ML19296B087
| ML19296B087 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1980 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Barton A ALABAMA POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002200039 | |
| Download: ML19296B087 (21) | |
Text
.
/paa8c, o
o UNITED STATES 5\\'
'i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "J'
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
's '
l
'%.V+...#
FEB 4 1980 Docket No. 50-364 Mr. Alan R. Barton Senior Vice President Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street Cirmingham, Alabama 35291
Dear Mr. Barton:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR FARLEY 2 OPERATING LICENSE APPLICATION As a result of our continuing review of the operating license application for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Unit 2, we have developed the enclosed request for additional information.
Please provide the information requested in the enclosure. Our review schedule is based on the assumption that the additional information will be available for our review by March 15, 1980.
If you cannot meet this date, please inform us within 7 days after receipt of this letter so that we may revise our scheduling, ncerely.
(
J E F. Stolz, Chief I L ght Water Reactors Branch No.1 ivision of Project Management
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc: See next page 80022 oo63G
/
Hr. F. L. Clayton, Jr.
FEB 4 1980 cc:
Mr. Alan R. Barton Executive Vice President Alabama Power Company Post Office Box 2641 Birmingham, Alabama 35291 Mr. Ruble A. Thomas Vice President Southern Company Services, Inc.
Post Office Box 2625 Birmingham, Alabama 35202 fir. George F. Trowbridge Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 e
ENCLOSURE REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-364 Requests from the following branches in NRC are included in this enclosure.
Requests and pages are numbered sequentielly with respect to requests trans-mitted following issuance of SER Supplement No. 3.
BRANCH PAGE NO.
Mechanical Engineering Branch-110-16 through 110-28 Materials Engineering Branch 121-1 through 121-5
110.0 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING BRANCR 110.2 A review of the design adequacy of your safety-related BOP (3.10) electrical and mechanical equipment under seismic loadings will be performed by our Seismic Qualification Review Team (SQRT).
A site visit at some future date will be necessary to inspect and otherwise evaluate selected equipment after our review of the following requested informatien. The SQRT effort will be primarily focused on the adequacy of the original single-axis, single-frequency tests or analyses of equipment quilified per the criteria of IEEE Std. 344-1971.
The attached enclosure describes the SQRT and its procedure 2.
Section V.2.A requires information which you should submit so that SQRT can perform its review. You need not provide this information for NSSS equipment. Our previous review of Westing-house equipment for your plant considered the effects of multi-mode response and bi-axial coupling. We still believe this equipment to be adequately qualified.
e 110-16 e
~
04/01/79 SEISMIC QUALIFICATION REVIEW TEAM (SQRT)
Interim Procedures I.
SCOPE SQRT tasks include both generic and site specific reviews. Generic reviews cover equipment supplied by the NSSS and A/E common to nore than one plant.
Specific plant revie'ws as delineated in the Standard Review Plan Sections 3.9.2 and 3.10 will be supplemented by SQRT site visits and evaluation.
II. OBJECTIVES SQRT is a group of NRC staff members established to conduct reviews of the design adequacy of safety related mechanical components, instrumentation and control equipment, and their supporting structures for various vibratory loads. SQRT is charged with accomplishing the following three tasks.
1.
Determine the design adequacy of mechanical and electrical components and their supports for the required vibratory loading conditions which include:
(a) Seismic (b) hydrodynamic (as applicable)
(c) offsite explosion (as acplicable)
(d) other vibratbry inputs from the operating environment'(as applicable)
(e) appropriate combinations of the above events.
110-17 2.
Changes in seismic qualification criteria, such as the revision of IEEE Std. 344 and other IEEE Standards, and the issuance of Reguia-tory Guides 1.100 and 1.89 require that the staff verify:
(a) For older plants having components qualified by previous criteria; that.cnmponents have adequate margin to perform their intended design functions during and after a seismic event.
(b) For new plant applications; that there has been uniformity and consistency in implementing the current criteria.
3.
In the case of plants which have design basis seismic ground motion levels and/or other required vibratory loads increased, review to assure adequate design margin exists at the revised levels.
III. GENERAL CRITERIA The bases used by the staff to determine the acceptability of equipment qualification will be IEEE Std. 344-1975 as supplemented by Regulatory Guides 1.100 and 1.92, and Standard Review Plan Sections 3.9.2 and 3.10 IV. GENERAL PROCEDURES SQRT will conduct generic and plant specific reviews:
1.
