Information Across Interface from PGandE to Equipment Suppliers and Qualifiers 3.1 Mechanical Equipment 3.2 Piping and Valves 3.3 HVAC - Compents and Ducting 3.4 .

Electrical Instrumentation and Control 4.0 civil Engineering - Central File Index 5.0 Mechanical Engineering - Centrol File Tndex 6.0 URS/Blume Supplier File at PGandE 7.0 Design Verification Documeuration of PGundE f4?G UCD'c.!NG LOG NLH.'IER

()($($ f5

'ki 'l A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE DESIGN INTERFACE REVIEW OF THE SEISMIC REVERIFICATION PROGRAM 1.0 Introduction As p result of the discovery of a misap, plication of seismic flo#r spectra to the annulus area of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 1, a Seismic Reverification Program was estab-lished to ' determine if further errors exist in seismic qual-

,1fication of the plant for the Hosgri 7.5 M earthquake. This program was presented verbally to the U. S. Nuclear Regula-tory Commission in a meeting at Bethesda, Maryland on October 9, 1981. The NRC felt the program was useful, but request-ed a preliminary report on part of Task 3 of the Reverifica-tion Program on a priority basis. This program was then expanded to include Tasks 1 and 2 insofar as they relate to the design information flow and seismic qualification of structures and equipment.

Task 3 of the original program is titled " Design Interface Review" and consists of a review of seismic design and. qual-ification information that was transmitted back and forth between PGandE and subcontractors during the evaluation of the plant for the Hosgri earthquake. The part of Task 3 re-quested in an early preliminary report was a review of the particular design interface that existed between PGandE and URS/Blume during the Hosgri re-evaluation. q Task 1 of the original program is titled " Study of Qualifi-cation Based on Symmetry" and consists of examining the flow I!.'G UCEf tS!NG LOG NUMSERI ,

0666 i

DRAFT R of information used in qualifying the Diablo Canyon Unit I safety related structures and equipment. This effort will encompass that work based on opposite hand application or other symmetry conditions. In a parallel effort, Task 2,

" Review of Steps in the Seismic Design Process" will be

' addressed by defining and examining the design process.

This includes some reviewing of information flow internal

~

to both PGandE and URS/Blume.

This report has been prepared in response to the NRC request for a preliminary report on the URS/Blume - PGandE Seismic Design Interface. The cut-off date for the preliminary re-view of all building, structures and equipment except heat-ing, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) components and ducting is October 28, 1981. For the HVAC components and ducting, the cut-off date is November 2, 1981. Any omissions of significant information or other incompleteness will be addressed in the overall reverification program.

Through out the report references are made to logs. This log information is maintained in the form of log books which are available for authorized examination at the office of Robert L. Cloud Associates.

NPG L!CD; SING LOG Nui.iCER l

l 0666 .

i

p p.

2.0 objective and scope The objective of the original Seismic Reverification Program

was-to consider the following three tasks:

Task I.0: Study of qualification based on symmetry

, Ensure that all work applied to Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) Unit 1 that is based on opposite hand applica-tion or other symmetry conditions is correctly applied.

I Task 2.0: Review of steps in the seismic design process Chart the seismic design process for the DCPP >

and review the steps in the process or the links in the seismic design chain.

l Task 310: Design Interface Review Review the applicability of seismic qualifica-tion work passing between PGandE and subcontractors. ,

The objective of this task is to review the applic-ability of design information that passes across design interfaces.

For Taskl.0 all seismic qualification of safety related buildings and equipment that has been performed only one time, but is applied to both Units of DCPP by utilization of opposite hand or other symmetry shall be reviewed. Qualification docu-ments take the form of stress reports, design evaluation re-ports, data sheets, test reports, and certification reports.

4 I

" Seismic Reverification Program", Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc., Berkeley, CA, October 12, 1981.

NPG LicD:S'NG i LOG NUMBER 0666

4 l.1 O /.

! w o s . ~ . 7.~

Tcr Task rovicwed. 2.0,. tho flow of tha saismic da i The flow begins with approved Hosgris gn process shall be ground motion and ends with a qualificationearthquake doc iame nt .

The scope of the present effort review of the design interface of PGandE Blume, with Uht;/f specifically for the three categories:

pl)

(2) that that transmitted from PGandE me to URS/BLu (3) transmitted from URS/Blume to PCandE subsequently distributedthat received and from URS/Blum those qualifying componen,ts or systemby s

PGandE, to The overall requirement was to perform an engin eering review of this 3.0.

Section information in a selective manner, as described in correct building and equipment configurations a

for analysis that h ransmitted !

drawings with the correct revision,equipment weights, etc.

applicableanalysis w Design spectra, building loads and other output of URS/Blume cs transmitted by URS/Blume and received by PGandE e- vere sc uled for examination with the objective of checking see to l that URS/Blume-generated information was pro !

buildings and equipment reviewed in the present r are effo tperly applie {

those required for safe cold shutdown the Hosgri reanalysis. , and were requalified in i

t NPG UOld MG LOG NVI.ER 0666 l-l L

- ' ' ~ ^

I 3.0 Program Methodology The program tasks as defined in Section 2.0 will be addressed through the following process:

a) Definition of Seismic Qualification Interfaces b) List Categories of Information Flow through interface c) Review Interface Design Information Flow for Structures d) Review Interface Design Information Flow for Equipment e'

Task 3.0, the Design Interface Review,is directly addressed j through the format of the above methodology. Tasks 1.0 and 2.0 are also addressed although somewhat indirectly. Task 1.0, the 1 Study of Qualification Based on Symmetry,is accomplished by examining the seismic qualification of cold shutdown required safety related structures and equipment. This examination con-sists primarily of reviewing the seismic qualifications for applicable seismic inputs. Task 2.0, Review of Steps in the Seismic Design Process, is addressed by tracing the flow of design information through PGandE and their subcontractors.

Although this report deals primarily with PGandE and URS/Blume information flow, substantial work was performed to examine the flow within PGandE. '

, t The methodology process is described in the following subsec-tions.

3.1 Definition of Seismic Qualification Interfaces The seismic qualification interfaces of interest for the present effort are illustrated in Figure 3.1. As can be seen, there are th. rec primary interfaces that are denoted by Roman Humerals. The work interface refers to the process or activity in which cert.ain engincering ,

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. NPG LCD'9NG LOG NUI,*JdER

^

0666

[J w a . :. -1 EI f. '! .

Referring to Figure 3.1, the three primary interfaces are:

I. Development and assembly of structural configurations, equipment locations and masses, together with the

. geologic and seismologic description of the Hosgri earthquake. This basic plant engineerir.g description apd earthquake description are forwarded to URS/Blume for dynamic analysis.

II. URS/Blume receives the plant configuration description. -

From this information, URS/Blume develops ground res- ,

ponse spectra and analytical models of the civil l structures, and performs the dynamic analysis of the j structures to determine their response to the Hosgri j earthquake. This response, in the form of amplified ,

floor response spectra and building loads or building analysis reports, is then transmitted to PGandE.

III. PGandE receives the civil / structural seismic res-ponse information and organizes and/or reduces it into suitable forms for transmittal to third parties for use in evaluating equipment, and in some cases, buildings. Equipment 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 communication paths are listed to complete all possible interface interaction activity.

NPG UCEt.' SING LOG NUMCEi!

O666 e

n y;. p. p .,-

4 ' s 's .-d' ,

3.2 R view M2thodolegy

't It was convenient to develop an organized approach to the review to minimize confusion, lost motion,and to ensure that a complete review was accomplished. The following paragraphs describe the methodology that was devised for use in the

' current preliminary effort.

The", basic orientation of the review was to ensure that the app'licable design and qualification information was used for 5 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.

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 ititerface information involving URS/Blume for two select-ed buildings in complete and comprehensive detail. The two buildings selected were the Intake Structure and the Contain-ment Building.

3.2.1 Listing Having defined the design interfaces, the next step was to list the categories of information expected t o flow across each of the 3 interfaces. These categories are -

listed in Figure 3.2.

NPC Li';t :c. NG LOG NUi/CER 0666

8

,h wr .. ) Asi>" {

a\a 3.2.2 Structures 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-bilities for major tasks. There was a separate

. responsible PGandE building engineer for each structure.

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

3.2.3 Equipment Although the overall cognizant responsibility for the Hosgri requalification of equipment was PGandE scope, the analysis effort was divided between PGandE and Westinghouse, as listed in Figure 3.2.3-1. PGandE performed this qualification in-house with PGandE engineers in some cases, and utilized subcontractors for others. Subcontractor interfaces on equipment qualification are described in the body of this re-port. ,

The general strategy regarding equipment qualification was straight forward. The flow of design spectra was traced from the URS/Blume report on the relevant build-ing to the qualification document for the individual items or classes of safety related equipment. For this preliminary report, some of the specific seismic input for certain types of equipment required more time to track than was available. Imen this occurred it is noted and the input will be reviewed in the overall report.

