ML17329A708
| ML17329A708 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1992 |
| From: | AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER SERVICE CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17329A705 | List: |
| References | |
| 2985-HEI-07, 2985-HEI-07-R00, 2985-HEI-7, 2985-HEI-7-R, NUDOCS 9212180065 | |
| Download: ML17329A708 (21) | |
Text
SEISMIC QUALIFICATIONASSESSMENT OF FOXBORO SPEC 200 EQUIPMENT FOR USE AT DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT REPORT NO. 2985-HEI-07, Rev. 0 pov r'N rr r
i v~
Equipment Identification:
FOXBORO SPEC 200/200 MICRO Prepared By:'3~a'te:~/J 2.
Reviewed By:
Approved By; t I Date:
~~ ~
(
The document preparer shall use this checklist to evaluate the qualification report/analysis per the following issues.
Section l is the "Qualification Assessment/Summary."
This section is a brief summary of the adequacy of the subject documents.
This summary is based on the results of the answers to the questions listed in Section 2 of this document.
Any additions or changes to the report(s)/analyses which are required in order to provide proper qualification should be listed in this section of this form.
Approval will be subject to the open items listed in this section.
Section 2 of this form is the Report(s)/Analyses Evaluation Checklist.
A "Y", "N", or "N/A" response should be given for each question listed.
Each response shall be properly explained and justified, giving specific section references within the subject procedure(s).
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units l and 2 Reactor Protection and Control System Replacement Project 92121800b5 92121b PDR ADOCK 05000315 P
PDR Seismic Qualification Assessment Report No. 2985-HEI-07, Rev. 0 Page 1 of 17
SECTION 1 - QUALIFICATIONASSESSMENT/
SUMMARY
Provide a cotnprehensive statement ofdevice qualtftcation for the parameters addressed by the report(s)lanalyses.
Include any clarijications, corrections, or changes necessary to provide proper device qualtftcation per the report(s)lanalyses.
Qualification of the various Foxboro components to be used in this project, are documented by Foxboro in their various equipment qualification reports identified in the Documents Reviewed.
The actual seismic testing of the components is principally documented in Doc. 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.4. The remaining documents provide summary test information for specific components identified. Doc. 4.0 provides justification for the various components that were not tested, but are similar in size, shape, and function to tested components to determine adequacy based on similarity.
Table 1 (attached) summarizes all the components to be used in this project and which reports are used to document their qualification. It also includes specific references to key statements in the documents and an overall summary of the qualification.
Module N-2AO-V2H is being customized for this application, and a supplemental qualification report is to be issued soon.
This report willbe reviewed at that time for seismic considerations, and this document will be revised to reflect that review.
In general Foxboro follows the criteria of IEEE 344 to establish a seismic qualification program that allows there components to be qualified for most nuclear facilities in the country. Therefore the Test Response Spectrum (TRS) envelopes the Required Response Spectrum (RRS) and is of a magnitude above the requirements of AEPSC specification DCC-NS-103-QCN Response Spectra for the Cook Nuclear Plant Auxiliary Building Elev. 633'-0" both OBE and SSE.
The magnitudes of the acceleration are compared in the following table:
Response
Spectra at 2% Damping (g)
~Fre uenc 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 4.0 5.0 7.0 10.0 16.0 20.0 33.0 50.0 Cook OBE 0.060 0.118 0.255 0.630 0.425 0.290 0.185 0.155 0.130 0.124 0.120 0.118 Foxboro OBE 2.000 2.000 3.500 5.800 11.000 9.000 10.000 9.200 5.500 4.200 1.600 1.600 Cook SSE 0.120 0.236 0.510 1.260 0.580 0.580 0.370 0.310 0.260 0.248 0.240 0.236 Foxboio RiE 2.000 2.000 4.000 7.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 9.200 5.500 1.600 1.600
~ Note: 2.5% Damping used for Foxboro OBE.
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units l nnd 2 Reactor Protection and Control Systein Repl:icement Project Seismic QualiTication Assessment Report No. 2985-HEI-07, Rev. 0 Page 2 of 17
As it is indicated, the testing exceeded the requirements for the Cook Nuclear Plant and in some cases the actual Test Response Spectra (TRS) exceeded 100g.
All Foxboro testing was run with the vibration table moving at 45 degree angle so that equal horizontal and vertical components were obtained.
Equal acceleration was used in all three directions. Additionally a balanced and an unbalanced rack configuration was tested to envelope the worst scenarios for rack loading.
A minimum of five (5) OBE events and one (1) SSE event were applied. In general there was no structural damage or degradation from the testing.
In one test situation however, the screws and nuts that secure the hinge between the Hinge Mounting Strip and the Test Panel Mounting Plate loosened and fell off(Ref. 1.4, par. 3.b). The manufacturers drawings were since revised to specify that each of the eight nuts are to be welded to the screws after assembly.
It was also observed that the hinge pin was protruding out after the test.
