ML17139A764

Forwards List of Seismic Qualification Review Team equipment-specific Open Items to Be Resolved from Audits

ML17139A764
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	06/22/1982
From:	Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Curtis N PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO.
References
NUDOCS 8206250406
Download: ML17139A764 (11)

Text

44 C1 AN 0 2 1982 Docket No.:

50-387 Hr. Norman H. Curtis Yice President-Engineering and Construction-Nuclear Pennsylvania Power 5 Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 DISTR I8 UTION

'-- Docket-Fi-1 e NRC PDR L

PDR NSIC'ERA LB¹2 Rdg.

NRushbrook RPerch

Attorney, ELD OI E ACRS (16) 8-

~K

Subject:

Remaining Equipment Specific SQRT Open Items As discussed by C. Coddington (PP8L) and R. Perch (NRC), the following equipment specific SQRT open items remain to be resolved from the two SQRT audits which have been conducted:

1.

J-03a:

Electronic Pressure Transmitter (From First SQRT Audit)

See Attachment I 2.

J05A:

Control Panel, 2C-681 and '1C-681 (From Second SQRT Audit)

See Attachment II

.3.

tl-149:

Containment Yacuum Relief Yalves (From Second SQRT Audit)

See Attachment III 4.

Hydraulic Control Unit, C12 D001 (From Second SQRT Audit)

Provide resolutions for inadequate support of header pipes.

Sincerely,

',8206250406 820622

" PDR ADOCK 05000387

',A PDR Enclosur es:

As stated cc w/encl s.:

See next page B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch No.

1 Division of Licensing.

DL: LB¹2

,,>RPerch/lg 6/22/82'---'ATE NRG FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 DL:

BJV lood

'6p.'FF tCIAL R EGO R D COPY

~ ~

~ ~ I

~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~I~

USGPO1 1981~&980

'4I (

p

( j%

4

Susquehanna Mr. Norman W. Curtis Yice President Engineering and Construction Pennsylvania Power

& Light Company Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101

~ ~

ccs:

Jay Silberg, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts

& Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.

W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Edward M. Nagel, Esquire General Counsel and Secretary Pennsylvania Power 8 Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Mr. William E. Barberi ch Nuclear Licensing Group Supervi sor Pennsylvania Power

& Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsyl,vania 18101 Mr. G. Rhodes Res ident In'spector P. 0.

Box 52 Shi ckshinny, Pennsyl vani a 18655 Gerald R. Schultz, Esquire Susquehanna Environmental Advocates P. 0. Box 1560 Wilkes-Barre, Pennsyl vania 18703 Mr. E. B. Poser Project Engineer Bechtel. Power Corporation P. 0.

Box 3965 San.Francisco,'alifornia 94119-Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Co-Director Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue

~ 'tate College, Pennsylvania 16801 Mr. Thomas M. Gerusky, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection Resources.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania P. 0.

Box 2063 Harri sburg, Pennsyl vania 17120 Ms. Colleen Marsh P. 0.

Box 538A, RD 84 Mountain Top, Pennsylvania 18707 Mr. Thomas J. }Alii'gan

'orrespondent

'The Citizens Against Nuc'lear Dangers P. 0. Box5-

Scranton, P ennsy1 va ni a 18501 Mr. J.

W. Millard

.. Pro'ject Manager Mail Code 395 General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125 Robert W. Adler, Esquire.

Office of Attorney General 505 Executive House P. 0. Box 2357

. Har risburg, P ennsy1 vani a 17120

~ 0 Susquehanna BOP/3 - Addendum 2

September 18, 1981 J-03a Electronic Pressure Transmitter The July 23, 1981 submittal by 'H.

W. Curtis provides a reply to the question regardi ng the effect of the instrument tubing from th'e manifold valve.

to the pressure transmitters.

We are satisfied that this reply demonstrates that the tubing.has a negligible. affect on the seismic and hydrodynamic response of the pressure transmitter..

The second issue concerning the pressure transmitter, "to show that the pressence of the block valve manifold does not greatly alter the vibrational characteristics of the pressure transmitter" still remains open.

t Susquehanna

'~P/4 - Addendum 1

Audit No. '2 March 8, 1982

/ i/ t

~t~

~z JOSA:

Control Panel, 2C-681 and 1C-681 The letter dated December 29,

1981, signed by H.M. Curtis contains the responses to thy.WRC SQRT Audit Open Item IY(3) which sos:

For Contr'ol Panel (J05A), provide clarification for the following:

a)

Dynamic relationship fo the selected (reviewed) panel to.the five"panels= tested and evaluated (12/31/81).

b).. Comparison of the maximum stress'of the selected panel 1

p with the maximum stress of the five tested

panels, and the basis for the evaluation (12/31/81).

The response to Item (b) states that panel IC-681 has been analyzed to show that the stresses are low.

The results of the anlaysis are contained in the, reply and are listed in a table along with the results of another panel OC-876A.

These are, compared with the stress results of the initial five 4

panels.

These results show that the ratio of the maximum'induced stress.to the allo~able stress are within the results for the five initial panels.'n

.= exception to this is in the anchor bolt stress ratio which is 0.92 for the 1C-681 panel as compared to 0.53 which is the maximum of the five initial panels.

Nevertheless, the maximum stress is still less than the 'allow'able.

The response to question 3b are therefore satisfactory. '.

The. basis issue of question 3a has not been addressed in the reply.

question:is directed at the essence of the use of a similarity principle.

The

'V

. (Canby)

Susquehanna

~ 0 P/4

-,Addendum 1

Audit No.

2 Ha rch 8, 1982 l.

The procedure used to calculate the stresses that are listed in reply to question 3b presupposes that the panel is indeed characterized by the dynamic response of the five initial panels.