N?C !!Ci t:S!NG LOG NLH,'OER 0666

,Q M.T l*. r~ .~

v.u-a i A sizeable portion of-Hosgri required equipment was evaluated by Westinghouse. The flow of seismic design information sent to Westinghouse by PGandE was documented (See Log 3.2 f l).

The Intake Structure Hosgri spectra were sent to I Westinghouse on April 15, 1977. These spectra are W

identical to the current Hosgri spectra, through

- r Ammendment 83. The Auxiliary Building 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 for the Exterior and Interior Containment

- Structure were respectively transmitted to Westing-house on March 16 and 23, 1977. The Exterior Contain-ment _ spectra were superseded by the URS/Blume rep' ort

issued on June 5, 1977. However, no transmittal to Westinghouse of this spectra could be located in the PGandE files. On August 9, 1977,- PGandE transmitted j vertical spectra for the Containment S,tructure to Westinghouse. -,

e i

i e

s NPG UCWE r

LOG NUM3EE 4

.* I 0666

w. ,

5

{

~

4 l

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

?

I I

INDIRECT ,

INTERFACES 7"%

'p's.;% ~~ %

N,s"% \

[\ /

\

l

\

)

? v lx \ 'y_/ ys

/ \ / \

\

/ / \

/ / \ /

\ \ \

/ ! FEEDBACK \

FEEDBACK

/

FEEDBACK \

/- k _N fPGandEh FURS /BlumeIIYIb '

fPGandES/ Yk$//

/

EQ WAO WA ffkO(Ek2 DESIGN O DESIGN DESIGli (~'

INFO INFO INFO '.~

II III ;" ~

I O

'.7 a f,-

O i;; . ' FIGURE 3.1: SEISMIC QUALIFICATION INTERFACES 5

!Q "!!O -

s Interface II Interface III Interface I Floor Response Spectra Envelope Floor Spectra Building Drawings for all locations Static g Loads throughout plant Equipment Weights and C. G. Equipment Specifications Building Loads Documentation of Test Specifications Dynamic Analysis Verbal Discussion Reports for all -

Buildings Purchase Orders Seismologic and Geologic Definition

~

of Ground Mot' ion FIGURE 3.2 INFORMATION CATEGORIES OF INTERFACE s,

0a Oq g

CD E'5 F cn f:a cn hiul

~z ,

O t .

INTAKE CONTAINMENT AUXILIARY TURBINE '

FIELD BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING CRANES BUILDING ERECTED TANKS MODELING PGandE,

& DYNAMIC URS/Blume URS/Blume URS/Blume URS/Blume E -3 URS/Blume ANALYSIS URS/B - 4 DEVELOP Not -

- Not Required URS/Blume URS/Blume URS/Blume URS/Blume Required SPECTRA IONS URS/Blume PGandE PGandE URS/Blume E~ URS/Blume QUA ANALYSIS URS/B - 4

Westinghouse

- For Polar Crane only e 3

r- . -

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 ...;^

25.;) SEISMIC QUALIFICATION ANALYSIS OF BUILDINGS .<.

C ,

Q b'[, COGNIZANT RESPONSIBILITIES a ( .-

Figure 3.2.2-1

g , .y

-2 3 c) .

EQUIPMENT ANALYSIS SY

~

Reactor Coolant System W*

and Equipment NipingSystems6"and W over con,nected to Reactor Coolant System Piping, Primary and PGandE & Subcontractors Secondary Systems Safety Related Conc it PGandE

& Raceways Safety Related PGandE Mechanical Equipment HVAC PGandE Instrumentation and PGandE Control Equipment

~

Westinghouse FIGURE 3.2.3-1

SUMMARY

OF EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION ANALYSIS NPG L!CU: SING LOG NUMGil 0666

~

l yp-:

3.3 Review of Structures and Equipment The review of design chain, opposite hand symmetry and in-terface information for structures and equipment was per-formed using the methodology described in Section 3.2. To break the required information into more manageable packages,

'he t design information was examined for the following cate-gories: ~

1. Containment Structure

2. Intake Structure

3. Turbine Building

4. Auxiliary / Fuel Handling Building

5. Cranes

6. Outdoor Water Storage Tanks

7. General Equipment and Systems The Containment and Intake Structures were given a higher Sections priority. Thus, these were reviewed in more depth.

3.3.1 through 3.3.7 discuss in detail the design information reviewed for the above-mentioned categories.

3.3.1 Containment Structure The Containment Structure was originally analyzed for the Double Design Earthquake (DDE) by URS/Blume. Results of this analysis are given in the URS/Blume report dated July 1970, "Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Con-tainment Structure - Finite Element Method Dynamic Seismic Analysis", (Reference 1). To comply with the 7.5 M Hosgri specification, the Containment Structure was re-analyzed 7 '

This re-analysis 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) .

NPG L!CESING LOG NUi.'.EER 0666 -

~..

~

Tha design chain cnd tha opposite hand symmetry are dis-cussed in the following sections, which describe the trans-fer of information between PGandE and URS/Blume for the Containment Structure and five major pieces of equipment.

Auxiliary equipment, such as cranes, piping, heating, ven-

,tilating and air conditioning, etc. are covered in Section 3.3.5 through Section 3.3.7.

3.3f1.1 Design Information from PGandE to URS/Blume The close and informal relationship between PGandE and URS/Blume engineers resulted in sparse docu-mentation of design information, drawings, equip-ment weights, pipe loads, etc. from PGandE to URS/

Blume. Appendix 1.1 contains the transmittal documentation obtained from PGandE for the period 1969 through 1981 for the Containment Structure.

The documentation in Log 1.1 was obtained from Central Files in the Mechanical Engineering Depart-ment (Log 5) and the Civil Engineering Department (Log 4) and various personal files of engineers at PGandE. In addition, part of the information was obtained from URS/Blume 's project file. The in- -

formal interface between PGandE and URS/Blume as recollected by the PGandE engineer responsible for the Containment is contained in Log 1.1, Item #16.

For the Hosgri re-evaluation (Reference 11) the i dynamic model for the horizontal direction was the l same as for the double design earthquake (DDE) anal-l ysis (Reference 1) with additional consideration of torsion. For the vertical response the annulus was modeled using additional annulus information provid- f ed by PGandE and field visits (Log 1.1, Item #16).

NPG L!CD 9"'O LOG NLH.UER 0666

16 To verify that the documents used by URS/Blume to develop the original dynamic model (used subse-quently for the Hosgri re-evaluation) were correct, a list of drawings was checked. This list, given in Log 1.1, Item f14, was obtained from the July

. 1970 report on the Containment Structure (Reference 1). A review of the above-mentioned drawings was performed to check that the referenced drawings:

i .

r

. were Containment Structure - Unit I drawings, and

. when the drawings had revisions dated later than July 1970, these were so noted in the field work (Log 1.1, Item (14).

It was found that revisions made after 1970 were minor (Log 1.1, Item #14), and do not affect the model in the horizontal direction.

In the case of the annulus, the only drawing docu-l mentation available are the four sketches sent to URS/Blume from PGandE (Log 1.1, Item f 5), and the calculation sketch at URS/Blume (Log 1.1, Item #17).

These sketches are for Unit 2 annulus and not for l Unit 1. Unit 2 drawings, as provided by PGandE, were used by URS/Blume to formulate the seismic

! model because they were clearer and more easily read.

l As a result, the dynamic model in the Hosgri re-evaluation report (Reference 11) was a composite of Unit 1 interior and exte'rior structures and a Unit 2 annulus structure. Therefore, the five

~

conceptual frames shown in the sketches are correct ,

for both Units 1 and 2 except in their circular orientation. The frame orientation sketch used to NPC Li;U.c.!NG LOG NUWER 0666 . . .

locate the spectra was correct for Unit 2 - but 'was -

incorrect for Unit 1.

The computed floor response spectra corresponding '

to the particular frame location and elevation in the annulus are used to determine vertical seismic

", inputs for the seismic qualification of systems

.and equipment supported by the annulus structural steel at that location.