To eliminate a potential problem the manufacturing drawings have been revised to specify that the ends of the hinge pin are to be peened over at assembly. Therefore these minor concerns have been satisfactorily addressed.
In addition to the structural integrity, the equipment was appropriately tested for performance before, during and after the seismic testing.
Again all equipment meet the performance criteria with two minor exceptions.
The Multi-LoopPower Supply P/N P03000CQ had an intermittent loss of output power which was discovered to be due to a fuse holder cap being loose.
It was later determined that an improper type of fuse holder was used.
This has since been corrected by substituting a previously qualified fuse holder.
The other performance item that was identified was that the N-2AO-L2C-R(C) Contact Output Isolator chattered under the Foxboro SSE event. The module remained fully functional during the Foxboro OBE testing.
Since the Cook Nuclear Plant SSE is fully enveloped by the Foxboro OBE, the module is SSE qualified for use at Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant.
The existing AMCO instrumentation racks with the Spec 200 equipment installed in them, were qualified by analysis for AEPSC Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant under Doc. 3.0. The racks are qualified using finite element analysis (STARDYNE) for the worst case rack configuration. The rack was evaluated as a free standing unit, however the potential impacts of multibay racks was addressed by Foxboro (Reference 1.1), and determined to have no significant detrimental effects.
The maximum combined principal stresses in the rack were computed and were only 32.9% of the minimum yield strength of the A36 steel used. The anchor bolt stresses (16,898 psi) and the weld pad stresses (8,707 psi) were also within acceptable stress ranges for the materials used.
The report also addressed the dynamic amplification of the input excitation and shows that the peak amplified floor response spectra is 1.25 G which is well below the Foxboro qualification mentioned previously.
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units l and 2 Reactor Protection and Control System Repl >cement Project Seismic Qualification Assessment Report No. 2985-IIEI-07, Rev. 0 Page 3 of 17
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Doc.
Source 1.0 Foxboro Document I.D.
QOAAA20 PART 1
1.1 Foxboro QOAAA20 APP. A 1.2 Foxboro QOAAA20 PART 2 1.3 Foxboro QOAAA20 PART 3 4.0 Foxboro QOAAAO6 5.0 Foxboro QOAAB60 6.0 Foxboro QOAAB28 7.0 Foxboro QOAAB69 8.0 Foxboro QOAAB35 9.0 Foxboro QOAAB29 10.0 Foxboro SI 1-01830 11.0 Foxboro SI 1-01833 12.0 Foxboro QOAAB17 1.4 Foxboro QOAAA20 PART 4 2.0 Foxboro QOAAA37 PART 2 3.0 NQS REPORT 1619 Title Rev.
Seismic Testing of SPEC 200 Current Production Model Report T9-6011 Seismic Testing of N-2ES Style B Rack and Naturally Aged Rack-Mounted Modules Seismic Testing of Current Production Rack-mounted Modules Seismic Vibration Test of....
Seismic Vibration Test of....
Seismic Qualification of Foxboro Reactor Protection....
for AEP Cook Similarity of Spec 200 Rack Mounted Modules of Current Production....
2AO-L2C-R Style A CS-N/SRC Current Production and Style A Naturally Aged Contact Output Isolators 2AI-T2V+EType B CS-N/SRC Current Production and Style A Naturally....
Spec 200 Micro 2CCA Series Style CB Control Cards 2CDA Series Style B Display Modules and Associated Equipment 2AI-I2VStyle B CS-N/SRC Current Production and Style A Naturally Aged 2AI-P2V Style B CS-N/SRC Resistance Converter Custom N-2AO-L2C-R Contact Isolator with Four DPDT Relay Outputs Custom Termination Modules for Spec 200 Loop Testing Application 2AO-VAI+P Style A CS-N-SPC Current Production and Style A Naturally Aged...
REV. B REV. A REV. C REV. B REV. E REV. B Rev.
1 Rev. F Rev. B Rev. B Rev. B Rev. C Rev. C July '80 s
Rev. B Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Reactor Protection and Control System Replacement Project Seismic Qualification Assessment Report No. 2985-HEI-07, Rev. 0 Page 4 of 17
13.0 Foxboro QOAAB15 14.0 Foxboro 15.0 Foxboro 16.0 Foxboro QOAAB14 85-1182A QOAAB34 17.0 Foxboro QOAAB61 18.0 Foxboro QOAAB58 Rev. C 2AI-C2L Style A CS-N/SRC Current Production and Style A Naturally Aged...
