ML20209B249
| ML20209B249 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 01/19/1982 |
| From: | Buckley B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16340C148 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-151 NUDOCS 8202160379 | |
| Download: ML20209B249 (23) | |
Text
F
~
h'a oa%
fI-lll[(fOd*Eb v
'4-
-[
['%
UNITED STATES I.
NUCL EAR REGULA10RY CQMMISSION wasmorou. o c. 20as y e.4 :d U.
Jatiuary 19, 1982 MEMCRANCL'M FOR:
Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRR Robert L. Tedescoh*Qief, t.icensing Branch THRd:
., sistant Director for Licensing, DL Frank J. Miraglia,
. 3, DL FRON:
Bartholcmew C. Euckley, Project Manager, licensing Branch No. 3, OL SL'BJECT:
DIFFERENCES IN R.L CLCUD REPORTS OF OCTOBER &
NOVEMBER 12, 1981 Ycu requested on December 22, 1981 that a comparative review of the 0 cotter,1981 Cloud report (earlier) ar.d the November 12,1981 Cloud report (later) be performed. As a result of our review (R. Eosnak, P. T. Kuo and t.1yself) we have identified those differences which are significant or potentially significant areas and require further evaluaticn. A list of these differences is enclosed.
Dr. Cloud's response to Mr. R. Ji. Engleken's letter et December 30,1981 to the Pacific Gas & Electric Co. should be reviewed to determine satisfactory resolution of the areas addressed in the enclosure.
? AL
,( g-y(g Licensing Branch No. 3 Bartholomew C. Iruckley, Project Manager Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc,:
H. Denton E. tase E. Jordan R. Engelken R. Vollr:iar qdd I ('-
c34) l
--W Enclosure I
Differences in R L. Cloud Reports of October and November 12, 1981
'f First comment 'is why and by whom were the words "D0 NOT DUPLICATE" written
+
on Dr. Cloud's letter of October 23, 1981, to Mr. Rocca of PGAE.
I Why, and at whose suggestion, was the heading on page (iv) of the earlier report changed from " APPENDICES" to " LOG. BOOKS."
Section 3.2.3 - Explain w'1y and to whose suggestion was the word " partially" deleted from the later report, i.e., the third paragraph of Section 3.2.3 of the earlier report read as follows: "A sizeable portion of Hosgri required equipment was qualified by Westinghouse.
The flow of seismic design information was partially documented."
Section 3.3.1 - The first sentence of this section of the earlier report read as follows:
"The containment structure was originally investigated for the Double Design Earthquake (DDE) by URS/8LUME." Explain why, and by whom, the word " investigated" was replaced with the word " analyzed."
Section 3.3.1.2 - Explain why, and at whose suggestion, the fc110 wing sentence, which is the first sentence of this section of the earlier report, "Unlike the 'infomal transmittal documentation from PG and E to URS/Blume, the documentation from PG and E was more formal" was changed to read as follows in the later report "Unlike the sparse transmittal documeritation from PG and E to URS/Blume, the documentation from URS/Blume to PG and E was relatively complete."
Section 3.3.1.4 - Explain why, and at whose suggestion, the following paragraph of the earlier report which read, "Because of the recent development due to the discovery of an error in the annulus spectra, no conclusion can be drawn on the structurai adequacy of the annulus.
As this structure supports many equipment and piping systems, further in-depth review is necessary in the overall reverification program."
1/7/82 3DIABL/Diablo Canyon /Buckley
L' was changed to read" "To check the 'use of correct seismic input.s_for the tonta?nment Structure qualification, Two class 1 platforms in Containn.ent Wre chosen at random.
The iiosgri seismic accelerations used to qualify these platforms were fot.nd to be correct (Log 7).
Because of the recent developents in the annulus area, PG and I is presently reevaluating the structural adequacy of the annulus."
i Section 3.3.1.4.2 - Throughout this Section, the word " qualified" or
" qualification" which appeared in the earlier report was changea to read
~" analyzed"_ or " analyses," respectively. Why, a.rd at whose suggestion, were the above word changes made? For extirple, Item 2, (Hydrogen Recombir.er)
.of the earlier report read as follows:
"2.
Hydrogen Recombiner Westinghouse (W) originally qualified tne Hydrogen Recembiner in the annulus region by test.
These were transmitted to FG and E as discussed in Appendix 3.1.2.
Due to the consarvative nature of the test spectrc utilized in the original qualification, it was confirrned that the Hydrogen Combiners qualify to the now enveloped annulus spec'tra."
Now reads as follows in the later report:
"2.
Hydrogen Recombiner Westinghouse (W) originally analyzed the Hydrogen Recorrbiner in the-annulus region by test. These sere transmitted to PG and E as i
discussed in Log 3.1.2.
Due to the conservative nature of the test spectra utilized in the original analyses, it was confirred that the Hydrogen Recombiners qualify to the new enveloped ann.alus soectra."
1/7/82 301ABUDiablo Calyon/Buckley
V, In regard to Item 3 (Containment Purge Valves) of Se:: tion 3.3.14.2, exp?ain why,, and at whos,e suggesticn, (hanges were made tu the following sentences whi::h appeared in the earl (er repbrt as follcws:
"The zorc period accelevaticns used in analysis are more censervative than tha currar.t Hosgri spec',ra.
Considering thst the ccmputatiCns wert. ccrrect, the contai:uent purge valves are qualified to the 7.5 M Hespri earthqual.e."
Such that they now read:
"The accclerations used in analysis were reviewed, and are ircre conservative than the current Kosgri spectra."
Explain why, and at w,use suggestion, Item 4 (Reger.erative Heat Exchangers) of Sectioi. 3.3.1.4.2 of the earlier rcper?. which read:
"4 Regenerative Heat Exchangers bestinghouse (g) perfonaed the : seismic qua?ificatirn of the Regenera-tive Heat Exchat,tprs using the (iosgri spe.tra as fiiscussed in
/poendix 3.1.2.
This qualification will require close scrxiny te prope.-ly evaluate the conclusion of the r: view,"
ws changed to read as follows:
"4 f!egenerativi: Hsat Exchangers Westingnc ase (h) performed the wi5mic analysis of the liegenerative Hoat ex: hangers,"
Ex.mination of t'ne informatier, it.-the W report, "Summaf'y Report, Seisnic Evalu-ation of wastinghouse Eq sipment for Pustulated 7.1) M Hosgri Farthquake," shov:
'll/82 301ABL/Diablo Canyon /Beckley
\\
m
.L-
~
4 that the correct tree field, tap filtcred horizontal response. spectrum was used in the qualliication analysis.
