Diablo Canyon Seismic Design

SVL 1 1 1978 )%%RANDY Rm: J. F. Stole, Dfef, Lfght '>later Reactors Branch Ho 1 Ofvfsfon qf Project Management FROM: 0 P. A11fsew Project. Manager Lfght Mater Reactors Branch ih. 1 Dfvfsfon of Project Management SGMECT: DIABLO %NON SEISMIC DESIGN The enclosed aaterfa1 ms received from the Mvfsory Coaeftwe oa Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) fa. connectfoa fifth the Diablo Canyaa Subcoamfttea aaetfng of June 14, 1978 and June 15, 1978. It fnciudes the follmrlng types of materfal related to Mablo Canyon sefsmfc design: (1) ACRS consultant reports, (2) commnfcatfons received fren the pub1fc, and (3) ACBS project status report. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide De materfaI to the public document reams anct the parties. 681 lysi SlLne OtlC Algso~ Q1/Ol~ p 0. P. A11fson, Project Manager Light Mater Reactors Branch ih. 1 Gfvfsfoa of Project Management inc1 osures: As Stated cc- See flext Page 0:stributicn: LDDavis LMo 01 cil RGoddard HRC POR Local POR OPA'.lison JCSTEPP RHofmann RDenise JFStolz P/assallo JOevine - USGS NHe:imark - U of Ill. MHall - U o I',l. JTourtellotte arncrM OPM'L'R V~1 sugeaec W OPA11 Ahn:yn ogl....~.,Q...,.l.7s >+HflH4 1IAaeagggg C FOSbC 318 (974) NRCX 0240 *V4$ e 4OVOtN'NNt OttlCO fl 0 Pacific Gas & Electric Company -2- July 11, 1978 Pacific Gas & Electric Company ATTN: Hr. John C. Horrissey Vice President & General Counsel 77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 94106 Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq. Pacific Gas & Llectric Company 77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 94106 Janice E. Kerr, Esq. California Public Utilities Commission'50 HcAllister Street San Francisco, California 94102 Hr. Frederick Eissler, President Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, inc. 4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara, California 93105 Hs. Elizabeth E. Apfelberg 1415 Cazadero San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Hs. Sandra A. Silver Hr. Gordon A. Silver 425 Luneta Drive San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Paul C. Valentine, Esq. 321 Lytton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94302 Yale I. Jones, Esq. 19th Floor 100 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, California 94'l02 Mr. R. C. Hartin California Division of Hines and Geology 107 South Broadway, Room 1065 Los Angeles, California 90012 f I,, h ~ I I' uo.iTcD svnrv,s NUCLI:AA f3EGULA'I'OBY COf.)fiVlfS)SlON novisonv'ov«iuTTi<c oi. f rncTon snrr( unnos vdnsnu4G'i(!f!. i). c. 205os June 13, 1978 E. G. Case, Of'fice of Nuclear ffe<~ctor Regulation If, S. I3oyd, Div. of Project !!anaaement R. J. !!attson, Div. of Systeois Safety II. Denton, Div. ot Site Safety I'< Env. Analysis TRAtfSHITTAL OF I!RITTEI'I Sl'ATF(IEI'IT RECEI'/ED FROl1 TIIL PUI3LIC I3Y THE ACRS The attached:written statement vas subiiiitted by David S. Fleiscfwl;ei iiith 3 attacliio<crits for the Diablo Canyon Subcooimittee I'<ecting, <fune 14- 1."i, 1978. This item is provid d foi your information. f J. (:. hc!'.inley, Chic ~ Project Reviei ffr<lnctl !fo. 1 Attachoieiit: Public Stateoient by D.S. Fleischaf:er >v/3 attachoients dated June 9, 1970 cc: lfRC Public Document Room J. A. Ifarris, OPA ACRS ffeoibers ACRS Consul tants: J. Luco J. Ilaxnell '!'. Picl:el I'< 6. Tlioliliiso ff. Illiite I3, Page H. Trifunac ',I tJ i DAVLDS. FLEISCHAI(ER /irro«~Ex~) L~)v Sv)vx 500 102515))r Sxinz.,'. WA5nlNCTO' (. (202) 83340",O June 9, 1978 Dr. Cheste)'iess, Chairperson Diablo Canyon Subcommitt:ee Nuclear Regulatory Commission I'!dvisovy Committee on Reactor Safeguards 'tlasl)ing ton, D. C. 20555 Dear Dv. Siess: I am )vri ting on behal f of'he Intervonors in the Diablo Canyo)) operat:ing license proceeding. On June 14th and 15th the suhcom)nittee;)i ll meet to consider presentations by the Huclea. llegul<)to) y Co))))))ission Staff (" the Staff" ) and Pacific Gas and Elect'ric Con)pany ("Applicant" ) regarding the adequacy of~ Di<!bio Canyon's sei s)nic desi(rn. Our understanding is that the Sta f .bel i eves i ts analys i s is suf f i ci ent 1);o permit the ACRS to «ppvov~ the seismic design criteria adopt Q() fdr tl)e veevalua tion of t: he design of- Diablo Canyon, and 2) to co::)mi t to the Staff 's discvetion the vesolution i tems" relating to the design of the Ca tego).y of'outstanding I stvuctuves,Staff'ssystems and components. l o) the ) easons set ou t