ML19269C844
| ML19269C844 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/26/1979 |
| From: | Baer R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902140212 | |
| Download: ML19269C844 (8) | |
Text
.
r LRQPq UNITED STATES j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3*
f ' 'A WASHINGTON D. C. 20566
[
J M t B UI9 VENDOR:
COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD ON CENPD-182, " SEISMIC QUALIFICATION OF CE INSTRUMENTATION EQUIPMENT" Members of the NRC staff met with members of the Combustion Enginet. ring (CE) staff of November 1, 1978 to discuss the CE topical report CENPD-182,
" Seismic Qualification of C-E Instrumentation Equipment". Meeting attendees are listed in Enclosure 1.
Members of the CE staff made a presentation which covered the development of the topical report, its contents, and its intended reusuage. Copies of the presentation slides are presented in Figures 1 through 5 of Enclosure 2.
The presentation was followed by a discussion between NRC and CE staff members as to whether or not the topical report, with or without major revisions, could serve its intended function. That is, could the NRC review and approve the seismic qualification (testing) of instrumentstion on a generic basis?
Further, if complete acceptability could not be determined generically, could the qualification methodology be approved on a generic basis?
Representatives from the Mechanical Engineering Branch (ME5), and the Instrumentation and Control Systems Branch (I&CSB) had somewhat different viewpoints on the acceptability of various approaches and the difficulties that may be encountered by the staff in approving and later utilizing the topical report. The MEB representative would prefer that all tests reported in Part Two of CENPD-183 conform to the test methodology discussed in Part One and be illustrated by the sample test reports contained therein. CE pointed out that the sample test reports, which were incorporated into Revision 1 at the specific request of the NRC, did not encompass the full range of possible test methodologies allowed by IEEE 344-1975. In fact, many other types of tests could, and would, be utilized depending upon size, weight and configuration of equipment; test facilities utilized; and the specific equipment functions being monitored. Because of the almost limitless combinations which exist, CE representatives stated that they do not believe it feasible to include examples of all such test reports. CE suggested that the section on IEEE 344-1975 methodology be expanded by the inclusion of SYS80-ICE-0506, Revision 01, " Qualification Criteria of Seismic Category I Instrumentation and Electric Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations". These criteria are sent to CE's vendors and are used by CE to determine test acceptability. CE stated that they would send a copy of SYS80-ICE-056 for the staff to review.
hb0 b1k0 blA
m 2 61979 Combustion Engineering, Inc. The representative of MEB agreed to review that report to see if that would resolve his concerns. However, he pointed out that the flexibility desired by CE in their topical report made it difficult to approve. That is, if CE wishes to reserve the right to test many different components by any of several methods, it may be impossible for the staff to agree that all the methods are acceptable for every component without detailed review of each method of qualification and tt:e associated procedures.
The I&CSB representative agreed that the CE apprcach was feasible from his st;ncpoint. Even though a large number of combinations exist for types and functions of e<luipment. he believed that NRC could approve the basic electrical methodology if CE's competence is cemenstrated in the existing sample test reports for electrical and functional methodology.
Another item discusse<: at the meeting was the generic approval of the data sheets.
It was agreed that if agreement on the methodology was achieved, the basic information on the data sheet could be approved on a generic basis by NRC. However, for each plar.t that referenced the topical report, the response spectra and g-value shown on the data sheet would have to be com-cared to the plant specific parameters to assure that the test conditions bounded the specif'c plant design conditions. Also, NRC requested, and CE agreed to provide a matrix of the project equipment list / data sheets such that specific data sheets will have an accompanying list of projects to which they are applicable.
Considerable time was spent in the neeting discussing reference to IEEE 344-1971 versus IEEE 144-1975. The desirability of retaining the 1971 methodology and data sheets in the topical was thorougnly discussed. CE representatives stated that advantages to both CE and the NRC exist in retaining the 1971 material bccause several "early" CE plants reference the IEEE 344-1971 portion of CENPD-182 and advantages of generic review can be gained in conjunction with the site audit program in existence. CE feels that NRC corcerns can be resolved oy a statement in the CENPD-182 Safety Evaluation Report limiting use of IEEE 344-1971 reports /nethodolcgy to plants not recuired to meet later requirements. MRC staff members agreed that this approach was acceptable and stated that our SER would probably point out this limitation. Further, the NRC noted that we are likely to review these plants on an audit basis using the SQU:RT team.