2AX+DP10 Style C CS-N/SRC Rev. C Power Distribution Module Evaluation of (21) 2CCA Style A
¹v.'85 Spec 200 Micro Control Cards 2AO-L2C-R Style A (ECEP 8389)
Rev. E CS-N/SRC Current Production Contact Output Isolators Spec 200 System Cable Rev. B and N-2ES, Style B, Rack Wiring and Cabling 2ANV-D and P Style A Rev. A CS-N/SRC Current Production and 2ANV-D and P Style A Naturally Aged Nest ADDITIONALREFERENCES Doc Source 1.0 Foxboro QOAAA01 Document I.D QOAAA04 PART 2 QOAAA04 PART 3 QOAAA04 PART 4 3.0 Foxboro QOAAA05 2.0 Foxboro QOAAA04 PART 1 Title Program for Class IE Qualification for Spec 200 Instrumentation Equipment Seismic Vibration Test Procedure N-2ES Style B Rack Current Production Model Rack Mounted Modules Seismic Vibration Test Procedure N-2ES Style B Rack Naturally Aged Rack Mounted Modules Seismic Vibration Test Procedure Current Production Rack Mounted Modules Seismic Vibration Test Procedure Current Production Rack Mounted Modules...
Nuclear Class IE Qualification Spec 200 Rack-Mounted Modules by Similarity to Type Tested Modules...
Rev Rev. A Rev. D Rev. B Rev. B Rev. B Rev. J Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Reactor Protection and Control System Rcplaccment Project Seismic Qualification Assessment Rcport No. 2985-HEI-07, Rev. 0 Page 5 of 17
e
4.0 Foxboro QOAAA40 5.0 Foxboro QOAA801 Rev. B Type Test Program Class IE Qualification.. ~
Class IE Qualification Rev. A Spec 200 Instrumentation Equipment to Generic Service Conditions SECTION 2 - REPORT(S)/ANALYSES EVALUATIONCHECKLIST ENERAL ALIFI ATION I SUES 1.
Does the reportlanalysis properly identify the test specimens used, and the components, systems, or structures
>vhich are qualtfted based on the results.
Y[x]N[] N/A[]
For the Foxboro components qualified by testing under Doc. 1.0,1.1, 1.2, & 1.4, and by similarity under Doc. 4.0, the test reports clearly identify each item tested.
Item numbers from the tests are included in Table 1.
Doc. 3.0 references the Drawing Y300272-AEP (Rev. 5) and the Foxboro/Harding & Smith drawings 92F12687-SC-2101 Sheets 1 through 4 (Rev.
- 1) as the basis for this qualification.
These drawings describe the structural configuration of the Foxboro Racks.
2.
Were the same speciniens used throughout the testing process?
Y[x]N[ ] N/A[]
For the Foxboro components qualified by testing under Doc. 1.0,1.1, 1.2, & 1.4, the same specimens were used throughout the specific test that was being run. There are several different tests that were run for different configurations to provide assurance that the location in the rack or the loading on the rack would not be detrimental to performance. For these different cases, different specimens was used.
This question is not applicable to Doc. 3.0.
3.
Does tire report. address the testing ofthe proper components for tiualiJ7cation?
(Identical components or adetluate sitniIurityproved?)
Y[x]N[] N/A[]
Doc. 4.0 was the primary document used to substantiate the similarity of several modules of the Spec 200 Foxboro equipment.
This also established similarity with naturally aged components which were retrieved from field situations for testing.
This document focused on the similarity of physical construction, function, components, and materials to prove adequate similarity.
The Doc. 3.0 report models the racks as defined by the drawings and envelopes any combination of configuration or multibay to a limitof 7 racks.
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Reactor Protection and Control System Replacement Project Seismic Qualification Assessment Report No. 2985-HEI-07, Rev. 0 Page 6 of 17
4.
Were the applicable interactions with other equipnient properly siniulated?
Y[x]N[] N/A[]
For the components shown in the qualification matrix, complete rack set ups were utilized to simulate actual installation configuration. This included various combinations of loading in nests as well as balanced and unbalanced rack configurations. Therefore, applicable interactions within the racks were simulated adequately.
For Doc. 3.0 the applicable interactions are the multiple racks which is adequately addressed by Foxboro qualifications Doc. 1.1.
5.
Did the test parameters properly envelope the required environments for the components?
Y[x]N[] N/A[]
For the Foxboro components qualified by testing under Doc. 1.0,1
~ 1, 1.2, & 1.4, the table provided in Section 1 above shows that the RRS enveloped the specific requirements for the Cook Nuclear Plant Control Room in the Auxiliary Building at elevation 633'.
In Doc. 3.0 the analysis was properly based on the required response spectra for Cook Nuclear Plant Auxiliary Building Floor Elev. 633'mplified by the maximum dynamic amplification possible.
6.
Was the acceptance criteria properly chosen to detnonstrate qualtftcation?
Y[x]N[] N/A[]
For the Foxboro components qualified by testing under Doc. 1.0,1.1, 1.2, & 1.4, the acceptance criteria included both physical and functional ruggedness.
By visually inspecting the components after the testing the physical durability of the components under seismic events was determined.
Also, by functionally operating the equipment before, during and after the seismic testing the functional adequacy was proven.
In Doc. 3.0, the acceptance criteria is based on the allowable stresses of the components considered.