Because the annulus layouts of Units 1 and 2 have an opposite hand relationship and the verti-cal spectra are dependent on polar orientation, certain systems and equipment were analyzed using inappropriate spectra. The orientation error re-sulted in the use of vertical spectra for Unit 1 evaluation that are in some cases lower, and in other cases higher than those that should have been used. It should be noted however, that items qual-ified using Frame 3 spectra are not affected by the orientation error because this frame has identical locations in Unit 1 and Unit 2, 3.3.1.2 Design Information from URS/Blume to PGandE Unlike the sparse transmittal documentation from PGandr.

to URS/Blume, the documentation from URS/Blume to PG

< andE was relatively complete. This is verified by reviewing the transmittal documents listed in

' Log 2.1.1. This Log contains transmittal documents sent to PGa'ndE from February 3977 to present. These documents were obtained from URS/Blume during the week of October 13, 1981. The contents of the transmittal documents marked with an asterisk are in Log 2.3.2.

NPG LICil:S!NG LOG NU./.J2Ei!

I O666

ge-3.3.1.3 Design Information from PGandE to Equipment -

Suppliers and Qualifiers For the purpose of this interface review, the seismic input information for the following equip-

- ment was evaluated:

1. Reactor Coolant System e' 2. . Hydrogen Recombiner

3. Containment Purge Valves -

i

4. Regenerative Heat Exchanger

5. Containment Fan Coolers It was found that most of the design information for the above equipment was transmitted to Westing-

' house (Log 3.1). The accuracy of this information is discussed in the next section.

3.3.1.4 Qualification of Containment Structure and Equipment 3.3.1.4.1 Containment Structure A comprehensive design review of the Containment Structure was originally completed on 2/28/77.

This review had one outstanding item - pipe rup-ture restraints. This item was cleared, and an The original amendment was issued on I/16/78.

review and the amendment were performed by PGandE and are given in Log 7.

Structure Another design review of the Containment This design was completed by PGandE on 1/22/79.

of the review addressed the structural adequacy Containment structure.for the postulated 7.5 M

{ Hosgri seismic event (Log 2.1). NPC Li5 alNG LOG NU.'iSER r .

0666

e To check the use of correct seismic inputs

~

for the Containment Structure qualification, Two class I platforms in Containment were chosen at random. The Hosgri seismic accelerations used to qualify these platforms were found to

. be correct (Log 7).

, Because of the recent develeoments in the annu-

/ lus area, PGandE~is presently're-evaluating the structural adequacy of the annulus.

3.3.1.4.2 Equipment A detailed review of equipment is given in Log 3.1. A summary is given below:

1. Reactor Coolant System Westinghouse (W) seismically analyzed the Reactor Coolant System for the Hosgri Re-quirement as discussed in the W report,

" Summary Report, Seismic Evaluation of West-inghouse Equipment for Postulated 7.5 M Hosgri Earthquake, Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2",

August 1979 (Log 3.1.2). The seismic spectra used for analysis envelope the current Hosgri spectra for the interior concrete, and thus the seismic qualification is valid.

2. Hydrogen Recombiner Westinghouse (W) originally analyzed the Hy-drogen Recombiner in the annulus region by test. These were transmitted to PGandE as discussed in Log '3. 3. 2. Due to the conser- .

vative nature of the test spectra utilized in the original analyses, it was confirmed that the Hydrogen Re-combiners qualify to the new .

- enveloped annulus spectra. NPG LiCEUSING LOG NUMJER 0666

A .

. .. i

3. Centeinment Purge Valves The Containment Puree Valves were qualified by T. N. Crawford as stated in the memo-to-file dated 6/11/79 (Log 3.1.2). The accelerations used in analysis were ..

reviewed, and are more conservative than the .

current Hosgri spectra.

F

/ 4.

Regenerative Heat Exchangers Westinghouse (W) performed the seismic analysis of the Regenerative Heat Exchangers.

Examination of the information in the W re-

, port, " Summary Report, Seismic Evaluation of Westinghouse Equipment for Postulated 7.5 M Hosgri Earthquake", shows that the correct free field, tau filtered horizontal response spectrum was used in the qualification analy-sis.

For the vertical direction, the W report states ;

that two-thirds of the filtered horizontal spectrum was used in the analysis. However, ;

the Hosgri report states that two-thirds of the unfiltered horizontal response spectra is to be used as the response spectra for the vertical direction (Reference 6, page 4-3).

The vertical spectra input used by Westing-house is in error.

A safety factor of 1.0 currently exists for the as-performed Westinghouse analysis. Use of the unfiltered spectrum in the vertical input ,

would increase the vertical-load by approgi-mately 15% and invalidate the seismic qualifi-H P C L' I.:: S ii4 G LOG NUL.GEi! ,

0666

cation (see Log 3.1).

5. -Containment Fan Coolers A detailed discussion of the qualification and review process for the containment fan coolers is given in Log 3.1.2. The end re-sult of this check shows that superseded spectic were utilized for qualification.

/ PGandE addressed this fact in May 1973 (Log 3.1.2). In this particular case, the conclusions are still valid because the spectra that were used envelope the current spectra.

Besides the equipment reviewed above, other equipment in the Containment Structure has not been reviewed for the current effort, but will be done in the Reverification Program.

i

~

l NPG L 2 T'.':G LOG NUL.3ER

' 0666

1 DRAFT 3.3.2 Intake Structure The Intake Structure,.which serves both Units 1 and 2, is a seismic Class II structure. However, because it houses

~

4 the four Class I auxiliary saltwater pumps, two for each unit, it was reviewed by URS/Blume for the postulated 7.5 M Hosgri motions. Except for the auxiliary saltwater pumps, saf5 shutdown in the event of a major darthquake distur-ban #ce is not considered essential for any part of the I structure or its four main circulating water pumps.

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 (Log 4). No such in-formation was found. The following information was taken from the file of the responsible PGandE

-engineer for the Intake Structure. .

/ The seismic analysis of the Intake Structure for the Hosgri criteria was initiated on April 26, 1976 l '(Log 1.2). The relevant information such as civil /

l l

mechanical drawings, equipment weights and soil in-l formation were found to be transmitted from PGandE l

to URS/Blume from April 26 to June 22, 1976 (Log 1.2).

3.3.2.2 Design Information from URS/Blume to PGandE f A two-phase work scope of the seismic analysis of the Intake Structure for the Hosgri criteria was found in a memorandum dated 5/6/76 from URS/Blume I NPC L!::U'c!N 3 LOG NU;.OEi!

0666

l ,to PGandE (Log 2.2.1). Some wackly progress

- . reports from URS/Blume were found in the PGandE civi1' engineering file (Log 4).

< A preliminary report on the seismic analysis of the Intake Structure was issued by URS/Blume to

.PGandE on Apri1 6, 1977.

~

Modifications of this

, report were made on 5/9/77 and 2/14/78, and the

/ fina1> report was issued on 5/16/79. An addition-al report entitled "Diablo Canyon Intake Structure-Factor of Safety Against Overturning, Foundation

' Bearing Pressures", was issued on 11/13/78 (see Log 2.2.2).

The design drawings used by URS/Blume to develop the mathemetical model for the seismic analysis were reported in "DCNPP - Intake Structure f Dynamic Seismic Analysis for the 7.5 M Hosgri-Criteria", May 9, 1977 (See Log 2.2.2). These drawings were compared with the Intake Structure drawings in the PGandE file (Log 1,2). A list of Intake Structure drawings currently in URS/

Blume files is also given in Log 1,2. It was found by comparing a few of the drawings used in i

developing the mathematical model of the Intake l

' Structure with those in the PGandE file, that l

) the revisions are minor and'shall not affect the L mathematical model used in the seismic analysis.

3.3.2.3 Design Information from PGandE to Equipment Suppliers and Qualifiers i

i Because the Auxiliai3 Salt Water Pumps are the only ~

major equipment of the Intake Structure which were qualified by PGandE using the site design spectra, no design information to' equipment suppliers and qualifiere '

was required, g p g g g;;;;eiN G LOG NU!.UEi!

' 0666

au) 3.3.2.4 Qualification of Intake Structure and Equiument 3.3.2.4.1 Intake Structure According to the lead PGands engineer responsible for the Intake Structure, the building was qualified by using 7, seismic response output produced in f

the URS/Blume 5/9/77 report (Log 1.2).

The URS/Blume 5/16/79 report gave smaller building response. Therefore, the building does not need to be re-qualified. The design review of the In-take Structure for the Hosgri event was performed by URS/Blume in April 1979 and verified -by PGandE in May 1979 (Log 7),

The design review for the auxiliary salt-water pump compartments i

was dated Septem-ber 1976 (Log 7) . It was later qualifiec' I

for Hosgri as a part of the Intake Struc-ture," Howaver, no formal documentation has been found to date.

3.3.2.4.2 Auxiliary Salt Water Pumps

! The safety-related Class 1 equipment i inside the Intake Structure are the auxiliary salt water pumps. They were qualified by PGandE using the site l

design spectra (Hosgri criteria, see i Log 2.2) based on the re.ison that the i

building is essentially rigid. Al-though 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 I

NPC LC":"U4G i -

LOG NUN..?ER i

25 pumps if the building is truly rigid.