For the vertical direction, the W report states that two-thirds of the 'iltered harizor.tal spectrum was used in the analysis. However, the Hosget 1eport states that two-thirds of the unfiltered horizontal response spectra is to be used as the response spec.tra for the vertical direction (Reference 6, page 4-3).
The vertical spectra input used by Westinghouse is in error.
A safety factor of 1.0 currently exists for the as performed Vestirghuuse analysis.
Use of the unffitered spectrLm in the vertical loput would increase the vertical load by approximately 15% and invalidate the scismic qualification.
(5ee Log 2.?.0)"
Sectio.- 3.2.2.2 - Explain why, and at whose suggestion, the following sentences, wnich appear at the bottua fo the thivd paragraph of this cectior, of the earlier report, wnich read:
"It was founc by comparhg the rirewings used in develeping the sathematical mod.el of the intake Structure with those in the PJ and E file, that the 1
PC and E file has later revisicn drawings. The revisions are based on sp;t checks.
These minur changes will not affect the mathematical model used in the seismic analy, sis."
l were changed to read as fcilows:
l "It was found by comparing a few of the drawings used In. developing the l
nathematical model of the Intake Structure with those in the PG and C file, that the revisions are minor and sh311 not affect the mathematital model
~
J used in tbc seismic analysis."
i Section 3.3.2.3 - Exptain why, and at whose suggestion, the following sentence, w.eich is the only statement in this section of the earlier report, which read 1
1 1/7/82 3DIABL/Diablo Canyon /8UCkley l
i i
"No information was found to be given in equipment suppliers." was changed to read as follows:
"Because the Auxiliary Salt Water Pumps are the only major equipment of the Intake 5tn cture which %ere qualified by FG and E using the site design spectra, no design information to equipment seppliers and qualifiers was required."
t Section 3.3.2.4.1 - Explain why, and at whose suggestion, the following sentences, which appear at the bottom of the paragraph, were changed from "However, the design review of the Intake Structure (Appendix 7) was dated September 1976, and has not reflected the Ho3gri seismic requirement.
Further investigation will be performed to determine the process of building qualfication in the overall reverification program." To read as follows:
"The design review of the Intake Structure for the Hosgri event was performed by JJRS/Blume in April 1579 and verified by PG and E in May 1979 (Log 7).
The design review for the auxiliary saltwater pump compartments was dated September 1976 (tog 7).
It was later qualified for Hosgri as a part of the Intake Structure.
However, no formal documentation has been found to date."
Section 3.3.2.4.2 - Explain why, and at whose suggestion, the following, which begins at the center of the paragraph, "Although the 5/9/77 and 5/16/79 reports by URS/Blume differ in seismic structural responses, there is no need to requalify the auxiliary salt water pumps if the building is truly rigid since the site seismic design spectra were used to qualify these pumps.
Rigidity of the building appears to be a good assumption based upon a cursory examination of the drawings, but this assumption will l
be verified in an engineering sense in the reverification study."
was modified to read as follows:
1/7/82 3DIABL/Olablo Canyun/Buckley
"Although the 5/9/77 and 5/16/79 reports by URS/Blume differ in seismic structural responses, there is no need to requalify the auxiliary salt water pumps if the building is truly rigid.
The rigidity of the building is documented in the URS/Blume report (May 1979, Revised)."
Table 3.3.1 - Explain why Drawing Nos. 463684 and 465131, which appear in Table 3.3.1 of the earlier report, did not appear in Table 3.3.1 of the later report.
Section 3.3.4.1 - Please provide the April 16, 1971, memorandum from PG&E to URS/Blume.
Also, explain why, and at whose suggestion, the following sentence which appeared at the end of the second paragraph of Section 3.3.4.1 of the earlier report, did not appear in the later report?"
" Handling Building (Appendix 1.4).
The computations by computer were done at PG and E and the output was given to URS/Blume as input to compute the seismic response of the buildings (Appendices 1.4 and 2.4.2 - May 9, 1977, pp.'8 and 9)."
Explain why, and at whose suggestion, the fourth and fifth paragraphs in the earlier report which read as follows:
"However, an examination of some telecon records (from 3/9/77 to 3/24/77, Appendix 1.4) kept in URS/Blume's file reveals that there were discussions on discrepancy of weights computed by PGandE in the E-E and N-S directions for the DDE model, and a difference of 35% in the weight at Elevation 140',
computed by PGandE for the DDE model and URS/81ume's computation in March 1977.
An average weight of weights in the E-W and N-S directions and the weight of DDE model at Elevation 140' were finally used in the Hosgri analysis, with no explanations as to how the weight difference was resolved.
A detailed examiation of the above will be performed in the nverall reverification program."
1/7/82 3DIABL/Diablo Canyon /Buckley
was changed to read as follows:
"However, an examination of some telecon records (from 3/9/77 to 3/24/77),
Log 1.4) kept in URS/81ume's file reveals that there was controversy of weights for the DDE model computed by PG and E in the E-W and N-2 directions for all elevations except at E1.140. A difference of 35% in the weight at Elevation 140', computed by PG and E for the DDE model and URS/Blume's computation in March 1977 (Log 1.4) was also discussed.
According to the PG & E responsible engineer, the weight controversy was resolved with URS/Blume.
However, no documentation of resolution has been found to date.
Some building plans used in developing the dynamic model as reported in the URS/Blume report (Oct., 1979) were checked with the as-built building drawings.
Although minor differences exists the dynamic model used in the analysis reasonably represents the structural configurations."
Section 3.3.4.2 - Explain why, and at whose suggestion, the third paragraph of Section 3.3.4.2 fo the earlier report which reads as follows:
"During the qualification of tt.e. *>uxiliary Building it was decided to make a separate more detailed fini.e eiement model of the control room due to its importance.
This model is t,he basis for the control room qualification (Appendix 2.4.2).
Since the final control room spectra are higher than the preliminary spectra, a detailed review of equipment qualification will be performed in the final program to be sure the preliminary spectra were not used."
was changed to read as follows:
"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 qwualification (Log 2.4.2).
Since the final vertical control room spectra are higher than the preliminary 1/7/82 3DIABL/Diablo Canyon /Buckley
4 spectra, a detailed review of equipment qualification will be necessary in the overall re-verifiction program to ensure that the equipment was conservatively qualified."