Generic reviews will be conducted of all NSSS vendors and most architec: engineers (major equipment vendors and testing laboratories may be. included if necessary) to assure proper interpretation and implementation of the current equipnent qualification criteria applied 1
110-18
. to plants applying for construction permits and operating licenses.
2.
A plant specific equipment qualification review will be conducted of each plant now undergoing licensing review having. components qualified to critecia different from current requirements.
A.
For components having multi-plant application (such as those within the scope of an NSSS vendor), an equipment qualification review at soecific sites will orovide ge"ric qualifications.
B.
For components which have only specific plant application (mostly those within the scope of the B3P supply}, an equipment qualification review at specific sites will provide site-specific qualifications.
3.
Equipment qualification review for plants with revised increased design basis seismic ground motion levels and/or other required vibratory loads will be conducted on a plant by plant basis.
V.
SPECIFIC PROCEDURES SQRT procedures provide for both generic discussion meetings and plant site visits.
1.
Generic Discussion Meeting:
To implement the generic review specified in IV.1 and IV.2.A. a generic discussion meeting will be held to discuss the following:
A.
Meeting Agenda Meeting Objectives by SQRT 110-19
4 B.
NSSS or A/E personnel should be prepared to present the following information:
(1) A detailed description of current practice followed in equipment qualification, including acceptance criteria, methods, and procedures used in" conducting testing and analysis. Present and discuss the equipment qualification program on certain specified items (i.e., pumps, valves, diesel generators, motors, bistable units, relays, electrical cabinets,etc.)
(2) Information regarding administrative control of equipment qualification, especially the handling of interface problems, documentation, and internal review procedures.
(3) Identifying the scope of their suppliers. A list of equip.
ment should be made available if possible prior to the meeting.
C.
For the cases specified in IV.2.A, methods and procedures for conducting equipment qualification review are discussed, including selection of plants for site visits and setting up a tentative schedule for such visits.
D.
Discuss necessary documentation.
E.
In:pect testing facilities, if any. Testing capability, format of testing reports, wave forms of shaker table mo:io.is, and monitoring and control devices are the major items for inspection.
110-20
F.
SQRT concludes the meeting and specifies the follow-up items.
2.
Plant Site Reviews:
To implement plant specific equipment qualification reviews specified in IV.2 above, on-site inspection of equipment and supporting structures in question is required. Site visits generally follow the following procedures:
A.
Pre-visit information submission:
Step 1 The applicant (plant owner) receives initial information concerning the intended visit, and should subsequently submit the following:
(i) Two summary equipment lists (one for NSSS supplied equipment and one for B0P supplied equipment). These lists should include all safety related mechanical components, instrumentation, and control equipment, including valve actuators and other appurtenances of active pumps and valves.
In the lists, the following information should be specified for each ic un of equipment:
(1) Method of qualification used:
(a) Analysis or test (indicate the reference report number)
(b) If by test, describe whether it was a single or multi-frequency test and whether input was single axis or bi-axial (c) If by analysis, describe whether static or dynamic, 110-21
single or multiple-axis analysis was used. Present natural frequency of equipment.
(2)
Indicate whether the equipment is required for:
(a) hot stand-by (b) cold shutdown (c) both (d) neither (3) Location of equipment, i.e., building, elevation.
(4) Availability for inspection (Is the equipment already installed at the plant site?)
(ii) An accceptable scenario of how to maintain hot stand-by and cold shutdown based on the following assumptions:
1 (1) SSE or OBE (2) Loss of offsite power (3) Any single failure (iii) A compilation of the raquired response spectra (RRS) for all applicable vibratory loads (individual and combined if required) for each floor of the nuclear station under consideration.
Steo 2
.SQRT screens the above in'r~mation and decides which items will be evaluated during our forthcoming site visit. The applicant will be informed of these items and will be expected to submit 110-22
two weeks prior to the visit an equipment qualification summary as shown on pages 10-12 for each cf the selected items.
B.
A brief meeting is held at the beginning of a site visit with the following agenda:
(1) SQRT explains the objectives of the site visit and procedures to conduct equipment inspection.
(2) Utility personnel or their designees present an overview of the seismic qualification program conducted.
(3) The seismic qualification of certain specified items may be discussed as necessary.
(4) SQRT specifies items that need to be inspected.
C.
SQRT conducts inspection of some specified items.
D.