But question 3a asks for the'dynamic relationship between the reviewed panel as compared to the five tested panels.

Is it possible that the -control panel,:or. an~ o',.t:he.-oth'er 44,panels.'that,are qualified by similarity, will have a natural frequency that places it at an unfavorable location with respect to the RRS as compared to the five tested.

. panels'?

The criteria that were used involve mass but do not list stiffness the tested panels, is still an Open issue.

nor do they refere'o dynamic characteristics.

It is, after all, the natural frequency that is'he function which is used in the response spectra.

Questi.on 3a, which asks for the dynamic relationship of the selected panel to OPEN ISSUE:

Question 3a.

~ ~

t Susquehanna

/10 - Addendum 1

Audit Wo.

2 triarch 2, 3982 I

8-149:

Containment Vacuum Relief Val ves Additional response from the appl.icant (Susquehanna Steam Electric

Station, WRC SgRT Audit Open Action Items, ER 100450, FUe 148=,01-,

PLA.-988) pertaining to the containm nt vacuum relief val ves was received at BNL on December 29, 1981.

From the description 'of the'Toads given in this c'orrespondence, it 7's

concluded that the loads used for the qualification of this equipment was..

'dequate.

Two o en s 'owever, previously addressed in the BNL Summary Report-dated January 18, 1982 pertaining to this equipm nt still remain unanswered.

Thus; no final decision for the qualification of the containament vacuum

'relief valves can as yet be made.

OPEN ISSUES:

(See Summary report of Audit No.

2 for BOP/10).

~ 4 3~ <<> sz, its~

OO Susquehanna BOP(10 Audit No.

2 M-149:

Contairment Vacuum Relief Valves These valves are mounted on the downcomers in the vicinity o. the drywell floor.

Each of the Susquehann'a u'nits has ten such.va1ves which are a", ranged as an assembly of two valves on each of the downcomers associated with this type. of equipm nt...The,valves can operate either manually or by remote-control.

The latter is accomplished via an interacting solenoid and is used" only to check the functionality of the valve.

The vendor of this equipment is, Anderson Greenwood and Co. of Houston, Texas.

As stated by the vendor, the valves are designed in accordance to the Bechtel Generic Reference Design Specification 8856-G-22, entitled:

"General Project Requirem nts for Design Assessment and gualification of Seismic Category I Equipment and Equipment Supports for Seismic and Hydrodynamic Loads for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2", October 15, 1979.

These valves were qualified to withstand both seismic and hydrodynamic 1'oads.

The latter includes LOCA and SRV loads.

The qualification is based on an analysis performed by the NUS Corporation.

The analytical procedures used for the 'qualification of the valves are documented in technical report entitled:

"Seismic Analysis of a Drywell Floor Pressure Relief Valve for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, NUS-3803",

NUS Corporation, Rockville, Maryland 20850 (Revisions 1 and 2).

~ 0

~ 0 (con&v)

Susquehanna BOP/10 Audit No.

2

'3 f F The effects due to deadweight, pressure and the dynamic loads were assessed for the operating components of the valve.

From the calculation of the modal characteristics of the valve-downcomer dynamic model it was concluded that the lowest natural 'frequency was below '33 Hz.

Therefore a

complete dynamic analysis was used for the assessment of dynamic loads.

Upset and emergency load combinations were consi'dered.

The maximum stresses were computed for various load combinatioris and compared to the normal allowables.

gUS concludes that all. stresses except for the'ain shaft were found to be

)

satisfactory.

1nstead of specifying a shaft made from a stronger material overcome the main shaft overstress problem, Bechtel decided to reduce the set pressure from 0.5 to 0.4 psi-This change will reduce the total stress acting on the shaft from 38,974 psi to 32,214 psi.

The latter stress falls below the allowable

stress, which is equal to 33,000 psi.

The STARDYNE computer code was used for the dynamic analysis.

The same code. was'lso utilized to evaluate the static'stress and strains due to the operating pressure and deadweight loads..

Additional analyses to evaluate the spring and activator cylinder rods, behavior,'as well as to compute the torque in. the main shaft, the. di splacements etc. were also performed.

These additional calculations were carried out to provide a better check of some of the simulations and assumptions made in modeling the valve-downcom r pipe system.

First, overall values for displacem nts and stresses were obtained from the STARDYNE code.

These values were then further

~ 0 Susquehanna BOP/10 Audit No.

2 utilized to compute.,ection stresses at particular locations of the valve.

as rigid beams, trunnion plate supports, actuator cylinder, pi Yot

arm, shank tube, shaft support etc.

were checked.

In modeling the valve-downcom r system the mass of the, water. ia the submerged portion of the downcomer also considered.

The downcomer piping was restrained with braces according to recomrien3ations given to NUS Corp.

by.

~

~

Bechtel.

At the time of the inspection the suppression pool was filled with water and only a portion of the downcomer bracing was visible.

However, according

'-to the applicant some modifications had to be made to the bracing members.

During the in plant visit the S(}RT team requested the applicant to make some corrections on the Sl}RT form.

These involved many clarifications to the item described on the form.

The corrections were made at the plant site on a newly submitted a corrected SgRT form.

OPEN ISSUES'1)

Provide assurance that the changes from 0.5 to 0.4 psi set pressure for

,al.l valves is carried and tested for compliance to correct stress and strain limits.

Justify that such changes will not affect the operation of the contairrnent atmosphere control system of the unit.

(2)

Provide assurance that. proper modifications to the down comer bracing system were made.

In particular, provide the nessecary technical informati on.

~ 0 0 ~

i)'I y'