Section 3.3.5.1.1 - Explain why, and at whose suggestion, the following section which read:
" Containment Polar Crane The Containment Polar Crane is a gantry crane wiht trolleys and consists primarily of welded structural steel members and full moment resisting bolted connection.
Results of a 3-D nonlinear seimsic analysis are presented in the URS/Blume report, "Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Containment Polar Cranes Evaluation for the 7.5 M Hosgri Earthquake,"
dated July 1979 (Appendix 2.5.2).
The drawings and other design information utilized for the modeling fo the cranes are not referenced in the report.
Nor are there any transmittals documenting the transfer fo these from PG and E to URS/Blume. ~At present the only documentation that substantiates the above mentioned report are the calculations (Appendix 2.5.2).
These documents basically reflect that the design review was completed by URS/Blume and that the results concluded are valid.
The drawings included in the Appendix of the July 1979 report were checked against the model in the report (Appendix 2.5.2),
This preliminary review shows that the information was transformed correctly from the drawings to the model."
was changed to read as iollows:
" Containment Polar Crane The Containment Polar Crane is a gantry crane with trolleys and consists primarily of welded structural steel members and full moment resisting 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 20 inelastic analysis of the crane in an unlocked position.
These 1/7/82
, 3DIABL/Diablo Canyon /Buckley 4
final results were transmitted to PG and E by URS/Blume through a letter dated September 6, 1971 (Log 2.5).
Results of the 2-D inelastic seismic analysis of the crane are presented in the 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 design information utilized for the modeling of the crane are not referenced in the report.
Nor are there any transmittals documenting the transfer of these from PG and E to URS/Blume.
These above documents reflect that the design review was completed by URS/Blume and that the results concluded are valid.
Two drawings from PG and E files were checked against both models in the report (Log 2.5.1).
This preliminary review shows that the information was transferred correctly from the drawings to the models.
In addition, the seismic input to the report was_ reviewed and is identical to the current Hosgri spectra."
Explain why and at whose suggestion, the following, which appeared in the earlier report, which read as follows:
" Dome Crane The dome service crane is a maintenance crane located on top of the polar crane.
PG and E was in the process of designing modification to comply with the 7.5 M Hosgri Evaluation.
As of May 5, 1981, PG and E halted this process and is presently considering retaining a consultant to evaluate the consequences of assumed failure. This is documented in the letter dated May 5, 1981 given in Appendix 1.5.
The documentation of seismic qualifi-cation of this crane for the Hosgri requirement was not found in the current effort.
It will be verified in the overall reverification program."
was changed to read as follows:
" Dome Service Crane The dome service crane is a maintenance crane located on top of the polar crane inside centainment.
Information available to date shows that the 1/7/82 301ABL/Diablo Canyon /Buckley
(
.6 c'
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 the dome service crane from movements of the polar crane during a seismic event (PG and E Memorandum, Log 7). The crane has been qualified for this modified design for al,1 modes of operation (Log 7).
The displacement time histories used in the qualification has been verified as being applicable."
Section 3.3.5.3.3 Explain why, and at whose suggestion, the following two sentences of this Section of the earlier report which read as follows:
"The qualification of Turbine Building crane was jointly performed by PG and E and URS/Blume.
Based upon design information presented in 3.3.5.3.2 above, URS/Blume modified the crane design to provide tiedown of the crane trolley to the bridge girdar and lateral seismic restraint to distribute the lateral seismic loads to both horizontal crane support girders (described in the:Hosgri report given fr. 3.3.5.3.2 above)."
was changed to read as follows:
"PG and E qualified the Turbine Building crane with a report on the seismic analysis and structural evaluation by URS/Blume.
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 restraint to distribute the lateral seismic loads to both horizontal crane support girders (described in the Hosgri report given in 3.3.5.3.2 above).
Section 3.3.5.4.1 Explain why, and at whose suggestion, the last sentence of this.Section of the earlier report which read as follows:
"Some spot checks need to be made to check the accuracy of design information transmitted" 1/7/82 3DIABL/Diablo Canyon /Buckley
was changed to read "Some checks need to be made in the overall reverification program to check the applicability of the design information transmitted" Section 3.3.7.2 Explain why, and at whose suggestion, the first sentence of Section 3.3.7.2 which read as follows:
"A preliminary review was performed on seismic design information trans-ferred across interfaces between PG and E and valve qualifiers" was changed to read as follows:
"A preliminary review was performed on seismic design information for valves transferred across interfaces between PG and E and testing organizations" Section 3.3.7.2.4 In what manner was information obtained that justifies the addition of the following sentence which appears in the later report but which did not appear in the earlier report; "Also qualification analysis of several valves was included in a Westinghouse Report."
Section 3.3.7.3 Explain why, and at whose suggestion, the following which appeared in Section 3.3.7.3 of earlier report and read as follows:
"An independent engineering review of the seismic qualification was performed for the Safety Related HVAC equipment (References 7 and 8) by EDS Nuclear, Inc.
This EDS' review concluded that the majority of the HVAC equipment is seismically qualified to the Hosgri requirement, and that with minfor modifications, the remainder will also be.
1/7/82 3DIABL/Diablo Canyon /Buckley
As part of this interface review, the seismic accelerations that were used as input was checked for correctness.
Out of 5 inputs checked, one of them was incorrect.
The field work is given in Appendix 3.3.1.
Since the qualification accelerations are larger-than the Hosgri accelerations, these particular errors were not of consequences."
was replaced with~the following:
"PG and E qualified the sixteen groups of cold-shut down required HVAC
~
equipment with the analysis report prepared 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, Auxiliary, and Containment.
The qualifica-tion 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 567, 68, and 69 were found to have used incorrect and unconservative 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 shutter damper has a sufficient factor of safety and is not affected by this error.
The safety factors in the calculations for supply fans 567, 68, and 69 are not clearly 1/7/82 3DIABL/Diablo Canyon /Buckley
determined.
Therefore, the significance of the input error has yet to be established."
Section 3.3.7.4 Explain why, and at whose suggestion, the following sections (3.3.7.4, 3.3.7.4.1, 3.3.7.4.2, 3.3.7.4.3, 3.3.7.4.4 and 3.3.7.4.4 and 3.3.7.4.5) which appear in the earlier report and read as follows:
"3.3.7.4 Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Duct 3.3.7.4.1 The majority of HVAC ducts required for cold shutdown has been~ qualified by PG and E, with the remainder of the engineering being done by EDS Nuclear.