SQRT reviews the qualification documents of the selected equipment.
E.
SQRT describes findings,of the inspection and the review.
F.
General discussion.
G.
SQRT concludes the visit and specifies needed information and the follow-up actions.
3.
After each visit SQRT will issue a trip report, which identifies findings, conclusions and follow-up items. Status reports may be issued as necessary. The site review will include the issuance of 110-23
. an Evaluation Report for the specific plant. Generic evaluations will be referenced to the NSSS vendor or A/E.
VI. RESPONSIBILITIES OF NRC PARTICIPANTS:
A.
The Seismic Qualification Review Team consists of members of the Mechanical Engineering Branch (MEB), the Instrumentation and Control Systems Branch (ICSB), and the Power Systems Branch (PSB). One additional member from MEB will join the team when a review of a specific plant is going to be conducted.
This member will be the reviewer of the plant.
The Team Leader is responsible for scheduling actions, coordinating staff positions, and contacting appropriate authorities for work assignments to each member. He reports to the MEB Branch Chief regarding the progress of SQRT performance. He will set up necessary contacts for generic reviews and will contact project management for specific plant site visits. He will specify the meeting objectives and concludes meetings.
The MEB members and Team Leader are responsible for reviewing assigned equipment qualifications in the area of responsibility cf the Mechanical Engineering Branch, including the methods and procedures used in test and analysis.
Members representing the Power Systems 3 ranch (PSB) and the Instrumentation
& Control Systems Branch (ICSB) are responsible for reviewing assigned equipment qualification in the area of responsibility of 110-24 e
. their branch, including equipment signal interpretations for functional verification. They serve as a liaison between SQRT and ICSB and PSB.
All members shall present their opinion and professional judgement
~
to the Team Leader in order to arrive at consistent and uniform SQRT positions.
B.
The MEB, PSB, and ICSB project reviewers will be advised of SQRT activities which relate to specific plants. The MEB project reviewer is responsible for evaluating the impact of SQRT activity on the specific plant review and for taking appropriate action to include pertinent information in the plant safety evaluation. The MEB project reviewer is expected to participate in the site visit and attend pertinent generic meetings as necessary.
The DPM project manager, after being informed of the. intended plant visit, is expected to contact the applicant and arrange for the visit. The project manager serves as a liaison between the SQRT and the applicant.
C.
Generic meetings will be arranged by the SQRT or via the DPM generic projkct manager if one is assigned.
D.
Repr2sentatives from I&E Regional Offices and other interested organizational groups within NRC are welcome to attend either generic meetings or plant site visits as observers. The SQRT should be informed of expected attendance at such meetings or site visits.
110-25 6
Qualification Sunnary of Equipment I.
Plant Name:
Type:
1.
Utility:
PWR 2.
NSSS:
3.
A/E:
BWR II. Comoonent Name 1.
Scope: [ ] NSSS
[ ] B0P 2.
Model Number:
Quantity:
3.
Vendor:
4.
If the component is a cabinet or panel, name and model No. of the devices included:
5.
Physical Description a.
Appearance b.
Dimensions c.
Weight,_
6.
Location: Building:
Elevation:
7.
Field Mounting Conditions [ ] Bolt (No.
. Size
)
[] Weld (Lengtn
)
[]
8.
Natural Frequencies in Each Direction (Side / Side, Front /Back, Vertical):
S/S:
F/B:
V:
9.
a.
Functional
Description:
b.
Is the equipment required for [] Hot Standby [] Cold Shutdown
(] Both
- 10. Pertinent Reference Design Specifications:
110-26
III.
Is Eouipment Available for Inspection in the Plant: [] Yes
[] No IV. Equipment Qualification Method: Test:
Analysis:
Combination of Test and Analysis:
Test and/or Analysis by (name of Company or Laboratory & Report No.)
V.
Vibration input:
1.
Loads considered: 1.[ ] Seismic only 2.[ ] Hydrodynamic cnly 2.[ ] Explosive caly 4.[ ]Other (Specify) 5.[ ] Combination of 2.
Required Response Spectra (attach the graphs):
3.
Required Acceleration in Each Direction:
S/S =
F/B =
V=
VI.
If Qualification by Test, then Comolete:
[ ] random 1.
[ ] Single Frequency
[ ] Multi-Frequency: [ ] sine beat
[]
2.
[ ] Single Axis
[ ] Multi-Axis 3.