The. rigidity of the building is docu-mented in the URS/Blume report CMay 1979, Revised) .

/ 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/Blume. PGandE's qualific--

ation work was independently checked by Harding-Lawson Associates, using input from URS/Blume (See Log 7) . The input used in the above two studies will be verified in the overall reverifica-tion program.

i e

l NPO L!. . ' 'iN G LOG NU:,. E.1

()(3(3 (3 i

P

~

09 AFT 3.3.3 Turbine Building The Turbine Building was originally designated a seismic 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 desfgn earth-quake (DDE) and was found to require minor structural modi-fication. This is presented in the URS/Blume report, "Diablo Canybn 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 I Auxiliary Building, it was necessary to show that under the postulated 7.5 M Hosgri motions the building would not have a failure which would impair 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 structural 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 (Reference 3) .

The following sections address the interface issue between PG

andE, URS/Blume,and Equipment Suppliers and Consultants for the p Turbine Building.

3.3.3.1 Design Information from PGandE to URS/Blume The. original design and analysis, including the generation of drawings of the Turbine Building, l were done rby URS/Blume. Following the Hosgri re- -

j quirement to re-evaluate the Turbine Building in 1977, URS/Blume performed the analysis and re- q evaluation. Design changen and drawings were NPC lincMiNG j '

LOG NUU L'EP.

na66 l

27 i

. Y

' ~

generatcd-by PGandE from URS/Blumn input. These were then' checked:and; verified by URS/Blume. (This is-documented in Section 4, Log 1.3) .

Inithe case of the Turbine Building, a large number

'of transmittals were documented. Log 1. 3 - contains transmittal documentation for the period 1974 to 1979.

Relevant design information transmitted is given'in

, . Log 1.3. -

?

3.3.3.2 Design Information from.URS/Blume to PGandE A Log 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. !

l The detail transmittals themselves have not been reviewed. This will be a part of the overall reverification work.

3.3.3.3 Design Information from PGandE to Equipment Suppliers ,

and Qualifiers '

i In the Turbine Building, the major safety related '

p mechanical equipment systems are the Diesel Generator System.and the Component Cooling Water Heat Excharger.

/ Since the analysis was done by PGandE, no interface between equipment vendor or suppliers was required, i

The Diesel Generator System consists of six major l components: ,

l NPC L!CH:E!NG L

, LOG NUMDUi S

-l 0666 1 c

, rn

[-

m

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 e' (. Log 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 Log 3,1.5, Results of this review show that the Diesel Gen-erator System was conservatively qualified to correct Hosgri seismic input.

The Component Cooling Water Heat Exchanger was qualified by analysis by PGandE. This analysis is located in PGandE mechanical file 140.062G.

The analysis was reviewed for correct seismic-input. Results of-the review show that the ana-lysis used current Hosgri spectra. The analysis is included in Log 3.1.5.

3.3.3.4 Qualification of Building and Components

. The Turbine Building design qualification responsi-

p. bilities were divided between URS/Blume and PGandE.

k n: . -

['i? UD The qualification of major seismic resistant com-

~UD QD ponents of the building for the Hosgri evaluation .

,, q) was performed by URS/Blume and specific drawings

-. which reflect the modifications are included in the report entitled "DCNPP, Unit 3 - Turbine Building Evaluation and Structural Modifications for the

l 7.5 M Hosgri Earthquake", March 1980 (Log 2. 3. 2) .

PGandE implemented modifications to qualify the floor l

beams, interior columns, interior block and concrete I

walls and ' anchorage that were not evaluated .by UR.S/ ,

Blume. Tables 3.3.1 c.nd 3.3.2 contain the list of PGandE drawings for these modifications, obtaineo l from conferring with the responsible engineer: .

e'

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

February, 1980 (Log 7).

Since the design review did not verify the interface procedures between URS/Blume, PGandE and the field l (Figure 4-10-2, URS/Blume Report on Design Review, !

Log 7), .these will be investigated in the over-all reverification program. ;

1 l

l l

l 1

NPG 13:i:: 'NG LOG NUl/OER

()(5(5kb -

1; d

-. .r..

7. n.7.

TABLE 3.3.1 Drawings prepared by PGandE containing modification inform- ,

- ation for Structural Frames, Beams and Columns per Hosgri evaluation for the Turbine Building.

465127 465135 465128 465136 465129 465137 465130 465138 465132 465139 465133 465140 .

465134 465141 465142 465143 i TABLE 3.3.2 Drawings containing modification information for Equipment Anchorage per Hosgri evaluation for t,he Turbine Building.

463671 463677 463672 463678 463673 463679 463674 463680 463675 4636S1 463676 463682 463683 NPG LEM'NG LOG NUiEJER

~

(l($($(3 4

e- ,-.y------,------w -. , , _ .- -,__.-----------e-

, ----,wr-----_, ,~w,.,,--.-~ _r,- ~,,e----e.-r, ----w-- v=r-- ----r--+- -- w- v --v -

en 3.3.4 Auxiliary / Fuel Handling Buildings The Auxiliary Euilding is a Class 1 structure and houses service areas fcr both Units 1 and 2 of the Diablo Plant.

In this building are located such facilities as the' con-trol room and the fuel-handling area. The building is a reinforced concrete structure except for a steel-framed portion over the fuel-handling area at elevation 140 ft.

The design chain and opposite hand symmetry is indirectly addressed in the following sections on the design interface between URS/Blume and PGandE. 0 3.3.4.1 Design Information from PGandE to URS/Blume y PGandE's Civil / Structure file (Log 4) was searched for the design information transmitted from PGandE to URS/Blume on the Auxiliary / Fuel Handling Build-ings 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 (Log 4). One transmittal issued by PGandE to URS/Blume dated April 16, ,1971 was found. In this memorandum, the main steam line anchorage for the G Line in bhe Auxiliary Building was discussed (Log 1.4). ,

After discussions with the PGandE responsible engineer in charge of the Auxiliary / Fuel Handling j Building design, it was learned that, during the DDE analysis, PGandE developed - with theassis-l tance of URS/Blume - computer programs "Dybox-2" and "Sherwal-4" to compute the mass and dynamic _

properties of the mathematical model for the j Auxiliary / Fuel Handling Building (Log 1.4). ]

NPG LtCD SING LOG NUI.':CB n

0666 I

e

... 33

.~:

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 Log 2.4.

Preliminary Hosgri spectra were issued by URS/Blume prior to the issuance of the May 9, 1977 (May 11,

~

5 1977 transmittal) Hosgri Final Report (Log 2.4.2).

?

During the qualification of the Auxiliary Building it was decided to make a separate and more detailed finite element model for determining the vertical response of the control room floor due to its relative flexibility. This model is the basis for the control room analification (Log 2.4.2) . Since the final vertical control room spectra are higher than the preliminary spectra, a detailed review of equipment qualification will be necessary in the over-all re'-verification program to ensure that the equip-i ment was conservatively qualified.

l Spectra transmittals after May 11, 1977 provide t

additional, but not different, information.

l l

3.3.4.3 Design Information from PGandE to Equipment Suppliers and Qualifiers Seismic qualification of major mechanical equipment is addressed in Section 3.3.4.4.2. Seismic quali-f I

fication of other equipment and systems is addressed in Section 3.3.7. ,

l .

NPG LICENSING LOG NUMBER 0666

33 0 3.3.4.4 Qualification of Buildings and Equipment Buildings 3.3.4.4.1 The statement by the responsible engineer at PGandE in Log 1.4 confirmed that the structural evaluation of the Auxiliary Building was done based on the -

/

output from URS/Blume's 7.5 M Hosgri seismic f because of analysis. No effort has been spent, li-time constraints, to spot-check the building qua Because of the reported contro-fication details.

versy of weights in the DDE mo' del, a detailed re-view of the seismic analysis of the Auxiliary should be perform-Building and its qualification ed in the overall re-verification program.