PG and E architects, HVAC engineers, and civil engineers all collaborated on the duct design.
Information flow between these groups is documented in Appendix 3.3.2.1.
3.3.7.4.2 The HVAC information in Appendix 3.3.2 was supplied by the responsible PG and E engineer.
Containment duct computations could be easily be found. This will be reviewed at a later date.
3.3.7.4.3 A random sampling of the duct qualification calculations was checked for seismic input (Appendix 3.3.2).
Six of the twenty seven HVAC details listed in Appendix 3.2.2.2 were chosen at random.
In contrast to the random sampling shown above, all seismic inputs to the Fireproof Ducts were checked against current Hosgri Spectra (Appendix 3.3.2).
3.3.7.4.4 Five HVAC Details have Hosgri accelerations correctly used and one (Detail 4, Drawing 504566) has Hosgri accelerations greater than the value in the calculations.
All spectra for the Fireproofed Ducts were found to be correctly used (Appendix 3.3.2.3)."
1/7/82 3DIABL/Diablo Canyon /Buckley
3.3.7.4.5 One HVAC Detail (Detail 4, Drawing 504566) will be analyzed at a later.date."
Were changed to read as follows:
"3.3.7.4 HVAC Ducting The HVAC ducts required for cold shutdown have been qualified by PG and E.
Architects, HVAC and civil engineers of PG and E 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 building (Intake, Turbine, Containment, and Auxiliary) were checked for required cold 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 reviewed.
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 Switchgear Room HV System have not been located as of October 28, 1981.
This is the only HVAC System required for cold shutdown in the Turbine Building. The reverifi-cation program will address this area further. Additionally one of three shop modified duct supports in the Turbine Building was checked for seismic input.
The calculations were found to have used correct accelerations.
1/7/82 3DIABL/Diablo Canyon /Buckley
The HVAC System servicing theAuxiliary Salt Water Pump Rooms in the Intake Structure is required for cold shutdown (Table 9-1, Reference 6).
Class I du~cting to 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.
PG and E calculations dated November 2, 1981 used correct accelerations (Log 3.3.2.3).
Additionally, the seismic input to the fireproof-ducting was reviewed and found to be correctly applied in all cases."
.Section 3.3.7.5.2 Explain why, and at whose suggestion, this section which in the earlier report read as follows:
"No documentation has been found in the current work regarding the transmittal of information from PG and E to Westinghouse."
Was changed to read:
" Documentation of one transmittal of seismic information from PG and E to Westinghouse has been found to date (PG and E Project Letter 1962).
How-ever, this transmittal contains only the Newmark earthquake acceleration time histories for the Containment interior at certain elevations."
Section 3.3.7.5.3 Explain why, and at whose suggestion, this Section which in the earlier report read as follows:
"The only evidence of transmittals from Westinghouse to PG and E encountered to date is the existence in the PG and E files of the Westinghouse report
" Summary Report on Seismic Evaluation for Postulated 7.5 M Hosgri" (Reference 9)."
1/7/82 3DIABL/Diablo Canyon /Buckley
d was changed to read:
"Results of the re-evaluation for Hosgri requirements of Westinghouse supplied equipment were submitted to PG and E in the Westinghouse report
" Summary Report on Seismic Evaluation for Postulated 7.5 M Hosgri" (Reference 9).
One transmittal from Westinghouse to PG and E 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 asses the affect of a fifty percent increase in the Hosgri vertical ground spectra (Log 3.4)."
Section 3.3.7.5.5 Explain why, and to whose suggestion, Section 3.3.7.5.5 of the earlier report which read as follows:
"The only transmittals from Wyle Labs to PG and E found thus far are Wyle Labs test reports and test procedures.
Two of these that were examined are W'le Labs Test Procedure No. 3642 and. Test Report No. 58255 y
(Reference 10)."
was changed to read "Two documents that W'le Labs transmitted to PG and E have been found.
y 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 PG and E are Wyle. test reports anJ test procedures.
Two of these that were given cursory review are Wyle Labs Test Procedure No. 3642 and Test Report No. 58255 (Reference 10)."
1/7/82 3DIABL/Diablo Canyon /Buckley
,-w-
Section 3.3.7.5.6 Explain why, and at whose suggestion, Section 3.3.7.5.6 of the earlier report which read as follows:
"No documentation has been fournd to date regarding requalification of electrical equipment or instrumentation by analysis, by either PG and E or other Parties."
was changed to read as follows:
"Requalification of electrical equipment and instrumentation (other than Westinghouse NSSS equipment) by analysis was done in-house at PG and E."
Section 3.3.7.5.7-Explain why, and at whose suggestion, the last sentence of the last paragraph of Section 3.3.7.5.7 of the earlier report which reas as follows:
"The positive results of this comparison were communicated to PG and E by Westinghouse in Westinghouse Project Letter PGE-4231, Revision 1, dated
~
September 5, 1980 sent to D. V. Kelly (Reference 12)."
was changed to read as follows:
" Westinghouse also assessed the effect of a 50% increase in the vertical Hosgri spectra on Westinghouse supplied equipment.
Results of this evaluation were transmitted to PG and E in Westinghouse Project Letter PGE-4231, Revision 1, dated 9/5/80 (Log 3.4)."
Please provide a copy of reference 12 above.
1 Section 3.3.7.5.8 Explain why, and at whose suggestion, the last paragraph of Section 3.3.7.5.8 of the earlier report which read as follows:
"PG and E internal memorandum indicated that General. Electric was involved in Wyle Labs requalification tests of the 4.16 KV Vital Switchgear 1/7/82 3DIABL/Diablo Canyon /Buckley
4 (Appendix 3.4).
Further investigation will be required to determine General Electric's role on requalification.
If necessary, information transmittals across that interface will be examined."
was changed to read as follows:
"PG and E internal memorandum indicates that General Electric was ir.volved in Wyle Labs requalification tests of the 4.16kV Vital Switchgear and provide input to the test procedures.
Test results are included in Wyle Labs Test Report No. 58255-1, dated 8/22/78."