Y L { m Y Y / b et u -r Robert L. Baef, Chief Light Water Reactors Branch No. 2 U$
Division of Project Management ta cc: See attached sheet
inn 2 61979 ENCLOSURE 1 ATTENDANCE LIST NAME ORGANIZATION Robert Baer NRC/DPM/ LWR-2 C. F. Miller NRC/ DSS /ICSB R. M. Stephens NRC/ DSS /MEB Pei-Ying Chen NRC/ DSS /MEB Terry MacNair C-E Qualification John Corsi C-E Qualification Dale Sigler C-E I&C Systems Richard Schultze C-E Instrumentation Roland Daigle C-E Instrumentation June Cicerchia C-E Licensing Harry Rood NRC/DPM/ LWR-2
f,, f,,,u 9 m 2 a en DISCUSS NO CLARIFY TE FOR%T NO PURPOSE OF CENPD-182 PEV.1 e
Fp.1
4 1979 a-O C-E ORJECTIVES:
RECEIVE f1RC APPROVAL OF PART ONE OF CEllPD-182 ESTABLISH STAf0ARD MEBCD OF REPORTING IEST DATA (PART Two)
CUfD1 OBJECTP/ES:
QUALin EOUIPMENT To APPRCPRIATE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISH no MAltEAIN COHUNICATIONS REGARDitG OUALIFICATION MINIMIZE IIME Are EXPENSE FOR PROPER QUALIFICATION AND REVIEWS e
- G79 CE.'1PD-182 MEEIING AGE.!DA IfRRODUCTIG1 DEELOREE OF 00GIEff CGEllTS OF DOCLIEE USAGE OF DOGIEE DISCUSSION rG)>
5
r s s9 HISTORY OF SEISMIC TCPICAL EPORT CENPD-182 N0/.1972
- ENPD-61 SusMmED To NRC IC.1975-
- Ei1PD-182, PEv. O SusilTTED To NRC PARCH 1976
- MEETIro; RECEIVED NRC PRELIMINARY CCtTGITS CN REV. O.
APRIL 1976
- MEETINGJ MARCH 1976 CO74ENTS h4SWERED AT AND-2 SITE AUDIT JULY 1976
- NRC REQUESTED ADD'L INFCRMATION FoR PEv. O N0/,1976
- PsETING; NRC RECOT4 ENDED AND C-E AGREED G1 IWo Votues FcwAT EC.1976
- MEETING; DRAFT CF REV.1 WIm IWo VOLU'E F0WAT SusMITTED To NRC FEB,1977
- NRC CatEITS OF JULY 1976 kiS' DRED BY LETTER JIK 1977
- REV.1 SUBilTTED To f!RC APRIL 1978
- NRC REGUESTED ADD'L INFORMATION FOR Pe/. 1 b9 9'
" 2 9 UM CONTENTS OF CENPD-182 1.0 PART ONE 1.1 Introduction - contains brief discussion of seismic qualification developments 1.2 References 1.3 Description of Seismic Qualification Program 1.3.1 Objective of CENPD-182 1.3.2 Equicment Classification - definitions of equipment seismic categories.
1.3.3 Equipment Performance Requirements - describes in general acceptable performance criteria of equipment during earthquake.
1.3.4 Equipment Qualification Methods - describes acceptable methods (test or analysis) for qualifying different equipment categories.
1.3.5 Qualification Procedures per 344-1971 - The qualification methods (test, analysis, etc) per 344-1971 are described.
1.3.6 Qualification Procedures per 344-1975 - The qualification methods (test, analysis, etc) per 344-1975 are described.
1.4 Administrative Prodedures of Seismic Qualification -
This section outlines the path of the seismic quali-fication program through equipment specification, design, manufacture, qualification, documentation and license review, 1.5 Attachments - Six test reports are contained herein as typical to provide the reviewer with some indication what lies behind each data sheet.
This section provides 95% of the pages in Part One.
2.0 PART TWO 2.1 Equipment List by Nuclear Station - This section contains a list of Category I equipment for each nuclear station covered by this report.
Each equipment refers to a data sheet which documents qualification.
2.2 Data Sheets - This section contains the numerically listed data sheets which summarize seismic quali-fication results for each equipment.
f.
(
( Il d '