No. of Qualification Tests: OBE SSE Other (specify) 4.
Frequency Range:
5.
TRS enveloping RRS using Multi-Frequency Test [ ] Yes (Attach TRS & RRS graphs)
[ ] No 6.
Input g-level Test at S/S =
F/B =
V=
7.
Laboratory Mounting:
1.
[ ] Bolt (No.
Size
) [ ] Weld (Length
) []
8.
Functional operability verified: [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Not Applicable 9.
Test Results including modifications made:
- 10. Other tests performed (such as fragility test, including results):
110-27
. VII.
If Qualification by Analysis or by the Combination of Test and Analysis, then Complete:
1.
Description of Test including Results:
2.
Method of Analysis:
[ ] Static Analysis
[ ] Equivalent Static Analysis
[ ] Dynamic Analysis: [ ] Time-History
[ ] Response Spectrum 3.
Model Type:
[ ] 3D
[ ] 2D
[ ] lD
[ ] Finite Elenent
[ ] Beam
[ ] Closed Form Solution 4.
[ ] Computer Codes:
Frequency Range and No. of modes considered:
[ ] Hand Calculations 5.
Method of Combining Dynamic Responses: [ ] Absolute Sum [ ] SRSS
[ ]Other:
(specify) 6.
Damping:
Basis for the' damping used:
i 7.
Support Considerations in the model:
8.
Critical Structural Elements:
Governing Load or Response Seismic Total Stress A.
Identification Location Combination Stress Stress Allowable Effect Upon Functional B.
Max. Deflection location Ooerability 110-28
121.0 MATERIALS ENGINEERING BRANCH - MATERIALS INTEGRITY SECTION 121.1 We require that your inspection program for Class 1, 2 and 3 components be in accordance with the revised rules in 10 CFR.Part 50, Section 50.55a, paragraph (g). Accordingly, subca t the following information:
(1) A preservice inspection plan which is consistent with the required edition of the ASME Code. This inspection plan should include any exceptions you propose to the code requirements.
(2) An inservice inspection plan submitted within six months of the anticipated date for commercial operation.
This preservice inspection plan will be required to support the safety evaluation report finding regardir.g your compliar.:e with oreservice and inservice inspection requirements. Our determination of your compliance will be based on:
(1) That edition of Section XI of the ASME Code referenced in your FSAR or later editiont of Section XI referenced in t'e FEDERAL REGISTER that you may elect to apply.
(2) All augmented examinations established by the Commission when added assurance of structural reliability was deemed necessary.
Examples of augmented examination requirements can be found in th,e NRC positions on:
(1) high energy fluid systems in Section 3.6 of the Standard Review Plan (SRP), NUREG-75/087; (2) turbine disk integrity in Section 10.2.3 of the SRP.
Your response to this item should define the applicable edition (s) and subsections of Section XI of the ASME Code.
If any'of the examination requirements of the particular edition of Section XI you referenced in the FSAR cannot be met, a request for relief must be submitted, including complete technical justification to support your request.
Catailed guidelines for the preparation and content of the inspection programs to be submitted for staff review and for relief requests are attached as Appendix A to Section 121.0 of our review questions.
121-1
j APPENDIX A GUIDANCE FOR PREPARING PRESERVICE AND INSERVICE INSPECTTsN PROGRAMS AND RELIEF REQUEST PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 50.55a(g)
A.
Description of the Preservice/ Inservice Insoection Program This program should cover the requirements set forth in Section 50.55a(g) of 10 CFR Part 50 and the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, Subsections IWA, IWB, IWC and IWD. The guidance provided in this enclosure is intended to illustrate the type and extent of infomation that should be provided for NRC reviw It a?so describes the infonratior, necessary for " request fcr relie " o' 4tr.3 ths:
cannot be fully insoected to the requirements of fection X: of :ne ASME Code.
By utilizing these guidelines, licensees can significantly reduce tne need for requests for additional infomation from the NRC staff.
B.
Contents of the Submittal The information listed below should be included in the submittal:
1.
For each facility, include the applicable date of the ASME Code and the appropriate addendum date.
2.
The period and interval for which this program is applicable.
3.
Provide the proposed codes and addenda to be used for repairs, modifications, additions or alternations to the facility which might be implemented during this inspection period.
4.
Indicate the examinations that you have exempted under the rules of Saction XI of the ASME Code. A reference to the applicable paragraph of the code that grants the exemption is satisfactory.