Section 3.3.7.6 Explain why, and at whose suggestion, this Section~which consisted of three subsections (3.3.7.6.1, 3.3.7.6.2, and 3.3.7.6.3) which appeared in the earlier report as follows:
"Section 3.3.7.6.1 The supports for the Electrical Raceways are found indiscriminately throughout the main buildings.
With in excess of six hundred unique types of support details.
The PG and E Civil Engineer responsible for electrical Raceways provided the qualification documentation.
Each support detail is qualified to the Hosgri by simplified computation.
Each Detail.is assumed to span a maximum of eight feet.
Section 3.3.7.6.2 With such a large volume of material, a random sampling approach was employed. ~The Hosgri seismic accelerations were checked for ten support details (Appendix 3.4.2.3).
In addition the program employed in September 1981 by PG and E to requalify the raceways in the Annulus section of Containment was checked.
The annulus region was closely examined for the following three reasons:
1/7/82 3DIABL/Diablo Canyon /Buckley
ho transmittals of Annulus drawings from PG and E to URS/Blume were located and URS/Blume does not, at present, have the drawings.
Prelimi-nary _ spectra differing from the 5/9/77 spectra was issued for Containment.
Different spectra (7/21/77) superceding the 5/9/77 Hosgri Report was. issued (Appendix 2.1.2).
Seven of the ten calculations checked (586, S93, S166, S251, 5370, S415, S432) did not use correct seismic accelerations for 4% damping.
The bolted cable trays can take advantage of 7% damping for the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (Regulatory Guide 161, Appendix 3.4.2.3).
The Hosgri spectra for most locations lists only 2%, 3%, and 4% daming.
Possibly the incorrect accelerations resulted from interpolations of the 4% Hosgri spectra.
Detail S415 used Hosgri spectra issued before May 9, 1977.
PG and E's Electrical Raceway Seismic Requalification Program for Unit 1 (Appendices 3.4.2.2, Item 1) was also checked Appendix 3.4.2.3, Item 2) using the same Raceway Details as above.
Four of the ten calculations examined were incorrectly noted on the check list (Appendix 3.4.2.2, Item 1).
Section 3.3.7.6.3 In summary, two of the ten Raceway Details (S414, S432) were stressed above the allowable-factor of safety (Appendix 3.4.2.3, Item 3). Two additional Raceway Detail (593, 5147) show no requalification after the Hosgri spectra were issued on May 9, 1977."
was changed to read as follows:
1/7/82 3DIABL/Diablo Canyon /Buckley
~
"Section 3.3.7.6 Electrical Raceways The supports for the Electrical Raceways are found throughout the main buildings.
Originally it was understood that about 600. individual unistrui support designs were developed.
In practice however, only about 400 were actually used and re-evaluated for the Hosgri earthquake.
The PG and E civil engineer responsible for electrical Raceways provided the qualifica-tion documentation.
Each support detail is qualified to Hosgri by a quasi-static seismic analysis. This analysis is keyed to the PG and E 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 PG and E to requalify the raceways in the Annulus section of Containment was checked.
The Annulus region was closely examined for the following three reasons:
No transmittals of Annulus drawings from PG and E to URS/Blume were located and URS/Blume does not, at present, have the drawings.
Pre-liminary spectra differing from the 5/9/77 spectra were issued for Containment.
New spectra (7/21/77) superseding the 5/9/11 Hosgri Report were issued (Log 2.1.2).
The quasi-static qualification was based upon application of the 4%
floor response spectra. The plan was to qualify all conduit supports to these floor spectra, assuming that each conduit was filled with cable amounting to no more than 40% of the cross sectional area.
On the average however, they were filled to less than 40%.
The qualification plant provided for using 7% damping if satisfactory results were not obtained in the original analysis.
This is based upon use of R.G. 1.61 damping for bolted structures.
Of the ten l
l 1/7/82 3DIABL/Diablo Canyon /Buckley r
i
calculations that were reviewed one was explicitly based upon acceleration associated with 7% damping.
Six of the sample of 10 used acceleration values that did not correspond with the Hosgri floor spectra for the l'ocation 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.
No design spectra corresponding to 7% damping were routinely issued.
Acceleration values for this damping were obtained by taking 70% of the 4% damping values.
As a result of the use of inapplicable spectra in the first sample, en additional random sample of ten support details was checked.
It was found that five of the sample of ten used acceleration values 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 correction spectral values were used.
Since the quasi-static calcula-tion method employed is quite conservative, the overstress may be reduced to within allowable stress if a refined method is used for design.
Section 4.0 Explain why, and to whose suggestion, the last paragraph under the heading of Intake Structure which appeared as follows in the earlier report was deleted from the later report.
I lJ 1/7/82 3DIABL/Diablo Canyon /Buckley l
,e m
'"The qualification ~of auxiliary salt water pumps was based upon the ground
-level motion, which considers the building to be rigid.
Due to the low elevation of pumps within the building itself, this is considered a sound assumption.
Nevertheless, it will be checked in the reverification effort."
Explain why, and to whose suggestion, the first sentence.under the heading Turbine Building which read as follows in the earlier report:
"There was no design interface between PG and G and URS/Blume in the initial aspect of the design and qualification because URS/Blume had design respon-sibility for the building. Although URS/Blume designed the building, the drawings were prepared by PG and E Design Drafting."
was changed to read:
"There was no design interface between PG and E and URS/Blume in the initial aspect of the design and qualification because URS/Blume had complete design responsibility for the building."
Explain why, and to whose suggestion, the last paragraph under the heading Auxiliary / Fuel Handling Building of the earlier report, which reads as follows was deleted from the later report.
"In addition, a separate refined finite element analysis was used for the control room.
Spectra from this refined analysis which were higher than the preliminary spectra were used for qualification (mainly by Westinghouse)
~ of control room equipment."
1/7/82 3DIABL/Diablo Canyon /Buckley
6 59 601%
f UNITED STATES
= = *
-,'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y ?,,,,
r t
W ASHING TON. O. C. 20555 g s. h[f E
N 3..