3.3.4.4.2 Equipment The major equipment of the Auxiliary Building was either qualified by PGandE and Westinghouse or i

reviewed by Westinghouse. Table 3.3.4.4 summarizes the qualification of mechanical equipment in the Auxiliary Building. The detailed information on this equipment qualification is given in Log 3.1.4 j

NPG LICD'51NG L LOG NUMoER 0666 s

x ,

s

. Component 7.5 M Hosgri Review -

Identification Seismic Analysis By Comments

+ ',

1. Boric Acid Transfer W None Pump

2. Centrifugal Charging Pump W None

3. Residual Heat Removal W None Pump

4. Residual Heat Removal Heat W None Exchanger

5. Seal Water Injection Filter W None

6. Boric Acid Filter W None

7. Boric Acid Tank -W Review W judged to posses correct Kuxiliary Building spectra based

8. Component Cooling Water Pump W Review on previous seismic qualifications and correspondence history.

9. Auxiliary Feed Water Pump W Review (Motor Driven) ,

10. Auxiliary Feed Water Pump Motor PGandE Calculations.on file (See Appendix 3.1.4)

11. Auxiliary Feed Water Pump PGandE (Turbine Driven)

12. Auxiliary Feed Water Pump Turbine PGandE cr 3

'.)'e 0

0) n r- TABLE 3. 3. 4. 4 Seismic Qualification Analysis of-

, I Mechanical-Equipment in Auxiliary Building cn say; O

g, - . _ __ _. ._ __ .--_ -_ _ - ___ a_= _ _ _ . . -

,, y _ _

a 3.3.5 Cranes 3.3.5.1 Containment Structure Cranes There are two cranes in the Containment Structure that required seismic evaluation per 7.5 M'Hosgri specification. These are the Polar Crane and the

, Dome Service Crane. A brief discussion of the two e' 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 connection. The seismic analysis of the crane as presented in the Hosgri report consists of a 3-D elastic analysis of the crane in a parked position and a iD inelas-tic analysis of the crane in an unlocked position.

These final results were transmitted to PGandE by URS/Blume through a letter dated September 6, '

1971 (Log 2.5). Results of the 2-Dl inelastic seismic analysis of the crane are presented in the f

URS/Blume report, "Diablo Canyon Evaluation for the 7.5 M Hosgri Earthquake Progress Report", dated December 1978 (Log 2.5.1) . The drawings and other l

l

' design information utilized for the modeling of the crane are not referenced in the report. Nor are there any transmittals documenting the transfer of f

I these from PGandE to URS/Blume.

i These above documents reflect that the design ,

review was completed by URS/Blume and that the re-sults concluded are valid. Two drawings from i

NPG LlCENSING LOG NUMBER 0666 n - - . , - - --,-----,g e- ,-nwn---,am-g- . , , , . --.+e- , , - . , . -

PGandE files were checked against both models in the report (Log 2.5.1). This preliminary review

~

shows that the information was transferred correct-ly from the drawings to the models. In addition, the seismic' input to the report was reviewed and is identical to the current Hosgri spectra.

3.37,5.1 2 Dome Service Crane e

,The dome service crane is a maintenance crane lo-cated on top of the polar crane inside containment.

. Information available to date shows that the crane has been seismically qualified for the Hosgri requirements when it is in the parked position (URS/Blume Report, Log 2.5.1). ,

Modifications are currently underway to isolate r

the dome service crane from movements of the polar crane during a seismic event (PGandE Memorandum, Log 7). The crane has been_ qualified for this modified design for all modes of operation (Log j 7). The displacement time histories used in the qualification has been verified as being applica- ,

ble.

3.3.5.2 Intake Structure Crane 3.3.5.2.1 Design Information from PGandE to URS/Blume ,

Some design information for the seismi'c 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- -

r.

NPG LICU:S!NG ]

LOG NUMBER

/0666 l

3

( (

were respectively transmitted on 12/21/78'and 1/24/79. In February 1979, field measurement cf 3 ,) Intake' Structure crane was performed (Log 1.5).

4

~3.3.5.2.2 Design Information from URS/Bluce to PGandE URS/Blume requested field measurement and trans-1 mitted -SK-1-12-9 on 1/23/79. g$The crane hoist

~

+

te" /..

engi'neeringdrawingswerd(fo'undtobetransmitted

The final seismic analyses report en-on 3/5,/79.

titled "DCNPP - Intake Structure Crane Evaluation for the 7.5 M Hosgri Earthquake", November 1979,

wasnt,ransmitted on 11/28/79 and documents the seismic design qualification information for this

. crane (Log 2.5).

j.

Ji .

3.3.5.2.,3 Qualification of Intake Structure Crane ,

s;' '

A quick review of the final report listed in Sec-t j tion 3.3.5.2.2foundmany/suggesteddesignmodi-fications. They are: the installation of a seismic hold-down and lateral restraint inechanirm, and minor structural modifications to transmit hori-zontal forces from crane legs to truck and then to the rail. These modifications to design draw-ings were made by URS/Blume and were also reported in the above report. The modifications to construc-tion drawings were jointly made by PGandE and URS/

Blume. "As-bfilt"drawingsofthecraneincorpor-ating the field modifications have been made.

Checks are required to compare the "as-built" draw-

! ings to the drawings used in analysis.

This will be addressed in the long term program.

4-t NPG L!CD:S!NG LOG NUI.iCER 0666

_ _ _ _ .._____.m.- __

3.3.5.3 Turbine 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 equipment weights was done on 7/22/75. The transmittal documentation giving the drawing number is

/ listed in Section 1 of Appendix 1.5.

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 (Revised)", 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 PGandE qualified the Turbine Building crane with a report on the seismic analysis and structural evaluation by URS/Blume. 5 l

l 3.3.5.3.2 above, URS/Blume modified the crane

! design to provide tiedown of the crane-trolley to the bridge girder and lateral seismic res-c3 traint to distribute the lateral seismic loads l yjg gp to both horizontal crane support girders (des-

, E,ij . gp cribed in the Hosgri report given in 3.3.5.3.2

{jjj CD above). PGandE and URS/Blume subsequently joint-ce G- O CD ly revised the crane construction drawings. How- l 2J ever, checks need to be made to insure that modi-fications to construction drawings uere properly-l implemented. This will be accomplished in the long l

l term report by comparing the "as-built" drawings to L

those used in analysis, t

L

ow 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 PGandE responsi-

- ble engineer for the seismic- analysis of ' fuel

+ handling crane _(Log 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 checks need to be made in the overall reverification program to check the appli-cability of design information transmitted.

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 of the crane runway and excessive loading on the trolley axis.

3.3.5.4.3 Qualification of Fuel-Eandling Building Crane The qualification of fuel-handling building crane _

to satisfy Mosgri criteria was jointly performed NPG UCE"EU LOG NU!ISEU 0666

by_PGandE and URS/Blume. URS/Blume prepared de-sign modifications per Hosgri report for this crane. PGandE~and dRS/Blume jointly revised the subject crane construction drawings. In the scope of the overall reverification program sorae checks will be made to' insure that these modifi-cations were done. .

e i

1 P

NPG LICENSING -

LOG NUMBER 0666 O

i

3.3.6 Outdoor Water Storage Tenks 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 ( Log 4). No relevant transmittals were found. -

e 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. (Log 1. 6) .

An examination of telecon records kept in URS/Blume's file (Log 1.6) confirms the statement described above by the lead engineer of PGandE. Some design 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-NPG UliMNG LOG NUM3ER 0666 .

43.

merous revisions were made to PGandE drawings to incorporate URS/Blume's findings. The above re-port, therefore, reflects the actual configuration and field condition of the tanks (Log 1.6). Al-though a team effort existed between PGandE and

. URS/Blume in transmitting the design informaticn, some checks need to be made to determine the ac-curacy of the information transferred. This task

g will be accomplished in the overall reverification program.

3.3.6.3 Qualification of Tanks The tanks were analyzed 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 subsequently concluded to meet the Hosgri seismic requirement (PGandE's design verification report for outdoor water storage tanks, dated 9/21/79 (Log 7).

(

NPG L!CENS!NG LOG NUMEER l

0666 -

, Y

3.3.7 General Equipment and Systems .

A significant portion of the scope of this report 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 examine the end result, the actual-

, seismic qualification and note whether the current

+

applicable Hosgri response spectra curves were used.

The mechanical equipment seismic quclifications are reviewed in the section addressing the individual buildings and will not be 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 l

l l

i l

l NPG L::.L .SlNG LOG NLH/sER-0666 l

~

3.3.7.1 Piping Systems This~section of the report will address the trans-3

~m ittal of seismic design information from PGandE to consultants engaged in analysis of piping sys -

. .tems and supports.

i

, For the initial Hosgri re-evaluation effort, the

,' piping analysis was assigned to consultants URS/

Blume and Earthquake Engineering Systems (EES).

Similarly for support evaluation, URS/Blume, EES, and EDS Nuclear, Inc. were used as the primary consultants.

4 For support evaluation the seismic design input

, consists of either a table _ listing seismic load factors as a function of support spacing and buil -

i.

ding locaiton or the actual support force output from a piping analysis computer model.

) PGandE uses a formal design guide for the seismic factors which they transmit to the consultants. This will be a

, significant interface to examine in the overall re-verification' program. For instances where piping computer analysis output is used for design, then

~

the valve qualification is totally dependent on

, the design input to the piping analysis.