For the steel frame members of the rack the report appropriately concluded that the maximum stress of 32.9% of minimum yield stress is acceptable. It also concluded that the bolt stress of 16,989 psi is satisfactory for any grade steel material. Also, the weld stress was deemed acceptable at 8,707 psi with normal minimum weld stress of 60,000 psi.
7.
Was equipment petfonnance data recorded
- before, during and after the test to dentonstr ate qualified operation. and fiinctionalig>?
Y[x]Nf ] N/A[]
For the Foxboro components qualified by testing under Doc.
1.0,1.1, 1.2, & 1.4, the components were functionally operated before, during and after the seismic testing to prove functional operability.
Simplified diagrams of the various functional setups for the equipment are included in the test reports to provide information on how functionality was demonstrated.
Donald C. Cook Yuclear Plant, Units I and 2 Reactor Protection and Control System Replacement Project Seismic Qualification Assessment Report No. 2985-HEI-07, Rev. 0 Page 7 of 17
The. test report also documents such things as output shifts, calibration changes, and proper function for the various components.
This question is not applicable to Doc. 3.0.
8.
Were the test methods in general accordance with the test procedure and purchase spectftcations?
Y[x]N[] N/A[]
The purchase specifications applicable to this evaluation is AEPSC Specification DCC-IC-500-QCN and Attachments 15.9, 15.14, 15.15, 15.16, and 15.17.
For the components shown in the qualification matrix Table 1, the entire test program was done in accordance with IEEE 323-1974 and IEEE 344-1975 which is the general basis for the purchase specifications listed above. Industry standards for seismic testing and reporting were
. met.
For Doc. 3.0, paragraph 4.1 of Att. 15.9 describes the requirements for Qualification by Analysis. This report is in accordance with the requirements by analyzing a "simple" component to model (the rack) and applying three equal earthquake components (two horizontal and one vertical) simultaneously.
9.
Were proper tnarginlsafety factors applied to the test paranreters per industry standards?
Y[x]N[ ] N/A[]
The industry standard for margins of safety applied during seismic testing is to add a 10%
margin to the required response spectra (RRS). For the Foxboro components qualified by testing under Doc. 1.0,1.1, 1.2, Ec 1.4, based on the table in section 1 above, this margin was adequately maintained for Cook specifically.
In the actual test results of Doc. 1.1, there were a few cases were the TRS did not quite envelope the RRS in the higher frequencies however the deviation was adequately addressed in the report and is not at all significant to the Cook Nuclear Plant due to the magnitude of the test RRS compared with the Cook Nuclear Plant RRS.
For Doc. 3.0 no special margins or safety factors were required which is appropriate.
10.
Can qua/iJ7cation ofthe et1uiptnent be clearly determined based on this reportlanalysis?
Y[x]N[]N/A[]
For the components shown in the qualification matrix Table 1, the qualification is clearly demonstrated by the documents referenced.
The qualification of the rack can clearly be determined from review of Doc. 3.0.
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2 Reactor Protection and Control System Replacement Project Seismic Qualification Assessment Report No.
985-HEI-07, Rev. 0 Page 8 of 17
ll.
Were test sequences, logic and protocol acceptable?
Y[x]N[ ] N/A[]
For the components shown in the qualification matrix, the appropriate sequence of OBE testing and SSE testing was followed.
This question is not applicable to Doc. 3.0.
12.
Was the testing pe>for ned in general accordance with IEEE Standards 323 and 344 per Reference 7.1?
Y[x]N[] N/A[]
For the components shown in the qualification matrix Table 1, the entire test program was done in accordance with IEEE 323-1974 and IEEE 344-1975.
In the case of Doc. 3.0 an adequate seismic analysis methodology was used in compliance with the requirements of IEEE 344 was used.
13.
Are the analyses, logic, graphics, forniulas, equations, and inatheinatics understandable and valid?
Y[x]N[] N/A[]
For the Foxboro components qualified by testing under Doc. 1.0,1.1, 1.2, & 1.4, the documents included graphic representations of each components functional test setup, graphs of the various response
- spectra, pictures of various test
- setups, and diagrams of the various loading configurations.
All these graphics were understandable and useful. There were little or no formulas, equations or mathematics in the test report documents.
For Doc. 3.0, the analysis utilizes standard design engineering methodology to analyze the base welds and determine the properties of the elements used in the computer analysis.
The computer analysis is also a standard finite element program used in dynamic analysis.
14.
Are the variables identifed?
This question is not applicable.
Y[]N[ ] N/A[x]
15.
Are unconmion. orsimplifiedfoi7nulas, equations, and mathematical procedures explained and bases documented?
Y[x]N[]N/A[]
There were little or no formulas, equations or mathematics in the test report documents (Doc.
1.0,.1.1, 1.2, &, 1.4).
Therefore everything is adequately explained and documented.
Seismic Qualification Assessment Report No. 2985-HEI-07, Rev. 0 Page 9 of 17 As noted in response to question 13 above, for Doc. 3.0, the formulas are industry standard and are essentially self explanatory.