Mci' MEMORANDUM FOR: Frank Miraglia, Chief Licensing Branch 3, Division of Licensing, NRR FROM:
K. S. Herring, Systematic Evaluation Program Branch, Division of Licensing, NRR
SUBJECT:
TRIP-REPORT REVIEW 0F URS/BLUME HOSGRI ANALYSES OF THE DIABLO CANYON AUXILIARY BUILDING INTAKE STRUCTURE, CONTAINMENT POLAR CRANE, AND CONTAINMENT ANNULUS Introduction identified concerns regarding-PG&E's apparent failure to properly reflect the results and findings of final reports it received from URS/Blume in the docketed FSAR (Hosgri Report) and its piping, equipment, and component evaluations for the Diablo Canyon Auxiliary Building and Intake Structure. Enclosure 1 also identified a concern over the depth of the PG&E proposed Seismic Reverification Program in the structural area with regard to the analyses performed by URS/Blume for PG&E. To gain further insights into the analyses performed by URS/Blume and the adequacy of the related information contained in the docketed Hosgri Report, on January 25 and 26, 1982, I conducted a review of the URS/Blume calculation books for the Hosgri analyses of the Diablo Canyon Auxiliary Building, Intake Structure', Containment Polar Crane, and Containment Annulus. The results of this review are sunmarized below.
Review Results Auxiliary Building-1) 1977 Weight Discrepancy - The Cloud verification effort identified that a significant weight discrepancy of 35% between original blume and later PG&E analyses existed at elevation 140'.
The Blume calculation book indicated that discrepancies of about
+16%, +9.6%, and -34% also existed at elevations 163', 115',
and 100', respectively. The calculation book indicated that the original Blume weights were used in the analyses but gave no basis for this.
It appears that the use of these initial Blume weights in the Blume structural analyses was appropriate and not adequately documented in the initial calculations.
M[
Ih
/Y,
URS/Blume personnel stated that they had recently received a written explanation from PG&E describing that the weight discrepancy was due to an erroneous itarch 1977 run of the SHERWAL computer program and the lack of consideration of certain weights by the SHERWAL program. When a correct SHERWAL run was made, and the appropriate neglected weights were added to the SHERWAL weights, the weights compare well with those used by Blume in its Auxiliary Building analyses (see Enclosure 2).
This was confirmed by PG&E personnel who further indicated that SHERWAL computed weights are used in conjunction with acceleration profiles from Blume's structural analyscs to perform structural evaluations of walls. Although there are differences between the masses used in the SHERWAL analysis, and those actually present, PG&E personnel contended that the SHERWAL analysis results would not be significantly affected.
2)
Elevation 100' Soil Spring Omission - Differences in spectra between the Hosgri Report N-S floor spectra for the Auxiliary Building and the final Blume report on the Auxiliary Building were identified by Cloud, and afterward found by the HRC to be attributed to an error in the incorporation of the soil spring at elevation 100' of the building model in the preliminary Blume analyses on which the FSAR (Hosgri Report) is based.
This was corrected and included in the analysis on which the final report was based.
An October, 1978 transmittal from Blume to PG&E regarding a Blume design review reported this soil spring error but concluded that when the spring is included in the analysis, "...the result leads to higher estimates of responses and is thus conservative." Recent information indicates that this statement is not true with regard to certain of the N-S floor response spectra for the Auxiliary Building.
The Blume calculation book contains results of an evaluation conducted between 1/78 and 5/78 to determine the effects of neglecting the soil spring since this was erroneously omitted in earlier analyses. The study concluded that the responses ir the N-S direction were indeed affected by the presence of the soil spring. Comparisons of floor spectra with and without inclusion of the soil spring were presented which indicated certain areas of the floor. spectra were greater when the soil spring was included, especially for torsional response, and certain areas were lower. The calculation ook indicated with no stated basis that this analysis was not used. The person at Blume who originated the 10/78 transmittal stated that (1) he was not aware of the 1/78-5/78 study and p
b
3 (2) that although his 10/78 conclusions addressed " responses",
he was referring only to building forces and peak structural responses not floor response spectra. It appears that this
~~
error was caused by (1) inadequate personnel interfaces within Blume, and (2) lack of sufficient consideration, by Blume personnel, of PG&E use of floor spectra in their piping and equipmenti evaluations.
Intake Structure:
Use of Inappropriate Spectra for PG&E Evaluations - All preliminary and the final Blume reports regarding the Intake Structure indicated that the response spectra for the design of equipment at the roof level were similar to the ground spectra for most areas of the roof, ho spectra were supplied in these reports and PG&E has used the ground spectra for its evaluations of all areas of the Intake Structure, including the roof.
Spectra at several points at the roof were contained in the Blume calculation book for this structure. One of these points was at the roof area above the Auxiliary Saltwater Pumps. These spectra indicated significant spectral peaks in the 20-25 Hz range which are not present in the ground spectra. Blume personnel indicated that PG&E had only recently requested these spectra and that Blume was now in the process of peak broadening them for transmittal to PG&E. The PG&E review of the preliminary and final Blume reports on the Intake Structure was not sufficient to detect this issue earlier.
Containment Polar Crane:
1)
Polar Crane Analyses - The docketed FSAR (Hosgri Report) concerning the structural analyses and integrity of the Containment Polar Crane contains the results of the URS/Blume 2-D nonlinear and 3-D linear elastic analyses of the polar crane. Results of these analyres (as relied upon by the NRC in Supplement 9 to its SER) indicated that the interaction ratios for stresses in the polar crane members are all less than 1.0; therefore, no overstresses are predicted. A later 3-D nonlinear analysis of this crane was performed by URS/Blume and the results provided to _PG&E by Blume in a report dated July,1979. This latter analysis indicated the potential for interaction ratios as high as 1.3 in the crane support columns, which is an overstress. The Blume report concluded that this was acceptable since it was localized and there was only one peak load excursion.
j
-D e.
Blume calculations considered the time phasing of loads and used actual average material properties to evaluate these members in the absence of the normal AISC code margins. Also, load time histories for these members contained in the Blume calculation book indicated that while there was only one peak load excursion, the potential existed for several in the range of 80-90% of the peak. This analysis was disregarded and not docketed by PG&E regarding the structural integrity analyses.
PG&E personnel' indicated that when they received the July 1979 Blume report, a comprehensive review of the report was not conducted since the Blume conclusion that no modifications to the crane were required was not changed from previous reports.
The PG&E review of the July 1979 Blume report was not sufficient to conclude that this report demonstrated that the analyses results presented in the FSAR were significantly less conservative than those contained therein and, therefore, may warrant further evaluation.
'2)
Dome Service Crane - The dome service crane analyses being performed by PG8E incorporate undocketed 3-D nonlinear Polar-Crane analyses results which have not been reviewed by the NRC (see above discussion of the Polar Crane Analyses).