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

only problem is that the transmittal cover sheet

! does not list the contents of the entire attachment.

l The. transmittal might only read problem number and '

" appropriate spectra attached". To trace the flow .

! of information it will be necessary to find the contents of the transmittals. This task will be

'y NPG Lt:U:s!Na l LOG NUI,10ER i

0666

r accomplish d by furthur excmination of PGendE files or perhaps by examining EES files during !

the overall reverification program.

For the scope of piping assigned to URS/Blume, very little correspondence was located during the time frame of Unit 1 piping analyses. However, URS/Blume has not yet been contacted to provide any transmittals they may have sent or received.

[.

This will accomplished during the long term re-verification effort.

l i

t.

f. ' ' S A

- -g , *. * . p ; n. o g

n 4 ef[ . f 4

0666 i

3. 3.7 . 2 VALVES A preliminary review was performed on seismic design inform-ation for valves' transferred across interfaces between PGandE and testing organizations. This review addresses the safety related valves that required seismic re-qualification to meet the Hosgri requirements.

F The valves reviewed consist 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 5). Copies of these tables are contained in (Log 3.2.2) .

3. 3.7 . 2.1 Definition of Interfaces A number of PGandE and contractor interfaces 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 PGandE-a- Westinghouse -- FGandE for valve qualification where EES ---- Earthquake Engineering Systems , Inc.

EDS -- EDS Nuclear Inc.

Westinghouse-- Westinghouse Electric Corp.

~

NPG L!2i.' ONG LOG NUI,'OER 0666 i

2 -

.-__17-. , . _ _ , . . . _ , _ . . _ . , . , , _ _ ,_ _

l

~

l EES, using data provided by PGandE, produced i l

computer models of piping systems. Computer -

analyses were then performed to determine the dynamic characteristics of the piping system under earthquake loading. Results were then transmitted to PGandE.

- Earthquake loading was dete$ mined from acceler-

[.

ation response spectra provided by PGandE to EES.

PGandE transferred the relevant 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 gaten loading conditions. This was done by either analysis ,

or testing. Results were then transmitted 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.

Copies of transmittals located thus far are located in Log 3. 2. 2. .

NPG LET.' e Ng LOG NUtn3Ea 0666 h

-v r

3. 3.7 . 2. 3 Troncmittals B2tw2cn EDS cnd PGendE A limited amount of documentation of informa-tion transferred from PGandE to EDS has been found to date. Complete documentation of re-qualification information for the valves being reviewed here has not been compiled at this point in time.

,- Some records of results sent by EDS to PGandE have been located. A complete set of EDS trans-

~

mittals to PGandE for the valver being reviewed has not been compiled as of this date.

The documentation of information transferred will be further addressed in the long ter.,re-verification program. Copies of transmittals identified thus far are located in Log 3.2.2.

3. 3.7 . 2. 4 Transmittals Between Westinghouse and PGandE Some information on PGandE transmittals to West-inghouse has been located in PGandE files. How-ever, insufficient records have been found to fully document information flow from PGandE to Westinghouse.

The only evidence of information returned from 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. Also qualification analysis of several valves was included in a Westinghouse report.

Documentation of transmittals between Westinghouse and PGandE located to date are contained in Log 3.2.2.

N,'O Li2L 'clNG LOG NUI.TdER b -_ _ _ _ _ _ .A AR R

3. 3.7 . 2. 5 Reverification Effort For valves in flexible piping systems, the accel-eration response of the pipe must be known in order to obtain the valve accelerations and to derive the pipt> loadings on the valves. This is e a result obtained.from the piping analyses. ,

Therefore, the validity of a valve qualification depends on information transferred in earlier '

steps, from PGandE valve qualifiers to the piping analyst and the analysis results from the piping h analyst.

With the documenta' tion available to date, no evi- >

dence was found to indicate whether the valve ac-celerations have ever been verified as being j correct before being transmitted to the valve l qualifiers.

To perform a thorough review of the information f

transferred across interfaces, the following pro-cedure will be followed on a sampling basis:

1. Locate and examine documentation of correct Hosgri spectra transmitted to piping analysts.

2. Locate and review transmittals of piping ana-lysis results to PGandE, particularly valve accelerations. The accuracy of the piping o-

! del is also to be checked.

Eb5UO '

$I2 Up gg3 q) 3. Locate and review transmit tals of valve acceler-JZ c) ations from PGandE to valve testing organizations. '

30 b5b

4. Cross check data returned to PGandE from piping \

analysts with data transmitted out of PGandE to the valve testing organizations.

l

51 3.3.7.3 HVAC Components PGandE qualified the sixteen groups of cold-shut down required HVAC equipment with the analysis report pre-pared by EDS Nuclear, Inc. (Table 9-1, Reference 6).

One group of equipment was chosen for review from each

, of the four buildings: Intake, Turbine, A'uxiliary, and Containment. The qualification analyses of the HVAC equipment, listed below, were checked for correct use of current Hosgri spectra.

Intake - exhaust fans E-101, 102, 103, and 104.

. Turbine - supply fans S-67,68,and 69. #

. Auxiliary - supply fans S-31 and 32.

Containment - forced draft shutter damper The two equipment groups in the Intake and Turbine Buildings were found to have used correct Hosgri spectra. However, calculations for supply fans S67, 68, and 69 were found to have used incorrect and un-conservative seismic inputs. In addition, the forced draft shutter damper qualification showed incorrect seismic definition because gravity had not been added to -

the vertical acceleration (Log 3.3.1). The forced draft

$ CD shutter damper has a sufficient factor of safety and is S (D not affected by this error. The safety factors in the

" U?

calculations for supply fans S67, 68, and 69 are not

clearly determined. Therefore, the significance of the input error has yet to be established. '

3.3.7.4 HVAC Ducting The HVAC ducts required for cold shutdown have been '

t qualified by PGandE. Architects, llVAC and civil I

e

engineers of PGandE all collaborated on the duct design.

Information flow between these groups is documented in Log 3.3.2.1.

Class I duct at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant is

. qualified by analyzing its supports. Some HVAC systems in each of the four buildings (Intake, Turbine, Contain-

, ment, and Auxiliary) were checked -for required cold e' shutdown.

A random, sample of the ducting qualifications in the Auxiliary Building was selected and checked for the applicability of seismic input. Five of the twenty one HVAC support details listed in Log 3.2.2.2 were re-viewed. All were found to have used correct Hosgri seismic accelerations.

The only piece of Hosgri required HVAC equipment in the Containment Building is the Forced Draft Shutter Damper (Table 9-1, Reference 6). All ducting in this area is Class II, therefore the seismic inputs were not checked (Log 3.3.2.3).

Hosgri duct support qualifications for the 4KV Switch-gear Room HV System have not been located as of October 28, 1981. This is the only HVAC System required for g- cold shutdown in the Turbine Building. The reverifica-

<_ p.

UhD CD tion program will address this area further. Addition-

!5$UP ally one of three shop modified duct supports in the Wgj z g Turbine Building.was checked for seismic input. The CD jfg calculations were found to have used correct accelera-Z' tions. 1 The HVAC System servicing the Auxiliary Salt Water Pump Rooms in the Intake Structure is required for cold shutdown (Table 9-1, Reference 6). Class I ducting to t

i

the exhaust: fans is installed under specification 8841 (Log 3.3.2.3). The duct support qualifications for Hosgri seismic inputs were not available on October 28, 1981. _PGandE calculations dated November 2, 1981 use correct' accelerations (Log 3.3.2.3).

Additionally, the seismic input to the fireproof duct-

, ing was reviewed and found to be cprrectly applied in

/ all cases.

t f

r NPG Li::0:ENG LOG NUI.iUU 0666

f

(_

3.3.7 5 Electrical Equio_ ment and Instrumentation <

A preliminary review was performed on seismic design information transferred between PGandE and electrical equipmer.t and instrumentation vendors and cualifiers.

This review focuses strictly on design information used in requalifying safety related electrical equip-ment and instrumentation to meet the Hosgri seismic i requirements.

The Hosgri Seismic Re-evaluation Report (Reference 6) was used to derive the list of safety related A copy electrical equipment and instrumentation.

of Table 10-1 from the Hosgri Report is included in Log 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 Tabic 10-1, ddressed in they are reviewed separately and are a Section 3.3.7.6. -

3.3.7.5.1 Definition of Interfaces Although the responsibility for electrical equip-ment and instrumentation seismic qualification was strictly PGandE scope, the analysis was divided Westinghouse was between PGandE and Westinghouse.

responsible for analyzing 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

/ NPG LE:O' JNG analysis results back to PGandE.

e LOG NUMTdR .