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units l and 2 Reactor Protection and Control System Replacement Project
16.
Are calcularions nunrerically correct with units shown?
Y[x]N[] N/A[]
For the Foxboro components qualified by testing under Doc. 1.0,1.1, 1.2, & 1.4, this question is not applicable.
For Doc. 3.0, the calculations are correct, however units are not clearly spelled out.
Based on similar past experience, the units utilized can be concluded to be pounds and inches throughout the document.
17.
Are assumptions and judgments reasonable and acceptable with bases explained and documented?
Y[x]N[] N/A[]
For the Foxboro components qualified by testing under Doc. 1.0,1.1, 1.2, & 1.4, assumptions and judgments are limited. The main assumption deals with the acceptability of the TRS despite the fact that it does not totally envelope the Foxboro generic RRS.
Their acceptance based on the magnitude of the spectrum used is reasonable.
In Doc. 4.0, there are numerous judgments made of acceptability by similarity. The basis for these decisions on similarity are clearly documented and reasonable.
The document goes into great detail to compare the size, shape, and function of the component to support the similarity statements.
For Doc. 3.0 the judgments are made in comparing the determined stresses with the knowledge that steel materials were used to determine that the stresses are within acceptable levels.
The resulting judgments are reasonable.
18.
Have inputs been corIectly selected, referenced, interpreted, and used?
Y[x]N[] N/A[]
For the Foxboro components qualified by testing under Doc. 1.0,1.1, 1.2, & 1.4, reference documents and other input information are appropriate and acceptable.
For Doc. 3.0 the inputs are derived from AEPSC specification DCC-IC-500-QCN and the drawings for the racks previously mentioned in question
- 1. Also, information from the Foxboro qualification testing reports were accurately utilized to perform the evaluation.
19.
Are ourputs and conclusions correct andjustij7ed?
Y[x]N[] N/A[]
For the Foxboro components qualified by testing under Doc. 1.0,1.1, 1.2, & 1.4, the outputs and conclusions are correct and justified based on the results of the testing that was done.
For Doc. 3.0, the results are summarized in section 3.0 of the report.
These conclusions are Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unib I and 2 Reactor Protection and Control System Repiacenient Project Seisn>ic Qualification Assessment Report No. 2985-11EI-07, Rev. 0 Page 10 of 17
~
~
correct and are adequately justified as indicated by the stresses documented in response to question 28 below. The final summary conclusion is "operability of the safety related Foxboro equipment is established".
This is appropriate based on the documentation in the entire report.
20.
Did the rested configurarion appropriarely march the to be installed conjiguration?
Y[x]N[] N/A[]
For the components shown in the qualification matrix Table 1, complete rack set ups were utilized to simulate actual installation configuration.
This included various combinations of loading in nests as well as balanced and unbalanced rack configurations. Therefore, applicable configuration was simulated adequately by the combinations tested.
For Doc. 3.0, the analyzed configuration envelopes the to be installed configuration in all areas including loading conditions of the rack (worst case rack fullyloaded plus a test panel assembly occupying locations 3 and 4). The issue of multibay bay interconnected racks was also addressed to envelope any configuration.
SEISMI UALIFICATI N IS ES 21.
Is component seisniic classification identified?
Y[x]N[]N/A[]
For the components shown in the qualification matrix, the test report clearly documented the components as class 1E.
For Doc. 3.0 the component is not specifically identified as a Class I item however, it is implied through the use of the DBE response spectra for the qualification.
22.
Were physical interactionslspatial conflicts with other itenis considered?
Y[x]N[] N/A[]
For the Foxboro components qualified by testing under Doc. 1.0,1.1, 1.2, & 1.4, complete rack set ups were utilized to simulate actual installation configuration.
This included various combinations of loading in nests as well as balanced and unbalanced rack configurations.
Therefore, applicable interactions within the racks were simulated adequately. This also allowed for spatial considerations of the specific components as they would be installed.
For Doc. 3.0 the rack was evaluated as a free standing unit..
The report recognizes "that multibay interconnected racks, as employed in this application can introduce detrimental dynamic snaking or whipping modes";
- however, "this multibay interconnection condition has been evaluated and shown to produce no significant detrimental effects to and including multibay strings of seven racks long." Thus the physical conflicts were adequately considered and addressed.
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units I und 2 Reactor Protection and Control System Replacement Project Seismic QualiTication Assessment Report No. 2985-HEI-07, Rev. 0 Page 11 of 17
0 23.
Did the equipment pejformance meet the acceptance criteria before, during and after each OBE and DBE/SSE event?
Y[x]N[ ] N/A[]
For the components shown in the qualification matrix Table 1, the equipment was appropriately tested for performance before, during and after the OBE and SSE seismic testing. Allequipment meet the performance criteria w'ith one minor exception.