Containment Annulus Structure:
1)
Reanalyses Models of the Annulus - The reanalyses of the Annulus that has been performed by Blume incorporate the original analysis model, with mass and stiffnesses revised to reflect the "as-built" configuration.
2)
Annulus Spectra for Use in PG&E Piping and Equipment Evaluations -
Blume personnel indicated to PG&E that piping and equipment should be evaluated using spectra corresponding to the " frame" on which it is supported, even when they are located near the center line between connected frames with different responses.
This interconnection is not modeled in the Blums analyses.
Therefore, this approach is based on consistent application of modeling assumptions.
The adequacy of this model is under detailed NRC review, using an independent NRC contractor's analysis of.the Annulus structure.
i i
l l
l I
-S-Conclusien.
Based upon the results of my review, as summarized abcve and ir, Enclosure 1, it is concluded that the info mation contained in the FSAP. (Hosgri Repnrt), on which the HRC Safety Evaluation Peports ar.d its suppler,erits are based, is not accurate concerniWg the Auxiliary Building, Intake Structure, and Containment Polar Crane.
Building and Intake Structure is based upon preliminary Blume reports and certain information was changed in the final Blume reports, The infomation cor.cerning the Containment Polar Crane was supercaded by later analysis results.)
It appears that this has been caused primarily by a lack of thoroughness in technical review by FG&E of final UR$/Blume reports and the associated analyses. Another contribator to the prcblem in the case of the. Auxiliary Building appears to be that 1 personnel interfaces existed within Blume, and 2) Blume per)sonnel focused inadequate censiderations primarily on structure forces and peak responses, without sufficient consideration of PG&E use of floor spectra in their piping
.and equipment evaluations.
In addition, a secondary contributer to the overall problems is Blume's failure to clearly indicate substantativo changes between preliminary and final reports.
Considering the implications of this review of the UR$/Blume analyses, it should be determined to what extent similar problems may exist throughout the analyses and evaluations presented in the FSAR (Hosgri Repnrt).
implications of this problem can then be assessed.
The l
Kenneth S. Herring Systematic Evaluation Program Branch Divisien of Licensing cc: See r. ext page.
6 1
+
DIABLO CANYON Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush Vice President - General Counsel Pacific. Gas & Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 cc: Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq.
Pacific Gas & Electric Company P.D. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
California Public LRilities Commission 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, California 94102 Mr. Frederick Eissler, President Scenic Shoreline Freserva~ ion Conference, Inc.
t 4623 Fore Mesa Drive Santa Darbara, California 93105 Ms. Eli,zabeth Apfelberg 1415 Cozadero San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Mr. Gordon A. Silver Ms. Sandra A. Silver i
1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 harry M. Willis, Esq.
[
5eymoer & Willis 601 California Street, suite 2100 San Francisco, California 94108 i-Mr. Richard Hubbard 1
MHB Technical Associates Suite K 1723 Hamil ton Avenue 2
San Jose, California 95125 Mr. John Marrs, Managing Editor San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune 1321 Johnson Avenue P. O. Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406
~.
a Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush.
cc: Resident Inspector /Diablo Canyon NPS c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission P. O. Box 369 Avila'Besch,' Califerhi+ 93424 Ms. Raye Fleming 1920 Mattie Road Shell Beach, California 93440 Joel Reynolds, Esq.
Jchn R. Phillips. Isq.
Center for Law in the Public. Interest 10951 West Pico Boulevard e
Third Floor los Angeles, Califorr.is 90064 Paul C. Vilentine, Esq.'
~
321 Lytten Avenue Palo Alto, California 94302 Mr. Byron 5. Georgicy Legal Affairs Secretary Governor's Of fice State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Hill., Christopher A Phillips, P.C.
1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20035 Mr.' Richard I. Blankehburg, Co-Publisher 1
Mr. Wayne A. Soroyan, News Reporter South County Publishing Co,pdny P. O. Box 46G Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Mr. ijames 0. Schuyl er
~
Vice President - Nuclear Generation Department Pacific Gas & Electric Comoany P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Bruce Norton, Esq.
Suite 202 3216 North 3rd Street Pnoenix, Arizona 85312 n
a r.c.
-c.,
n
, ~,-
Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush.
Mr. W. C. Gangloff Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvanta 15230 -
David F. Fleischaker, Esq.
P. O. Box 1176 Oklahoma City, Cklahcma 73101 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 4
P se p
~
O p
~
Y 4
~
,. w e
[ 'I # / '
'- ' /.' /
b i
!g g
UNITED ST.tTKS NUCLCAR RECiULA10RY COMMIST,10N
( g k(!. a',I necion v 14601' AmeA LAM. BunJ 230 J
CI' :
WAuiUV CRE*,'. CAL'*nassia %69F January 3,5, 1982 K Ma*ANCUM r0R:
R. H. Engelken, Regional Adnin;stra'.or TUF.U :
J. L. Grews, Chief, Olvision.of lesident, Reactor froject.5, and Ehgineering Inspection FRQK:
P.. U. Morrin, Reae. tor inspector, Regien V K. $. Enring. Systematic Eycluation Program Branth, Division c1 Licensiny. NR<
J. R. Fai r, Reactor Engineering Branch, IE SL'BJECT :
PRCLiMINARY ASSESSMENT Of R. L. p.0tfD ^ND FG&E PEVE*rtiFICAT10N ?R03 RAM
\\
Based e,n recen: inspectio.1 elforts of the fl. L. Cloud /PG&E Reverification FmS* tam, it appeart, in our epinion, th3t there cre seriotjs concerns reouiring prompt WRC Management /Staf f eva.lur. tion acd directioc. Without staff evaluation of the proposal submitted by PG&r. on Det.etber 4,1931, 'and direction and ciarifii atior to PfihE/ Cloud as to what is acceptable or not acceptable, Cloud and PG&E will continue or. their p:'esent "Frogrem" :with it.s various potintial prcblems; 5.hile the iispecticr, 5taff will be delayett in it; affort by a lack rof suf ficient defir.ition as to what constitutas a program acceptable te NRC.
Pessrs. K. Merring and J. iFoir of Headquarters have werhed during the period of.lantary 13-15, 1983, to develcp the folloveing potential problem witt.
ongoing work by R. L. Clqud Associates.
are not heassgrily being Puriued by Clo_u_Se3mic Reverification P,rnera Issues Idertified by Clo ad!s Preliminary 1.
d's Curgfit Work. (e.g'.T.
p
- WestinghouFe adequacy to cor ectly use Blute's Seismir. Response (incorrett use of Tau Filtereo Yertical Spectra in at least two instances).
