ML13331A024
| ML13331A024 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1980 |
| From: | Herring K Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Lainas G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TAC-43664 NUDOCS 8101080224 | |
| Download: ML13331A024 (10) | |
Text
REGUWA1ORY 00CFl 1 COPy File DEC 11 1980' MEMORANDUM FOR: G.C. Lainas, Assistant Director for Safety Assessment Division of Licensing THRU:
John A. Olshinski, Chief Operating Reactors Assessment Branch
%0 Division of Licensing Ca FROM:
Ken Herring Operating Reactors Assessment Branch Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT RE:
SAN ONOFRE UNIT 1 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM SEISMIC RESISTANCE A meeting was held at the San Onofre Unit 1 site on November 24 and 25, 1980 among representatives of the NRC, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), and Southern California Edison (SCE) regarding the seismic resistance of the San Onofre Unit 1 (SONGS 1) Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) system. The lists of attendees at each meeting and their respective affiliations are contained in Enclosure 1. This system has been identified as not having been seismically qualified to either the initial seismic design criteria or the current, more stringent criteria specified by the safety related systems.
The purpose of the meetings was twofold. The first goal was to walk down the SONGS 1 AFW system from suction to discharge outside containment, including its electrical, control and instrumentation systems, to observe the degree of seismic load resistance (equipment, component and piping tie-down) which was provided in the initial design of the existing system. The second goal was to obtain SCE's cooperation in providing the NRC's consultant (LLNL) with the infomation necessary to perform its seismic reliability assessment of the SONGS 1 Auxiliary Feedwater system using the recently developed Seismic Safety Margins Research Program (SSMRP) methodology.
Based on its observations of the existing AFW system, the NRC staff members concluded that a fair amount of seismic resistance capability was provided in the initial design and construction for much of the system. Piping, cable trays, equipment and components were generally provided with some degree of lateral support, Furthermore, SCE informed us that in response to the June 1981 TMI Action Plan requirements, all discharge piping from the pumps to their discharge into the main feedwater piping outside containment and the steam supply line from the main steam line to the turbine drive AFW pump would be replaced. All new piping would be qualified in conformance with the current seismic design criteria specified by SCE. The installation is currently planned to be completed in the first quarter of 1981.
OFFICE O F F IC E
- c.............................
.S U R N A M E.............................
J.-....-
D A T E NRC FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240
- U.S.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-289-369
e G.
DEC 11 1980 Three areas of concern were identified by us which would require some remedial actions prior to the resumption of power operation of SONGS 1.
The first concern was the station number 1 battery racks. While the existing racks provided for some degree of lateral seismic load resistance and are redundant to the much more substantional number 2 battery racks, the configuration did not appear to have a level of integrity commensurate with the importance of the batteries to plant safety, given the level of seismicity specified for the site. These racks appeared somewhat flimsy in comparison to the number 2 battery racks which were installed to the seismic design criteria specified for their diesel generator installation. Therefore, we informed them that the existing number 1 battery racks must be re-evaluated using the current SCE specified criteria, and modified accordingly.
The second area of concern deals with the suction side of the AFW pumps which consists of a single header from the condensate storage tank to the pumps. The header has some lateral support. However, the condensate storage tank was not qualified to the initial or current SONGS 1 seismic criteria for safety related systems. The tank is not anchored at its base. It merely rests on the ground. Also, the permanent alternate water supply is through the tank. There is a capability to install a hose from a seismically qualified water source to the AFW pump suction and bypass the condensate storage tank. SCE stated that such a hose is normally kept available. We stated that such a hose must be installed and kept attached to the appropriate connections so as to facilitate its use of it became necessary to do so.
The third area of.concern was with the main instrumentation andccontrol panels in the control room. These are supported at the bottom by a concrete channel and at the top by steel knee braces anchored to the concrete ceiling with expansion anchors. The requirements of IE Bulletin 79-02 (the concrete expansion anchor and base plant Bulletin) had not been applied to thse anchor bolts and base plates. We stated that conformance with the IE Bulletin requirements for factors of safety, considering base plate flexibility, must be assured for the original seismic loads. Also, some loose and missing screws were noted in these panels. Therefore, we required that they inspect all screws, bolts and nuts in the panel for their presence and integrity. Any found to be missing are to be replaced.