The Multi-Loop Power Supply P/N P03000CQ had an intermittent loss of output power which was discovered to be due to a fuse holder cap being loose.
It was later determined that an improper type of fuse holder was used.
This has since been corrected by substituting a previously qualified fuse holder.
One performance item was identified for the N-2AO-L2C-R(C) Contact Output Isolator which chattered under the Foxboro SSE event.
These isolators are qualified to the OBE levels.
Since the Cook SSE levels are fullyenveloped by the Foxboro OBE levels, the isolator is qualified for Cook for the SSE events.
For Doc. 3.0, the equipment was analyzed using the DBE response spectra (2% damping) imposed in three axes simultaneously and a static case was also applied to account for higher mode contributions and general conservatism.
The resulting stresses were 32.9% of the minimum yield strength of the steel.
Therefore the racks performance is based on acceptable stress levels.
24.
Did the nujnber and duration ofOBE and DBE/SSE events incorporated into the testing nieet. the requiienrents ofReference 7.1?
Y[x]N[] N/A[]
For the Foxboro components qualified by testing under Doc. 1.0,1.1, 1.2, 8c 1.4, A minimum of five (5) OBE events and one (1) SSE event were applied. It was not noted in the test reports that the duration of each test was 30 sec. or greater, however, it is indicated the test was in compliance with IEEE 344-1975 which has that requirement.
For Doc. 3.0 this section is not applicable since the qualification was done by analysis versus testing.
25.
Did the testing envelope the necessary OBE and DBE/SSE response spectra that define the seismic input at. the mounting/support?
Y[x]N[] N/A[]
As indicated in section 1 above, for the Foxboro components qualified by testing under Doc.
1.0,1.1, 1.2, & 1.4, the Test Response Spectrum (TRS) envelopes the Required
Response
Spectrum (RRS) and is of a magnitude above the requirements of AEPSC specification DCC-NS-103-QCN Response Spectra for the Cook Nuclear Plant Auxiliary Building Elev.
Seismic Qualification Assessment Report Yo. 2985-'f1EI-07, Rev. 0 Page 12 of 17 For Doc. 3.0, the analysis was based on the DBE response spectra for the Cook Nuclear Plant Auxiliary Building Floor Elev. 633 at 2% damping. This is the appropriate spectra for these racks which are to be mounted in the Control Room.
Donald C. Conk nuclear Plant, Units I and 2 Reactor Protection and Control System ReplacenIent Project
26.
Was infot7nation necessaty to assess or include an>plij7cation and dynamic response incorporated into the test?
Y[x]N[]N/A[]
For the components qualified by the testing of Doc. 1.1, section 4.0 documents the review of the magnitude and amplification of the individual rack configurations at the various locations of accelerometers located on the test racks.
Based on this assessment, it can be determined that amplification and dynamic response affects are considered.
For Doc. 3.0, paragraph 3.4 indicated that "the computed amplification is 2.401." This amplification factor was in turn applied to the input floor response spectra at all frequencies greater than 80% of the lowest natural frequency in the horizontal axis. The peak of the amplified floor response spectra is 1.25 G which is well below the acceleration to which the Foxboro equipment has been qualified which is greater than 20 G's.
27.
Was ittfornration necessaty to assess orinclude tnountinglsupport, weight and non-seistnic loads incorporated into the test?
Y[x]N[] N/A[]
For the components shown in the qualification matrix, the test racks were bolted to the floor with (6) hex head 1/2-20 bolts per SAE J429 grade 8 with flat head washers.
The current rack mounting installation is comparable to this test configuration.
As far as weight an non-seismic loads are concerned, the effects of vertical gravity loads existed during the test and there are no other significant loads that must be considered.
For Doc. 3.0, a static case was include to account for higher mode contributions and general conservatism.
This resulted in static accelerations of.233 G in each horizontal axis and 1.233 G in the vertical axis. (paragraph. 2.0).
Paragraph 3.3 of the report provides the results of the analysis on the Anchor Bolts and Floor Welds. It indicates that the bolt stresses were 16,989 psi which is satisfactory in any grade of steel material.
Also, the worst case stress on the pad weld is 8,707 psi which is acceptable.
28.
Was infotination necessaty to assess or inchrde physicallstructural strength been incorporated into the test report?
Y[x]N[] N/A[]
For the Foxboro components qualified by testing under Doc. 1.0,1.1, 1.2, Ec 1.4, the extensive testing proved the structural integrity of the components.
With a few minor problems noted in section 1 above all components showed adequate physical/structural strength.
For Doc. 3.0, the analysis quantitatively compares the stress results with the allowable of the materials involved. For the rack itself, the maximum combined principal stress is 32.9% of the minimum material yield strength for A36 steel which is used.
As stated in question 27 above, the bolt stresses were 16,989 psi which is acceptable while the weld stresses were 8,707 psi which is acceptable.
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Reactor Protection and Control System Replacement Project Seismic QualiTication Assessment Report No. 2985-HEI-07, Rev. 0 Poge 13 of 17
29.