- Adequacy of Control Ro m eq.dpment qualification based culy on a review cf document trahsmittai dates, not the docunents themselves.
E..
fhe Scone of the Work Being tone _in Accordance with ti'e December 4,1981 Precosed Saismic.Reverifi_caticn Prcgram Appears to be Less than that
.Heguired by the NRC's Ordyr of 'lovecer 19_, Iw81]em.
- Tn=re is ne provision in Clou-"s wcrk tc verify F3&E's structural element evaluations given input -from Blume.
- Clctd has excluded Wastingbot.se and General Electric frc.n further ewhination "...beLause their work was preforined in support of the s31e End licensing of the NSSS and associated products.
t
, g'p[d '? A Ob[ k A?1 se d( L/ d'
]
{
(
t P.. H. Engelken January 15, 1982 3.
The Criteria for identification, Significance Decennination, Reporting 7dev$ations" andTollcw-up of Errors and Omissions Discoverea have not
~
~
Leen _ Established oE~ defined [(e.9. )_
j
- The auxiliary building seismic responses documented in the Hosgri report were not up-dated upon the receipt of the final Blume report to PG&E in October 1979, The hRC was not infenned when PG&E tecame aw6re of 'this deficiency in November l'981.
e
- The inteke structure seismic responses documented in the Hosgri report appear to have similar problems which have oct been reported prhviously to th9 NRC although PG&E and Clo9d personrel are evaluating the problem.
- Further deficiencies in this area are discussed in Iten 5, below.
4.
The Level of Reverification and Additional Samplin? Appear inadeouate (e.o.)
- The independent reverification of the auxiliary building structure is bting done by one individual with hand calculations of the building masses and stiffnesses. No independent computer run or examination of Blume's work is expscted unless the masses or stiffness developed by PGLE are foynd to be greater than 10 to 15 percent in error.per the December 4, 1981 PG&E submittal. Review indicates a problem in this area in the Blume QA/QC program.
- The se.ismic model for a fan cooler was found by Cloud to be in error. The error turned out to be conservative (in this case),
consequently, no additional sampling appears to be scheduled for such cases.
The Acce 5.
~Mr'am _ptance Criteria and Methodolooy of the Reverification P
are not Adequately Defined. (e.g. ).
i
- The methodology used for evaluation of structures (auxiliary building),
piping and equipment (in most cases) is the same as that reportedly used by PC&E cr its contracters. State of the art improvements are generally n9t being used.
- Cr. Jencary 4,1982, Cloud personnel documented " Criteria and Methodology for Independent Calculations" and " Criteria for Indepen-t uent Evaluation" by an internal memo. This material has not been inco,*porated into the December 4,1981 program plan. Both sets of criteria do not define in much detail the criteria for reanalysis, the Ecceptance and rejection criteria, and the criteria to be used for consicering sample expansion.
Discussions with Cloud's employees indicated that confusion and a lack of defined goals exist in thvie areas.
/
p
R. H. Engelken January 15, 1982 These problems point out the need to promptly:
Accept or Reject Cloud Determine the Adequacy of the Reverification Program Develop Necessary Guidance (Scope, Criteria, Reporting, Methodoloiv, etc.)
A convenient form to resolve these concerns is a meeting with PG&E and their contractors such as that previously scheduled for January 19,1981, and subsequently postponed.
We propose that a meeting of appropriate NRC Staff be held as soon as possible to discuss further the concerns described above, to be followed up by a meeting with the licensee as previously planned.
P.
. Morrill Reactor Inspector, Region V ff
~
-/
-}'%.u.
- 7..,%
W; L L L "{
K. S. Herring
~~N Systematic Evaluation Program Branch Division of Licensing, NRR J. R. Fair Reactor Engineering Branch, IE
.[j i V
5
+
i v
i'
' ' ' c2 AUXILIARY BUILDING WEIGHT RECONCILIATION
d s
e Commentarv E
I A computer program DYBOX was run by PG&E in December 1970 to calculate the building properties.
The results of this program were given to URS/Blume for'use in the development of the building dynamic model.
Another computer program SHERWAL was developed by PG&E and run in March 1977 to calculate the stresses and reinf orcement of the building shear-valls.
A copy of the output of this run was given to URS/Blume.
Since SHERWAL also computes the building properties, URS/Blume compared the building weights calculated by SHERWAL versus'the ones they had used in the dynamic model and reported a discrepancy to PG&E.
It was found that the SHERWAL run performed in March 1977 was improperly distributing wall weights.
The error was corrected and SHERNAL was run.again in July 1977.
This matter was discussed with URS/Blume at that time but the out-put of the July 1977 run was not transmitted in 1977 to URS/Blume. There-fore the discrepancy reported remains an open item in their files.
Copies of the July 1977 SHERWAL output were recently transmitted to URS/Blume.
A new weight reconciliation has been performed and it was found that when the weights ccmputed by SHERWAL are adjusted as shown on Table '1, they ccmpare with those used in the URS/Blume model within 5%. except at Elevation 115 where it compares within 9.7%
OSCAR A. ROCRA i
1 TABLE 3 AUXILIARY BUILDING - WEICHT RECONCILIATION URS/Blume SHERWAL ass Ele'ation Model July 1977 Remarks 4
kips kips 6
188 2,637.
O THB roof weight
% Difference = 0 3
363 11,595 13,611 2
140 58,079 62,897*
- Includes THE roof weight in the total at this level
(.-) 2,637 58,079 60,260
% Difference = 4%
3 115 64,292 55,733
(+)1,500 Weight of main steam and feed-water pipes and restraints not considered by the SHERWAL pro-gram.
(+)
337 4 Boric acid tanks-ls
(+)
515 1/2 of concrete vaults outside building.
64,292 58,085
% Difference = 9.7%
t 4
100 58,892 36,145
(+)6,630 Weight of spent fuel pool water not censidered by SHERWAL l
i
+ 9,212 Weight of slab resting on rock at El. 100 not considered by SHERWAL
+ 1,S62 Live load on slab on grade ne:
considered by SHERWAL
+
515 1/2 weight of 7 concrete vaults outside building
+ 1,735 1/2 weight of liquid hold-up tanks i
l 58,892 55,829
% Difference =5%
.;