The SCE representatives at the November 25, 1980 meeting (see Enclosure 1) agreed to conform with the above requirements prior to the resumption of operation. In addition, an exit meeting was held with the SONGS 1 plant management and the IE resident inspectors to inform them of the above items. The plant management's agreement was obtained at this meeting.
OFFICE OFFI E SU R N A M E F M 3
D A T E PRIN................TIN G OFF CE 9
NRC FORM 318 (5 RC 2;'U.S.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-289-369
DEC 11 1980 G.C. Lainas 3
Significant progress was made regarding the second goal of the meetiggs, namely, gaining the cooperation of SCE in the analysis effort to be undertaken for the NRC by LLNL. Mr. P. Smith of LLNL summarized the effort to be undertaken, and the types of information whihi SCE would be required to provide-to the extent possible (see Enclosure 2). Mr.
Smith also indicated that it would be desireable to have a team of 4 or 5 people from LLNL stay at the SONGS 1 site for approximately 2 to 4 weeks to facilitate the information exchange and to become familiar with the in-situ structures and systems involved. SCE agreed to provide its cooperation, however, expressed a concern that a Livermore team on site may consume toomuch SCE staff time. LLNL and SCE representatives agreed to work together to formulate a plan to minimize the impact on the time of SCE personnel.
SCE also expressed concerns regarding the treatment of proprietary information and the risk that they would be taking if wrong information were to be propogated through the informal contact of LLNL and SCE representatives.
We assured SCE that proprietary information would be treated as such in accordance with established NRC procedures for the handling osf proprietary information. Also, we assured SCE that any reports to be issued by LLNL would be sent to them in draft form for comment prior to any distribution.
At that time they could provide their comments regarding the technical accuracy and adequacy of information contain&d therein. This seemed _to alleviate SCE's last concern.
Preliminary single points of contact for this effort were established from SCE, LLNL, and the NRC, subject to final management approval from each organization. These were Mr. R. Ornelas of SCE, Mr. P. Smith of LLNL, and Mr. C. Burger of the NRC Office of Research.
Mr. Smith of LLNL also indicated that a simplified Phase 1 analysis may be performed using existing analyses and information, with results being available within a couple of months after the start of the effort. Detail analyses, in a so-called Phase 2 effort, would be performed and the results made available within about 6 months after the start of the effort.
Due to the lack of existing detailed analyses results for the AFW system, and especially the structures housing its components, SCE and NRC representatives questioned the merits of such an approach. We stated that the nature of such an approach would be discussed with the appropriate NRC management during the first half of December 1980, and a final decision made.
OFFICE
.SURNAME D A T E NRC FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240
- AU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-289-369
G.
DEC 11 1980 SCE briefly summarized the information which was available in each of the areas listed in Enclosure 2. They committed to provide LLNL with the appropriate references to material already docketed on either Unit 1, or Units 2 and 3' and to supply any relative information which has not-been__
docketed. In ad-dition, some preliminary structural models have already been developed for the on-going plant re-evaluation. All models are now stated to be completed by April 1981. The use of these completed models would expedite the LLNL effort if they were provided. SCE committed to provide a schedule for the complete development for each of the models the week of December 11 1980 and indicate their availa bility to LLNL for this effort. We will then assess whether or not they will be implemented in the LLNL effort.
In addition, SCE provided copies of drawings needed for the LLNL effort.
P and ID's, isometrics and support details for the existing system were provided.
Also, these were provided for the planned modifications, with some of the information being preliminary.
New and existing electrical system layouts were provided.
In addition, drawings showing general plant arrangement were included. We requested drawings showing details of the condensate storage tank design. However, SCE could not profide clear drawings until the week of December 1, 1980, which they committed to do.
The LLNL analysis effort was also outlined briefly to the San Onofre Unit 1 plant management at the exit meeting.
Original signed by Ken:Herring Operating Reactors Assessment Branch Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/enclosures:
D. Eisenhut K. Wichman R. Purple J. Donohew L. Shao G. Holahan T. Novak D. Garner D. Crutchfield T. Cheng W. Russell C. Burger J. Richardson S. Nowicki R. Herman K. Herring P. Smith (LLNL)
J. Knight C. Serpan DL:0RABAA4 DL4t.L
- ORAB/BC DL:SEPB DL O F I E
- - -M SURNAM KHe rring:sah KWi man J01shinski TCheng-70l
.Russell
. SURNAME...........................-.................-........-.-..-.--**....*...-.*....*........-..