The inspec:.on re:tirer?nts for exempt compe r tt W uld 5e stated (e.g., visua:.r.3pection during a press :re test..
5.
Identify the inspection and pressure testing requirements of the applicable portion of Section XI that tre deemed impractical because of the limitation of design, pometry or materials of construction of the components.
Provide the inf m ation reauesteo in tre folicwing section of this appendix for the inspections and pressere tests icentified in ::er ' abcve.
121-2 C.
Recuest for Relief from Certain Inspection and Testing Recuirements It has been the staff's experience that 'uny requests.or relief from testing requirements submitted by licensess haya not 'oeen supported by adequate descrtptive and detailed technical information. This detailed infomation is necessary to:
(1) document the impracticality of the ASME Code requirements within the limitations of design, geometry and materials of construction of components; and (2) determine whether the use of alternatives will provide an acce
'le level of quality and safety.
Relief request submitted with a justification such as " impractical,"
" inaccessible," or any other categorical basis, require additional 7forntien to aermit the staff to T.ske ar acaluation cf that relief 4
equest. 'he objec:'ve of tre gaisance providst/ ir ;Ms secti n: 1 to illustra;e :ht extent cf the infomation that is required by the NRC staff to make a proper evaluation and to adequately document the basis for granting the relief in the staff's Safety Evaluation Repcrt.
Ths :E staff believes subseq.'er.t re:'.:ests for additioni information and delays in comoleting the review can be considerabiy recuced if tr.is infarcation is provided :nitiaily in the licensee's submittal.
For each relief request submitted, the following informati.on should be included:
1.
An identification of the component (s) and/or the examination requirement for which relief is requested.
2.
The number of items associated with the requested relief.
3.
The ASME Code class.
4 An identification of the specific ASME Code re:uirement that has been detemined to be impractical.
5.
The int or$ation ta sup:. :nc an:rminati. n ne-t.c.eb t e.
i is impractical;
.e., state and explain the basis 'o.
requesting relief..
6.
An identification of the alternative examinations that are prcpesed:
'.tr in l'eu cf the requirements of Section XI; er
- b) to sacpiement examinatiors performed parti lly in cerrCiance vi t t.
- 5e rer :i-eren:: Of Se:ticr. XI.
O
'1.
7.
A description and justification of any changes expected in the overall level of plant safety by perfoming the proposed alternative examinations in lieu of the examination required by Section XI.
If it is not possible to perform alternate examinations, discuss the impact on the overall level of plant quality and safety.
For inservice inspection, provide the following additional infomation regarding the inspection frequency:
8.
State when the request for relief would apply during the inspection period or interval (i.e., whether the request is to deferanexamination).
9.
State when the proposed alternati te er.amir.atiar.; wili ce implemented and perfomed.
10.
State the time period for which the requested relief is needed.
Technical justification or data must be submitted to support the relief request. 0:inions without suastantiation thz t a change will not affect the quality level are unsatisfactory.
I. the relief is requested for inaccessibility, a detailed description or drawing A
which depicts the inaccessibility must accompany the request.
relief request is not required for' tests prescribed in sectior. XI that do not apply to your facility. A statement of "N/A" (not applicable) or "None" will suffice.
D.
Recuest for Relief for Radiation Considerations Exposures of test personnel to radiation to accomplish the examina-tions prescribed in Section XI of the ASME Code can be an important factor in detemining whether, or under what conditicr.s, an examina-tion must be perfomed. A request fo-relief must te submitted by the licensee in the manner described above for inaccessibility and must be subsequently approved by the NRC staff.
We reccgnize that some of t!.? radiat.on cansideraci:ns wil~, or ly be kncwn at the time of the test. However, the licensae generally is aware, from experience at operating facilities, of those areas where relief will be necessary and should submit as a minimur:, the following inferration with the request for relief:
Se total estir.ated man-rem expo:r e involved i. tne examina-ion.
2.
The radiation levels at the test area.
f 121-4
ss 3.
Flushing or shielding capabilities which might reduce radiation levels.
4.
A proposal for alternate inspection technique:.
5.
A discussion of the considerations involved in remote inspections.
6.
Similar welds in redundant systems or similar welds in the same systems which can be inspected.
7.
The resu'lts of preservice inspection and any~ inservice results for the welds for which the relief is being requested.
8.
A discussion of the conrequences if the weld which was r.ct et.acined, did fail.
~
121-5
.