~

0666

o Of the PGandE qualified equipment, it was quali-fied by PGandE either by analysis or after testing at Wyle Laboratories.

The Wyle Labs and PGandE interface enabled PGandE and Wyle Labs to exchange information regarding Hosgri spectra, and allowed Wyle Labs to transmit proposed test proc'edures. Als.o, Wyle transmitted formal test' reports back to PGandE across this interface, y 3.3.7.5.2 T'ransmittals from PGandE to Westinghouse j

~~

Documentation of one transmittal of seismic inform-ation from PGandE to Westinghouse has been found tj to date (PGandE Project Letter 1962) . However, this transmittal contains only the Newmark earth-quake acceleration time histories for the Contain-ment interior at certain elevations.

3.3.7.5.3 Transmittals from Westinghouse to PGandE Results of the re-evaluation for Hosgri require-ments of Westinghouse supplied equipment were sub-mitted to PGandE in the Westinghouse report " Summary Report'on Scismic Evaluation for Postulated 7.5 M Hosgri" (Reference 9).

I One transmittal from Westinghouse to PGandE has .

been found to date (Westinghouse letter PGE-4231, !

dated 9/5/80). It describes the results of an evaluation of Westinghouse supplied equipment to assess the affect of a fifty percent increase in the Hosgri vertical ground spectra (Log 3.4). ,

NPG L!;D: SING LOG Nui/SER 0666 '

3.3.7.5i4 Transmittals from PGandE to Wyle Labs No documentation has been found to date -

regarding formal transmittals of spectra from PGandE to Wyle Labs. . Seismic in-formation and requirements were informally ex-changed between PGandE and Wyle Labs during meet-

^ ings on July 9 and July 13 of.1977 (PGandE/Wyle meeting agenda July 9, 1977, and reference to meeting in Wyle letter dated July 15, 1977, both in Log 3.4).

3.3.7.5.5 TransmittaIs from Wyle Labs to PGandE Two documents that Wyle Labs transmitted to PGandE have been found. These are Wyle letter dated July 15, 1977 and Wyle Feasibility / Trip Report dated August 5, 1977. These do not contain specific technical data, but discuss general approaches proposed for qualification of Class IE electrical equipment.

Other transmittals from Wyle Labs to PGandE are Wyle test reports and test procedures. Two of these that were given cursory review are Wyle ,

Labs Test Procedure No. 3642 and Test Report No.

58255 (Reference 10).

3.3.7.5.6 Transmittals Regarding Requalification by Analysis Requalification of electrical equipment and instru-mentation (other than Westinghouse NSSS equipment) by analysis was done in-house at PGandE. ,

NPG LK:i."NNG LOG NU!,'.JER 0666

3.3.7.5.7 Westinghouse Requalification of Electrical and Instrumentation Equipment Review of the Westinghouse report," Summary Report on Seismic Evaluation for Postulated 7.5 M. Hosgri",

. (Reference 9) showed that Westinghouse el'ectrical equipment and instrumentation was requ'alified for

', Hosgri requirements by applying certain criteria to

+

previously performed tests and analyses.

The test spectra used in the orevious tests are included in Log 3.4. These are identical to Figures 10-2 to 10-12 in the Hosgri report. The Westinghouse report states that the 5-9-77 spectra were used and that the Blume and Newmark spectra were enveloped.

The report also states that the vertical spectra used were taken as 2/3 of the horizontal spectra.

However, in a conversation with the cognizant enginee from Westinghouse, he states that specific vertical Hosgri spectra were used in the requalification 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 ,

comparing the applicable Hosgri spectra to test Z n: spectra used in the initial pre-Hosgri qualification U";1J @

HU @ Westinghouse also assessed the ef fect of a 507. in-

.:= D

-IZ @ crease in the vertical Hosgri spectra on Westinghous'e g '

k supplied equipment. Results of this evaluation were transmitted to PGandE in Westinghouse Project Letter ,

PGE-4231, Revision 1, dated 9/5/80 (Log 3.4). )

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 memorandum, date'd 11-9-77, :

contains comments on proposed test spectra contained in Wyle Report No. 26286.

2. Wyle Test Procedure No. 3642, dated 11-30-77 is signed and approved by appropriate PGandE personnel. '

Documentation on these two items is contained in l

Log 3.4.

PGandE internal memorandum indicate s that General Electric was involved in Wyle Labs requalification tests of the 4.16kV Vital Switchgear and provided in-f

?ut to the test procedures. Test results are included i in Wyle Labs Test Report No. 58255-1, dated 8/22/78.

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 analyser. Investigation in this ,

area will be continued.

NPG LCUI !NG LOG NUil.3ER 0666 4

r .

59 3.3.7.5.10 Preliminary Review of Electrical Equipment

- A preliminary review of requalification of electrical equipment and instrumentation was conducted by check-ing a 507. sample of zero period accelerations (ZPA's) from the Hosgri Evaluation listed in Table 10-1 of the Hosgri report. ,

i The listed Hosgri ZPA's were cross checked against the ZPA's of the applicable up-to-date Hosgri spectra.

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

t In each case, the ZPA levels used to qualify each item of equipment, as listed in Table 10-1, were greater than the required Hosgri 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 their consultants, the following pro-cedure will be undertaken:

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

to see if they envelope the applicable Hosgri spectra.

2. Requalification analyses will be examined to check if the applicable seismic information was _

applied. In addition, the analysis criteria used for qualification, if applicabic, will be

. examined. NPG L!l.L: .c!NC

- LOG NU .iUE.9 0666

~

3.3.7.6 Electrical Raceways The supports for the Electrical Raceways are found j g throughout the main buildings. Originally it was understood that about 600. individual unistrut sup-port designs were developed. In practice however, only about 400 were actually' used and re-evaluated

~

/

for the Hosgri earthquake. The PGandE civil engineer responsible.for electrical Raceways provid-ed the qualification documentation. Each support .

detail is qualified to the Hosgri by a quasi-static seismic analysis. This analysis is keyed to the

'FGandE design standard that requires supports to

.be placed at 8' intervals or less.

With such a large volume of material, a random sampling approach was employed. The Hosgri seismic accelerations were checked for ten support details (Log-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 fol-

' ^

lowing three reasons:

I No transmittals of Annulus drawings from PGandE to URS/Blume were located and URS/Blume does not,

' at present, have the drawings. Preliminary spectra differing from the 5/9/77 spectra were issued for Containment. New spectra (7/21/77) superseding the 5/9/77 Hosgri Report were issued (Log 2.1.2).

c3 j- at EOS gp The quasi-static qualification was based upon ap-

53 '2 ua QD plication of the 4% floor response spectra, The 3j{ g) plan was to qualify all conduit supports to these l

e- C) *

c. floor spectra, assuming that each conduit was 2_g; l

I ,

l l

..- .e- . _,._,..-.,..-,_~-m_,., ,.m.. ,-c,,,-%

filled with cable amounting to no more than 40% of the cross sectional area. On the aver-

, age however, they were filled to less than 40%.

The qualification plan provided for using 7%

g damping if satisfactory results were not obtain-ed in the original analysis. This is based upon use of R.G. 1.61 damping for bolted structures.

f Of the ten calculations that were reviewed one was explicitly based upon accelerations associat-ed with 7% damping.

Six of the sample of 10 used acceleration values that did not correspond with the Hosgri floor spectra for the location of interest.Of the 6 it appeared that possibly 2 used reduced spectra consistent with 7% damping, but without explicitly stating that this was done.

- Four of the sample of ten used acceleration values that did not correspond with the Hosgri floor spectra. These cases appear to be an incorrect application of design spectra. Further checking showed that 2 of these 4 did use acceleration values corresponding to 7% damping curves of a preliminary issue of the design spectra, y

No design spectra corresponding to 7% damping were routinely issued. Acceleration values for this (3 damping were obtained by taking 70% of the 4%

h $ g) damping values.

- ta L_- (C)

'$s$ QD As a result of the use of inapplicable spectra in ,

CI the first sample, an additional random sample of

{ry

'ZJ ten support details was checked. It was found that t

i. .

fiva of -tha ocmplo of tcn uccd accolcrcticn valuas that did not correspond with the Hosgri floor spectra.

In summary, nine of the twenty raceway support seismic calculations were found to have been done with inapplicable spectra. Further checking indicated that two of the nine may have exceeded allowable stresses if the correct spectral values were used.

", Since the quasi-static calcul'ation method employed is quite conservative, the overstress may be reduced to within allowable stress if a refined method is

used for design.