DATE 1...
///80
//
80
/2-//80
/ -////80 (V4X/
80 NRC FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240
- U.S.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-289-369
OSURE 1 SONGS 1 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SEISMIC QUALIFICATION LIST OF ATTENDEES NOVEMBER Z4, 1980 SCE'.
R. Ornelas J. Rainsberry R. Verbeck J. Yen D. Gorg A. Kloppenstein G. Hammond A. Kaneko J. Reilly M. Wharton NRC W. Russell C. Burger K. Herring T..Cheng.
LLNL P. Smith BPC B. Moreton P. Koss
ENCLOSURE 1 0
SONGS 1 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SEISWC QUALIFICATION LIST OF ATTENDEES NOVEMBER 25, 1980 SCE R. Ornelas J. Rainsberry J. Yen J. Verbeck A. Kaneko D. Gorg A. Kloppenstein G. Hammond NRC C. Burger T. Cheng K. Herring BPC P. Koss B. Moreton LLNL P. Smith
ENCLOSURE 2 LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY SETSMIC SAFETY MARGIN RESEARCH PROGRAM MEETING NOTES SUBJECT Discussion on the Auxiliary Feedwater System Project DATE 11-20-80 FILE:
PLACE T--1201 GENERAL Major topics of discussion were:
o Scope of work for the Auxiliary Feedwater System Project.
o Preparation for walk-through of San Onofre, 11-24-80, and meeting with key firms on 11-25-80.
Subtopics related to the scope of work were:
0 Seismic input 0
Response (including possible liquifaction) 0 Fragilities 0
Systems analysis 0
Comparison with*Zion 0
Overall concept of AFWS project 0
Original vs. to-be-updated AFWS at San Onofre o
Why San Onofre ASPECTS NEEDING ATTENTION AND INFORMATION REQUIRED Seismic Input:
Aspects:
0 Regionalization 0
Near Field (offshore zone of deformation) 0 Non-incident waves
2 Information Required**
- o.
Regional and local geology studies.
o Seismic data; e.g., seismic history relocation of earthquakes, evaluation or reevaluation of magnitude, moment, mechanism, etc.
O Interaction with Southern California Edison (SCE) consultants in the areas of geology and seismology including possible access to some of the calculational effort performed by SCE's consultants.
There is the realization that SCE has conducted a large number of studies in this general area. What we want are first the major summary type documents.
At some later time we might want some specialized selected data and information or the details of certain studies. Our requests will be limited and always hopefully to the point.
Soil-Structure Interaction:
Aspects:
0 Embedment 0
Deep soil site 0
Nonvertical incident waves 0
Impedances 0
Scattering matrix O
Structure-to-structure interaction Information Required:
o Soil properties Laboratory Scatter Field correlation o
Boring information o
Soil configuration Major Structural Response:
Aspects:
o Reactor building o
Auxiliary building o
Other buildings possible
-3 Information Required:
o Layout 0
structural drawings o
Existing models o
Material properties and data o
Design analysis Subsystem Response Aspects:
o Reactor coolant loop o
Auxiliary feedwater system (AFWS) o Service water system o
Condensate storage tank piping to AFWS pumps Information Required:
o Piping isometric drawings o
Hanger details o
Equipment drawings o
Existing models (Bechtel) o As-built information o
Design analyses o
P&ID o
Piping class summary sheet o
Westinghouse test data o
Piping area drawings Fragilities:
Aspects:
o Structural fragilities Information Required:
o Design analyses for buildings o
Connection details of construction.
Systems Analysis:
Aspects:
o Fault Trees as required Information Required:
o P&ID o
Plant operator interviews Single-Point Contacts Needed for Participating Firms Specific individuals need to be identified as single-point contacts for the following firms, and this should be discussed during the 11-25-80 meeting.
Southern California Edison NRC/RES NRC/NRR LLNL/SSMRP Bechtel, Norwalk Westinghouse Woodward-Clyde TERA, Delta Other firms appearing in the San Onofre FSAR.
Meeting Summary by Richard G. Dong