ML20209B841
Text
.*
~
,/.
. *. ~
D L[p Cf Ggj'%
~
UNITED STATES
" [%,,, gi1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g,gt c M,7 f
g cg WASMNGTON, D. C. 20555
[
%Y$
%~..,
f
[-f!
'JAN 10 se P4 Docket No.:
50-275 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Franz P. Schauer, Chief Structural Engineering Branch D v,ision of Engineering THRU:
.. Kuo, Section B Leader Structural Engineering Branch Division of Engineering FROM:
Harold E. Polk Structural Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT FOR PG&E, TES MEETING,'DECEMifETCT,Q1982 FOR DIABLO CANYON A meeting with the Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) manager of Teledyne EngineerTng Services-(TES) was requested by PGtE~to-discuss the proposed modifications to the containment annulus structure.
A list of the attendees is enclosed. The basis for the proposed mcdifications was the concerns raised by the Brookhaven National Laboratory (Bf;L) report, NUREG/CR-2834 and by TES in EDI 3006 and 3007.
These concerns were again presented to PG&E in a meeting on November 12, 1982 by TES and reported in my trip repcet dated November 30, 1982.
The concerns as listed by TES are:
(1) The problem of computing frame stiffness by consolidation of radial beams, (EDI 3006).
(2) The effect of the tangential beams, which do not appear to have been represented, on the local amplified response spectra,(EDI3007).
(3) The 'DVP's concern with the validity of the horizontal spectra.
The first item addresses the issue of the radial beams in the annulus structure and the model used to represent them in the 1981/1982 URS/BLUME analysis.
For this model the stiffnesses of all of the racial beams at a given floor and in a given sector were summed in order to obtain an equivalent stiffness for the " represent &tive" beam used in the ih y ane e
i 1f
r f1 Franz Schauer,
model.
The representative beam used in the model spans from the exterior column to the crane wall while some of the actual radial beams are supported on structure other than the crane wall and frame into the tangential bems in areas not supported by a column.
PG&E proposed a modification to the annulus steel structure to address the concern.
The proposed modifications would consist of supporting the containment wall end of the radial beams with columns that would extend from the floor at elevation 106 feet to the base slab at elevation 91 feet. The inner end of the radial beam would be either extended to the crane wall and frame into a support similar to the other radial beams or supported on a column.
There are 10 radial beams that require.the above outlined modifications.
Of these 10 beams only 3 would require columns at the crane wall.
The other 7 could connect directly to the crane wall. These modifications to the structural steel would be completed prior to fuel loading.
The second item addresses the tangential beam flexibility.
These beams have been shown to have low enough frequencies to influence the floor response spectra between radial column lines.
PG&E stated that the 5 frame model (which neglects the tangential beams) was approved by llRC and was, therefore, part of the licensing. criteria.
They made no
(
proposals to modify the structure or frio~deling method to address the Concern.
TES requested PG&E to produce a short document outlini..g the design criteria found in the various licensing documents and how PG&E interpreted the licensing criteria throughout the analysis process for the annulus structure and its supported systems.
PG&E indicated they would procuce the document.
p'IT.~7Tieencitsureliststheattendees.ec6EWQijdas held in the afternoon bet sf The subject of this meeting was to clarify some areas of the BNL Report on the vertical analysis of the annulus structure as reported in NUREG/CR-2834 The following topics were discussed:
(1) TES suggested that the communication link between TES and BNL is cumbersome. The staff insisted that all communications be conference calls between NRC, BNL and TES.
No direct contact.shall be made between TES or PG&E with BNL without the staff being present.
It was suggested that TES contact either P. T. Kuo, Harold Polk or Hans Schierling whenever they Wished to make a phone contact and the staff would arrange for the conference call as socn as the parties could be assembled.
g 7 -----
y.
4 u.-
x t
~
(2) TES requested clarification on the specific nodes that were included in the generation of the envelope spectra for the floor at.
elevation'140 feet.
BNL stated that essentially the nodes,on the floor-interior were used and the nodes on the crane wall,' columns, and nodes located between the columns on the outer edge 'of the'
~ floor were not included.
(3) TES stated that they found what appeared to be inconsisten ies in jthe~ elevation 140 feet envelope spectra when comparisons were made between the digitized data and the plotted spectra.
No incon-sistencies were found in the envelope spectra for the other three' floors. BNL pointed out that it is possible that different data Jwere used by TES in generating the envelope spectra for the eleva-tion 140 feet floor.. TES was requested to clarify their questions in writing addressing the particular section and frequency of -
Linterest. TES agreed to issue a. Request For'Information (RFI).to cbtain this information.
-(4) TES requested information regarding the reason for acceleration
' spikes of the elevation-140 feet response spectra that occurs -
around 13 cps. BNL replied that they would have to research the data in' order to respond to the question..TES would request the information via a RFI.
- (5) TES requested the participation factors and modal masses for Model B presented in the BNL report, NUREG/CR-2834.
BNL indicated that this information is not normally output in the SAPV program and that additional computer runs would have to be made to obtain the information. TES will request the information via'a RFI.
(6) TES indicated' that they would like to see an additional case where the elevation 140 feet floor support at the crane wall was simply supported instead of fixed, as assumed in the report. TES indi-cated they would request this additional information in a RFI.
5 2
E(
Harold E. Polk Structural Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
Y; Franz P. Schauer
' 4-
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
R. Vollmer D. Eisenhut J. Knight P. Kuo M. Reich, BNL A. Philippacopoulos, BNL C. Miller, BNL H. Schierling B. Buckley H. Polk 91 6 o ge 5
9 F
y
.? - - -
/PTELEDYNE:
~
ENGINEERING SERVICES
'],
IDVP MEETING TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES DECEMBER 2.1982 NAME AFFILIATION Dick Anderson Bechtel Ken Buchert Bechtel Charles Miller BNL A.J. Philippacopoulos BNL Gordon Fine Governor Brown's Office Kirkpatrick, et al Roy Fray DCP J.K. McCall DCP W.H. White DCP Mel Biggs
~
~
HHB ~ --
P M.J. Holley, Jr.
HHB
~
Bruce Norton florton, Burke, Berr[and French Harold Polk NRC Hans Schierling NRC Richard F. Loc';e PG&E Steve Harris RLCA Stanley Chin TES Raymond Ciatto TES W.E. Cooper TES J. Cragin TES R.A.
Enos TES K.T. Smith TES l
Ron Wray TES Lincoln E. Malik URS/Blume O
e e
e e
e v>
e
. w
- ~
.c.... ;
t
~ - '."
W TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES.
Meeting At TES
~
December _2, 1982._
m
..?
a I
'NAME AFFILIATION f
' H Schierling HRC R. D. Ciatto7 TES HSB.
~ ;
J.M. Biggs-
~
~
~
TES
~
R. Wray M.J. Holley, Jr.;
HHB-TES S. Chin S. Harris RLCA
~
~
A.J. Phillipa'copoulos.
~
C*
BNL C. Miller H.. Polk NRC 2
.,.. ~ -
=--
- 9" e
f e
g i
b e
5 M
l O
i e
+
S O
e d
j a
2 I
wrw
=--+vw--...ee---
-g,
,y
,4,,_
g