Did the method used assess the postulated failure modes and associated critical characteristics?
Y[x]N[] N/A[]
For the components shown in the qualification matrix, a minimum of five (5) OBE events and one (1) SSE event were applied to assess the principal failure mode of seismic. In addition, a balanced and unbalanced rack configuration was tested to envelope the worst case conditions of rack loading.
Doc. 3.0 provides the analysis for the racks and assesses them for failure due to dynamic amplification of the structure. The analysis considered one worst case rack fully loaded plus a test panel assembly occupying locations 3 and 4.
This configuration conservatively envelopes all rack conditions.
The maximum combined principal stresses in the rack were compute for the dynamic response spectra excitation and for the static amplification of the ZPA plus vertical dead weight.
This addresses the failure potential for the worst case conditions.
30.
As applicabIe, has dynamic anaIysis performed on electrical components,
- systems, structures, been petformed in accordance with the mathematical principles and procedures as required by Reference 7.1?
Y[x]N[] N/A[]
For the components shown in the qualification matrix, this question is not applicable.
For Doc. 3.0, the analysis has been performed in accordance with the principals and procedures of NEP 2.2.
The qualification was accomplished by finite element analysis using the STARDYNE series of structural analysis programs.
These programs are an industry standard for such qualification.
31.
For seismic analyses and testing, are computer progranls,
- sofnvare, and firmware in accordance with NEP 2.6 and GP's 2.6, 3. 7, 4.4, and 15.5?
Y[x]N[] N/A[]
For the Foxboro components qualified by testing under Doc. 1.0,1.1, 1.2, Ec 1.4, this question is not applicable.
For Doc. 3.0, the analysis was done on STARDYNE Rel. 3.5 by General Microelectronics Corp. This software is controlled under the QA program of NQS.
TEMPERAT RE/H MIDITY ALIFICATI N I Questions 32 through 43 are not applicable to the Seismic test Reports and Analysis.
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2 Reactor Protection and Control System Replacement Project Seismic QualiTication Assessment Report No. 2985-HEI-07, Rev. 0 Page 14 of 17
,C 0
TM~TANDM INA List all anomalies, resolutions, andjusttji cations below. Ifopen items remain forjustijication ofanomaly resolution, please indicate in the explanation.
In one test situation, the screws and nuts that secure the hinge between the Hinge Mounting Strip and the Test Panel Mounting Plate loosened and fell off(Ref. 1.4, par. 3.b)
~ The manufacturers drawings were since revised to specify that each of the eight nuts are to be welded to the screws after assembly.
It was also observed that the hinge pin was protruding out after the test.
To eliminate a potential problem the manufacturing drawings have been revised to specify that the ends of the hinge pin are to be penned over at assembly. Therefore these minor concerns have been addressed.
The Multi-LoopPower Supply P/N P03000CQ had an intermittent loss of output power which was discovered to be due to a fuse holder cap being loose (Ref. 1.4, par. 3.c).
It was later determined that an improper type of fuse holder was used.
This has since been corrected by substituting a previously qualified fuse holder.
One other performance item was identified for the N-2AO-L2C-R(C) Contact Output Isolator which chattered under the Foxboro SSE event.
These isolators are only fully qualified to the Foxboro OBE levels.
This item was determined not to be a concern for Donald C. Cook since the Foxboro OBE far exceeds the required Cook SSE values. (Ref. 1.0, par. 4).
In Doc. 1.1, it was noted that the TRS levels achieved were somewhat lower than the Foxboro target generic values of the RRS; however, the response spectra achieved were deemed to represent conservative qualification levels from the standpoint that they envelope most of the control room floor response spectra in the United States.
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2 Reactor Protection and Control System Replacement Project Seismic Qualification Assessment Report No. 2985-SKI-07, Rev. 0 Page 15 of 17
TABLE 1 FOXBORO EQVIPiME>NTQUALIFICATIOI>I>AVIATRIX Eqnipm en(
Qualified Type Test I(cpurt Seismic Test Report Itein 1>fo. or Similar Comp.
Sigtuf>cant Pages/para.
Summary of Quahfication N-2AI-C2L QOAAB15 QOAAA20-I I
Pg. 13/5.1.1 This component was tested both with a production module and a naturally aged module and both n>aintaincd their structural integrity and pcrforniancc throughout thc (cst N-2AI-H2V N-2AI-12V QOAAA06 QOAAB35 QOAAA20-2 QOAAA20-I N 2AI.I2V
'>0 3
Pg. 17/4.2 Pg.l I/4.1.2 Pg.13/5.1.2 Pg.18/5.2.2 Component is qualified by similarity. The operation/configurationis the same.
This component was tested both with a production module and a naturally aged modal>> and both n>aintained their structural integrity and perforniancc throughout the test.
