ML20198D581

Forwards Rev 1 to Questions on Util Submittals & Previous Meetings W/Nrc Re Response Spectra Comparisons.Several Questions Inadvertently Deleted in Original Final Typed Version

ML20198D581
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	04/28/1986
From:	Jerrica Johnson NTS (NATIONAL TECHNICAL SYSTEMS)
To:	Hermann R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20198D542	List: ML20198D539 ML20198D550 ML20198D581 ML20204A137
References
NUDOCS 8605230329
Download: ML20198D581 (5)

Text

.-- .- .. . ._. - - - - _ _ - ._ .. . -- . . - - ----

r . ..

Negonal NTS Engineering Technieel Two Annabel Lane, Suite 101 systeme ,

San Ramon, CA 94583 (415) 88617e8 i

l l

l April 28, 1986 ,

l Mr. Robert Hermann '

i Division of Boiling Water Reactor Licensing )

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation US Nuclear Regulatory Comenission '

Phillips Building  !

, 7920 Norfolk Avenue  !

Bethesda, Maryland 20814 l l

Subject:

Questions on CEI Submittals and Previous CEI/NRC l Meetings - Revision 17 j 1 y . \

I noticed during our conversation the inadvertent deletion in the l final typed version of several questions. I am sending this to )

you so you may consider them before Wednesday.

See you then.

l Sincerely, I (. M Jam J. Johnson JJJ/ja Encls. i, I

cc: R. C. Murray (LLNL) l

> l p

i 1

i O

e l

.,.....---*-y

- - . f l_ ,,

e ,

,. , .----_,.--,..,-,..--v,. -c.---n.-- , - - - ---.,--_.,,,,,,,-,e.-.,,-,,-.~--.-.-,,,,-.,,--n-.

, , - , . - _ , , , , ...,,,-w.,-- - - , - - , . ,,-_, -

Questions onCEI/NRC CEI Submittals Meetings and Previous Msst of Questions on the listed references follow.

these questions and comments have been expressed verbally toThis CEI and MRC in previous meetings and telephone conversations.

list serves to document them.

General

1. Any arguments and conclusions based on comparisons of SRSS values, where SRSS means the vector-sum of three components of response in three orthogonal directions, should be re-evaluated based on the individual components.

2. In all comparisons of response spectra (qualification, design, measured, extrpolations of the measured spectra, If etc.), a consistent value of damping should be used.

response spectral ordinates at damping value "z" are estimated from response spectral ordinates at damping value "y", the procedure to do so should be . documented in detail including the frequency range over which it is applied.

Reference 4 Attachment 3 77

1. Sections II and IV state that the recordings in the Reactor Building at elevations 639 f t. and 686 f t. may be biased by secondary effects of adjacent equipment on the building response. Present evidence to demonstrate that theis containment vesse1' recording at~ elevation 686 Discuss ft. each

'. biased. Discuss the mechanism for this bias.

1 direction separately.

2. Instrument'Nos. D51-R189 and D51-R196 compare well for ,

7 north-south motion but exhibit some differences for east-  !

f west motions. Discuss reasons for these differences.

y Figures 1, 2, and 3

• 3. Refer to General Comment 2 above.

O compare 34 damped response spectra where the 3% d Figures 4 and 6 should

'; values, document the procedure used.

compare response spectra at consistent damping values.  :

k 2

4.

With reference to Fig. 5, the procedure used to estimate 5%

~

I

" damped spectra from 24 damped recorded spectra should be documented. Also, the procedure used to amplify the floor  !

response spectra to in-rack locations should be documented. ,

l

5. When response spectra comparisons are shown for one direction only, are they representative of all directions, a worst case, or a best case?

i j f

I 6.

For the pumps and motors re-analyzed by GE; what is their l

1 I J

k w- .. . ..

. . ..,.. .. j c

. ~

j

1

> NO yo ,

location? If not on the Auxiliary Building foundation, how was the input motion obtained? What damping factor was used l

! in the analysis? Were the measured response spectra smoothed and peak broadened? Were these representative samples?

4e

7.Section IV.

2. Which analyzed pump and motor?

3. Quantification of this assertion should be presented

based on the Auxiliary Building foundation recorded response spectra.

6. Does " seismic response spectra" mean required response spectra? Hence, the average margin between the l

' qualification response spectrum and the required response spectrum is approximately 2.57 For what ' )

damping factor?

l l

8. Section v. The procedure used to estimate response spectra  ;

• at higher elevations in the Auxiliary Building, control l complex, and the Intermediate Building should be documented. i Reference 5 Attachment B 77 1 1. Compare calculated base shear force (or stress) due to the i

January 31, 1986 Chio earthquake with the design values.for i

the containment vessel.

Reference 7

1. Refer to General Comment 2. Document how floor response

' spectra at higher elevations in the structures will be l

obtained for the evaluation.

i SAPIV Reactor Building Model (Refs. 2 and 6) l l

} 1. The SAPIV reactor building model obtained from CEI (Ref. 2) l l contains truss elements connecting the.drywell structure to l l  : '

l the reactor vessel. These truss elements connect two slaved l

- nodes which is not permitted in standard SAPIV. Confirm l i ,

that these elements are acting as desired.

h i; Reference 6 does not provide comparisons of response, such

2.

j - as response spectra, frequencies -- old model vs.. new 1 model. It assumed these comparisons were made and they )

Is this the case?

compared well.

s Other Comments I a

. 1. For the diesel generator building and the off-gas building which are founded on fill rather than rock, the applicant l f agreed to assess the effect of the January 31, 1986

• i i 1 1 - .- ... . . . ..  ;

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

s' .

l

- l earthquake on their rssponse. Provide the results. 1 2.

For the reactor building,'the applicant agreed to assess the effect of the January 31, 1986 aarthquake on calculated structural loads. Provide the-results.

N1

% )

s t~

. y  ;

j w

7 7

l 4

s 3

e b

o S

L t

.I

. !j l

.i t -

e

!I - s

,.,.,---~y , ,-. .,-c- - - - ,e-- -..-.--- - ---.- .

9 References

1. The' Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., " Seismic Event Evaluation Report, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Docket Noa.

50-449;59-441," February 1986.

2. Gilbert / Commonwealth, " SAP IV Input and Output Listing -

Perry Reactor Building Updated Seismic Analysis," Received i February 17, 1986.

3. The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., " Seismic Event Evaluation, Technical Presentation, February 11, 1986,"

presented at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, February 11, 198.6.

4. Letter M. Edelman to H. Denton, " Perry Nuclear Power Plant l Docket Nos. 50-449; 50-441 Seismic Event Evaluation Report" l Supplemental Information, February 28, 1986. Attachments I s 1-5. Attachment 3 Equipment Seismic Qualification Evaluation, PY-CEI/NRR-8438L.

5. Letter M. Edelman to H. Denton, " Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket Nos.59-448; 58-441 Seismic Event Evaluation Report" Supplemental Information, Mpech 3, 1986, PY-CEI/NRR-844GL.

6. Transmittal, C. Chen to J. J. Johnson, "IDI Package and Original Response Spectra," March 18, 1986.

7. Letter M. Edelman to H. Denton, " Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket Nos.59-449; 59-441 Seismic Event Evaluation Report Supplemental Information, March 11, 1986, PY-CEI/NRR-0442L.

1 i

A

?.

1 0

il .

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