bein);, thQ Intervenors respect- fully request the ACRS to reject any request to approve the SeiSmiC deSign Cri te) ia. adOp'ted fo) ) eeV<) i))at)On Ol tO CO)n)))i t to the discvet:ion tl)Q ) esolution o'I'he "outs tandi))g i:iQ)1)s . App) oval of'hQ design cvi teria adopt Q(l for reevaluat:ion . i s not mevi t ed unti 1 t hQ S ta ff a))d/or t'ppl i ca)) t have jus t i i ed critical assumptions in thoiv analysis. This is pa) ticula) ly impo) tant because the net: effect of each of t.hesQ assumptions is to reduce thQ seismic design limi ts of the facility. Hei tho). tl)e Staff nor thQ Applicant l)av«p) ovide d an adequate basis fo) select:ir)g an "adjustment; constant fov effectivenes.," Qq))ivale))t to 0.65 to ve(l)lcQ t'0 .75g he t'a accol Q) a tion used as t hQ ze) o pe) iod 1 in)i t fo). t hQ cilitles'ircul dosign ) esl)onsQ spQ('t) a. 1'he U.S. G(.ol ogicnl Survey av t)/2 concl!IdQs tllrlt. in t hQ )loat fiol (l, thQ Peak a ecol Q ) r1t:io)) to bQ expected, o)) avcvagQ, and covvespo))di))g to a 7. rz 'I Dr. Chester Si ess, Chairperson June 9, 1978 Page Two magnitude earihquake, is 1.15g. The Staff and the Applicant apparently accept tllat conclusion, but proceed to apply tl)e "adjustment constant" to reduce the acceleration value to .75g, llovIhere in the St a ff and Appl i can t presentation i s i t demonstrated tliat tliere exists in tlie scientific communi ty general, agreement for selection of 0.65 as an adjustment constairt" to reduce peak acceleration values. In fact, tfic Applicant adl))its t!iat no such agreement exists. 1/ Furthermore, 10 C.F.R.5 100, App. A requires that the zero period limit foi desig« i'esponsv,. spec ti a correspond to peak accelerations. In vie); of this i egulatoi'y requirement and tile adl.)i ssion tlia t tliere is no gene).al agreement on selection of "adjustment cori s tants," addi tional justification is needed for shav i ng tile pe ak in t:his case. 2/ Second, neither the Staff nor tlie Applicant have. provided data that justifies the high damping values used in the reanalysis. Admi ttedly, tlie Regulatory Guides permi t thr. use of damping values equi,ale»I: to 7! - tile value used in the ) eevaluatioil. llo)"ever, it ma iles no sense to involie the Regulatory Guides as justification for usiiig high damping values, (as the Staff has done i)ere) in lieu of producing sci enti fi c da ta to jus ti fy Use of tliese values. Thi s i s particulai ly the case ivher e, as i)ere, the faci'1 ity is sited i'n a zone of high seismic i.isl:. 3/ Addi tiona 1'ata to justi fy the use of tile 7l'amping values should be requii ed, and the Staff slioul d be requii.cd to analyze the consequences of actual dai!lplilg values beiiig lo)(e) tlian tliose assui!ied. Tllird, tlie tau-effect analysis 1 s bclsed oil Urli eal 1 st'I c assu)))i) tions. Tliis analys i s assumes tl)a t the sti Uctul e foundation is rigid, and it is not. flei the> L'he Staff noi tlie Applicant i)ave demonstrated tlie applicability of tau to 1/ FSAR, Amendment 50, Vnlur)e III, App. D, at 11.12. 2/ 'Gene) ally, Staf f'ractice is to use tlic mcaii ot the peak acceleration as the zero period limit for tlie l' d e s i g il response spectra . T li e s c 1 e c t i o ii o 1 e s s e r value here is an evccptioii to tliat practice, 3/ llse of sucii i)i gii values represents a del)artu) c from r)o) mal Staf f pI"acticc. I ~ I Or. Chester Siess, Chair person June 9, 1978 Page Three rock foundations. The analysis assumes that seismic waves approach from a horizontal direction and I'ails to cons'ldev the consequence oF the seismic wave impact from an the angle of wave impact in tire near field. upward'ngle, In addi- tion, the analysis fails to consider adequately the torsional effects on the foundat ion. There is little discussion of the tau-effect in the scientific literature. Ttrus, the theory has yet to be ex- posed to the cri ticism of the scienti fic community. There is little reason to adopt this appr oach when better methodo- logies are «vailable. Specifically, .the 3-dimension<,l soil- structuve interaction metlrodol ogy should be applied to the design of, ttris facility. Corrrputev programs, such as the CLASSI program, are readily available f'r such analysis. Use of such programs would elirainate the need to rely on the questionable tau-effect approach. 4/ I I . ~ lie turrr r>ext to tire resolution of outstanding issues relating to the design of Category I struc tures, systems and c'omponents.

Load more