N-2AI-P2V(C)
N-2AI-P2V N-2AI-T2V N-2AX+VE N-2AX+P(C)
N-2AX+P 1-01878 QOAAB29 QOAAB28 QOAAA06 1-01833 QOAAB21 QOAAA20-I QOAAA06 QOAAA20-I QOAAA20.1 QOAAA20-I QOAAA20-I QOAAA20-I N-2AI-P2V N-2AI-T2V 12B 2A N-2AX+P N-'2AX+P 12B Pg. 23/4.4 Pg. 22/5.3.2;I/2.1 Pg. 21/5.2.7; I/2.1 Pg. 66 /4.18; pg. 4 pg.
22/5.3.2;Pg.l/2.1 Component is qualili<<d by similarity. The op<<ration/conligurationis the same.
Component is qualified as patt of'2AO-VAI+P:which me<<t both structural and pcrforniance criteria.
Component is qualified as part of'2AI-T2V+E; which meet both structural and perfom>ance criteria throughout the test.
Component is qualified by similarity. The operation/configurationis thc same.
Thc only difference is that a test monitor jack has been added.
Components meet both structural and perfomiancc criteria throughout the test.
N-2CCA-S QOAAB69 QOAAA204 5
Pg. 14/4.6 The Control Card was tested and demonstrated its ability to perform its func(ions when subjected to the seismic excitations of the Foxboro RRS.
N-2CCA-D QOAAB69 QOAAA20-4 6
Pg. 12/4.5 Thc Control Card was (csted and dcmonstratcd its ability to pcrli>nn its I'unctions when subjected to thc seismic cxcitations ol'he Foxboro RRS.
N-2AO-L2C-R(C)
N-2AO-L2C-R QOAAA06 QOAAB60 QOAAB34 QOAAA20-I QOAAA20-I N-2AO-L2C-R Pg. 17/5.2.1;Pg.
20/5.2.5; Pg. 9/4.
Component is qualilied by similarity; This component chattered during seismic test under Foxboro SSE test Icvcls, but operated properly during OBE testing. Th<<relore, these Isolators are qualified to thc Foxboro OBE levels which <<nvelope thc required Cook SSE levels.
N-2AO-V2H(C)
N-2AO-V2H QOAAA06 QOAAA20-I N-2AO-V2H N-2AO-VAI Pg. 27/4.6 This component is qualified by similarity to the 2AO-VAIsince they are identical in function except for ihe output signal is proportional. This module is being customized and a supplemental qualification report is to bc issued soon.
(Vhen the new qualification report is issued, it willthen be reviewed.
N-2AO-VAI QOAAB17 QOAAA20-I QOAAA20-2 PL. 27/5.4.2; Pg.
I I/4.
Pg. 14/4.1.6 Three isolation tests were pcrformcd on this to assure that this component willprovide prop<<r isolation during a seismic cvcnt.
Both cui(ent production and naturally aged units were tested and all meet perfi>rn>ance criteria.
N-2AX+DPI I QOAAB69 QOAAA2$4 7
Pg. 15/4.7 Component was tested, however no readings were taken during testing.
Donald C. Cook Ãc>c(ear P(a>>t, Us>ks I and 2 Reactor Protection and Control System R phccmes>( Pro1cct Setsm(<os(i(tca((os>
Asscasmes>t Repost No. Zt>85.((E(M, Rev. 0 Paac (6 or (7
N-2AX+DP IO-E N-2AX+DP I0 QOAAB06 QOAAB14 QOAAA20-I N-2AX+DP I0 37 Pg. 43/4.11 Pg. 17/5.1.9 Component was used to supply power to thc nests; since no loss ofpower was experienced perlormancc criteria was mel. Structural Integrity was ntaintained.
N-2ANV-Dh4 QOAAB69 QOAAB58 QOAAA20P 7 or 16 Pg. 18/S.l.b Structural integrity maintained.
Electrical continuity, through functioning modules, was maintained bcforc, during and aller seismic tests.
P0300CQ QOAAA204 QOAAA204 Pg. 6 & Pg. 16/4.8 During onc SSE test this power supply intermittently failed, but it was determined to bc a I'useholder cap.
An improper I'uscholdcr had been used which has been corrected and the component is qualified Ior both structural inlcgrilyand perf.
IViring QOAAB61 QOAAA20-1,2 Pg. 6/IV-B tViring, cables, terminals, and connectors as installed in thc N-2ES Rack properly functioned during testing.
N-2ARPSOS-A6 QOAAA37-3 QOAAA37-2 Pg. 2/3.
Teal results indicate that this unit niaintained ils structural integrily and operated properly during and a Acr seismic exposure.
o This module is to be customized and a supplcmcntal qualification report issued.
This asscssmcnt willbc updated once the results ol'he ncw report are cvaluatcd.
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units l and 2 Reactor Protection and Control Systnn R tacenent ProJeet Sctnntc Quattttcatlon Asecannent Report No. 2tiSS IIEIW, Rcv. 0 Patte l7 of ll