/

t i

i I

l i

gpc1.0E"cMG LOG 14UICJER

()($(3 (5

4.0

SUMMARY

AND DISCUSSION 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 design chain, opposite hand symmetry and the applicability of seis-mic design and qualification information for the Hosgri earthquake that may be considered to be associated with de-sign 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 in-formation developed at PGandE, through the URS/Blume inter-f ace, then back to PGandE and on to the equipment vendors and consultants.

In this preliminary report, the goal was to review the design chain, opposite hand symmetry and applicability of all major design issues and identify all detailed equipment qualifica-tions for later review. Because of a large number of these, a certain level of sample checking was performed. To accom-plish the basic objective, the review was performed on a building by building basis , except in the case of general equipment, such as piping systems, HVAC systems, etc., which were grouped together for all buildings. The findings, by building and general equipment, are reported below.

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

Current drawings were reviewed for revisions and changes.

No changes were sufficient to require re-modeling.

There were few formal transmittals from PGandE to URS/ ,'

Blume in the early time period, because engineers from the two organizations were working together as though NPG UWh LOG NUidBER 0666 l-

@W 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.

With the exception of the annulus, the Containment Building nodels were based upon applicable drawings.

i URS/Blume performed the seismic analysis of the Con-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

/ Containment Fan Coolers For the case of the Regenerative Heat Exchanger, West-inghouse used an incorrect vertical response spectra in the seismic analysis. Use of the correct vertical ,

spectra would increase the loads and could reduce the e safety factor to unacceptable levels.

Other equipment in the Containment Building is discussed in the equipment section.

i

~

NPG L!CES.C.!NG LOG NU!, DER o

0666

Intake Structure i

The seismic analysis of the Intake Structure was based upon information contained in a transmittal

from PGandE in 1976. This transmittal was examined.

, URS/Blume issued a report on 'the seismic. analysis of

/ the Intake Structure in April 1977. After modifica-tions, it was finalized in 1979., The drawings used to prepare the model were outdated, but building re-visions were minor and did not affect the analysis.

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 complete design responsi-bility for the building.

The building had to be modified to qualify it for the Hosgri earthquake. All relevant drawing numbers have been obtained, and a complete design verification ef-fort completed by PGandE was documented. The in-depth verification was left to the final reverification pro-gram since this building is less important than certain others.

The diesel generator, including the fuel system and

, , starting air receivers, was reviewed. The correct NPG L!CU c:NG LOG NUI.U ER 0666

ceismic input information was used for this safety related equipment.

Auxiliary / Fuel Handling Building The Hosgri requalification of the Auxiliary Building was performed with essentic1.ly the same models used in the earlier DDE anadysis. These models were developed g jointly by PGandE and URS/Blume using specialized comput-er programs for computing building properties. Reports of reviews of building properties and configurations were noted prior to initiation of the Hosgri analysis. Some building plans used in developing the dynamic model as re-ported in the URS/Blume report were checked with the as-built building drawings. Although minor differences exist, the dynamic model used reasonably represents the structurtl configurations. Records of discussions on model properties however, sudgests that limited checks on mass and stiffness should be made in the verification study, ,

Cranes'* -

For the most of the cranes, the design information was provided to URS/Blume on an informal basis, For each of the major 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 Dome Service Crans. These are positive findings, however , in some case's 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 with the addition of holddowns, lateral restraints, etc. Additional checks to ensure -

analysis reflected the as-modified drawings would be beneficial.

NPG LE;i. ' :NG q LOG Nuic;ER O666 l t i Y -

i

~

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 ma'de to these tanks in the course of the Hosgri requal-ifications. Indirect interfaces e,xisted in the analysis fofthesetanksviaHarding-Lawson,soilconsultants, since one of the modifications was to dig out under the tank foundation and strengthen this structure. Communi-cations were informal in many cases. However, this area

~

will be reviewed in much more detail in the final pro-gram because there was an indirect interface and because of informal communications.

L Ger.eral Eauipment and Systems '

I.

1. Piping and Valves i.

i A large number of transmittals were documented in which information was exchanged between PGandE and consultants. However, the contents of the transmittals have not yet been located, I I

and therefor- the correctness of analysis re-sults output could not be verified at this time.

l 1

I

2. HVAC Components and Ducting f 1

i HVAC components and ducting qualification were I to reviewed for correct seismic inputs. In two 2 cases, HVAC components were qualified with in- ~

p3Of correct seismic inputs. One of the two cases

[fhf g))

5jf did not consider gravity in the computation of l Q3 l

53to CD 5' C)J r

W

ee ,

vertical response. But because of a large safety factor, this qualification is satis-factory. For the second case, additional review shall be necessary.

5 For the HVAC ductings reviewe4 qualifications for two cases were not found prior to October 28, 1981. However, one of these two HVAC

/ ductings has since been qualified.

i,

3. Electric Equipment, Instrumentation and Conduits A cursory review of qualification procedures for electrical equipment and instrumentation show no errors for the seismic inputs.

In the case of electrical conduits, nine of the sample of twenty support designs checked did not use seismic acceleration values con-sistent with the Hosgri spectra. PGandE is currently reviewing qualifications of all conduit support details.

The annulus zone of the Containment Building was not studied as part of this effort since this zone is under-The annulus zone going re-analysis at the present time.

vertical response model is mainly composed of structural steel and equipment.

It is estimated to have the highest ratio of equipment to structure weight of any part of the plant.

The annulus horizontal response is coupled with and dominated by the response of the Containment interior -

structure.

Elsewhere in the main safety related buildings, Containment, Auxiliary and Intake, the floor response spectra will be relatively insensitive to equipment weight NPG LICENSING LOG NUIABER 0666

ew i ~ ..U((

since the.models are dominated by the mass and stiffness of structural concrete.

The applicable building drawings were found to be used in developing the dynamic models. Although minor differences exist between building drawings used in the dynamic analyses and the as-built drawings, these' differences will not appreciably change the building response as it is insen-sidive to minor channes in building dynamic model parameters, i

l l

L

' NPG L!CEi.'S'NG LOG NUf,j3ER -

- I 0666 l I

f _ . . . _ . ~ _ , . _ _ - - . . . _ . --___.,_.--...m. -

lushod $T e.n- a u

5.0 CONCLUSION

S In the course of this preliminary work a great deal of material has been reviewed. The review was conducted on the engineering material itself. The present findings and

, conclusions are independent of the normal convolutions of the design process, and whether work was done formally or informally, with the exception.of cour,se,that informal trans-mittals, etc. require additional verification of the end product.

The design information reviewed that was transmitted to and used by URS/Blume was found applicable. The design informa-tion transmitted from URS/Blume to PGandE was also found applicable.

In general, correct spectra were transmitted from PGandE for equipment qualification. At this interface, cases of inapplicable seismic response spectra for equipment qual-ification were identified. These appear to be isolated cases.

The overall conclusion drawn from the work to date is that the seismic qualification of Diablo Canyon for the postulat-ed Hosgri Earthquake is satisfactory in its main features.

The building responses are based upon use of applicable de- ;

sign information and seismic responses of the buildings are not overly sensitive to minor changes in parameters, j

Therefore, the floor response spectra are not expected to l

change in a significant way in the future if additional de- '

sign discrepancies are found.

The design interface between PGandE and URS/Blume for the .

Hosgri requalification of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power No.

1 has been sufficiently reviewed. This review has met the

i. .

NPG L!CU!S!NG LOG NUMBER l .

0666

kh ; h l

1 NRC request to ensure that there are no systematic or major design discrepancies. A more complete review

will be performed from the present time to power ascension. The completion of this program will constitute a detailed reverification of the seismic adequacy of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant No. 1. ,

e' 1

N " 3 :. . - ^'NG L O G W U n... :ii l

0666 l -

Seismic Reverification Program, October 30, 1981, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc., Berkeley, CA

72

6.0 REFERENCES

.hO Nf7

"~I 8 l

1. Diablo 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, gTurbine 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 of Design Class 1 HVAC Equipment", EDS Nuclear Inc.

February 22, 1979.

8. "Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, Seismic Qualification of HVAC Equipment", EDS Nuclear Inc., August 24, 1979.

l 9. Summary Report on Seismic Evaluat ion for Postulated ,

7.5 M Hosgri.

NPG L!; :<;Na LOG Nuju_;9 l

l 0666 g .

- uW DRAFT

10. Wyle Labs Test Procedures No. 3642, and Test Report 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) .

r'

.- l NPG lit 'C'NG LOG NUl<.UER _

0666 k _ ^^---%.-_ __

ML20100M047: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 02:34, 24 September 2022

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

5.0 CONCLUSION

6.0 REFERENCES

Navigation menu

ML20100M047: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 02:34, 24 September 2022

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

5.0 CONCLUSION

6.0 REFERENCES

Navigation menu

Search