ML20003C279

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re Equipment Qualification for Seismic & Hydrodynamic Loads

ML20003C279
Person / Time
Site:	Zimmer
Issue date:	01/30/1981
From:	Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Borgmann E CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
References
NUDOCS 8102270533
Download: ML20003C279 (9)

Text

%/hu(

g>a Rac fs

.h, UN6 TED STATES s.,

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION yg.)

E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o\\

t "4

o Docket No. 50-358 JAll3 o ggy Mr. Earl A. Borgrann Vice President - Engineering Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company Post Office Box 960 Cincinnati, Ohio 45201

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION FOR SEISMIC AND HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS FOR THE ZIMMER MARK II BWR PLANT As a followup to our February 23, 1979 letter to you on the above subject, for which we have not received your complete response, enclosed is a request for additional information. Please advise us when your complete response will be submitted.

We request that one copy of your response be sent to:

Mr. Richard Rahl EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Post Office Box 1625 Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401 Sincerely, N

Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information p#

ke cc w/ encl:

6

~Ns See next page sy O e~

(CO

3 r

yss tfl,'.$),*p-N/N_.- j

! 'i,.g, j s -

810 2 27 0 555">

A

. ~.

Mr. Earl A. Borgmann Vice President - Engineering JAll 3 0 33 Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company Post Office Box 960 Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 cc: Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire Leah S. Kosik, Esquire Conner, Moore & Corber 3454 Cornell Place 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Cincinnati, Ohio 45220 Washington, D.C.

20006 W. Peter Heile, Esquire Mr. William J. Moran Assistant City Solicitor General Counsel Room 214, City Hall Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company Cincinnati, Ohio 45220 Post. Office Box 960 Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 John D. Woliver. Esquire Clermont County Community Council Mr. William G. Porter, Jr.

Box 181 Porter, Stanley, Authur Batavia, Ohio 45103 and Platt 37 West Broad Street Mrs. Mary Reder Columbus, Ohio 43215 Box 270, Rt. 2 California, Kentucky 41007 Mr. James D. Flynn, Manager Licensing Environmental Affairs Andrew B. Dennison, Esquire Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company 200 Main Street Post Office Box 960 Batavia, Ohio 45103 Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 Robert A. Jones. Esquire David Martin, Esquire Prosecuting Attorney of Clermont Office of the Attorney General County, Ohio 201 St. Clair Street 154 Main Street Batavia, Ohio 45103 First Floor Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Resident Inspector /Zimer Dr. Frank F. Hooper FRD 1, Post Office Box 2021 School of Natural Resources U.S. Route 52 University of Michigan Moscow, Ohio 45153 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Mr. John Youkilis Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire, Chaiman Office of the Honorable William Gradiso Atomic Safety & Licensing Boaf d Panel United States House of Representatives U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20515 Washington,.D.C. 20555 Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Atomic Safety & Licensing Board /anel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

~

Washington, D.C.

20555

ENCLOSURE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1.

Pursuant to General Design Criterion 2, safety-related structures, systems and components are to be designed for appropriate load combinations arising from accidents and severe natural phenomena. With regard to the vibratory loads attributed to the feedback of hydrodynamic loads from the pressure suppression pool of the containment, the staff requires that safety-related mechanical, electrical, instrumentation and control equipment be designed and qualified to withstand effects of hydrodynamic vibratory loads associated with either safety relief valve (SRV) discharge or LOCA blowdown into the pressure suppression containment combined with the effects of dynamic loads arising from earthquakes.

The criteria to be used by the staff to determine the acceptability of your equipment qualification program for seismic and dynamic loads are 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.

State the extent to which the equipment in your plant meets tnese requirements and the above requirements to combine seismic and hydrodynamic vibratory loads. For equipment that does not meet these requirements provide justification for the use of other criteria.

2.

Provide the following information:

(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, electrical, 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 item of equipment.

(1) Method of ' qualification used:

a) Analysis or test (indicate the company that prepared the report, the reference report number and date of the publication).

b) If by test, describe whether it was a single or multi-frequency test and whether input was single axis or multi-axis.

c) If by analysis, describe _whether-static or dynamic, single or multiple-axis analysis was used. Provide natural frequency (or frequencies) of equipment.

(2)

Indicate whether the equipment has met tiie qualification requirements.

(3) Indicate the system in which the equipment is located and whether the equipment is required for:

a) hot stand-by b) cold shutdown c) both d) neither

. (4) location of equipment, i.e., building, elevation.

w (5) Availability for inspection (Is the equipment already installed at the plant site?)

(ii)

An Acceptabile scenario of how to maintain hot stand-by and cold shutdown based on the folowing assumptions:

(1) SSE or CBE (2) Loss of offsite power (3) Any single failure (iii) A compilation of the required response spectra (RRS) for all applicable vibratory loads (individual and combined if required) for each floor of the nuclear station under consideration.

3 Identify those items o' nuclear steam supply system and balance-of-plant equipment requiring reevaluation and specify why reevaluation is necessary (i.e. because the original qualification used the single frequency, single axis methodology, because equipment is affected by hydrodynamic loads, or because both of the above conditions were present) for each item of equip-mant.

4.

Describe the methods and criteria used to determine the acceptability of the original equipment qualification to meet the required response spectra of item 2. (iii).

5.

Describe the methods and criteria used to address the vibration fatique cycle effects on the affected equipment due to required loading conditions.

6.

Based on the methods and criteria described in items 4 and 5, provide the results of the review of the original equipment qualification with identification of (1) equipment whic5 has failed to meet the required response spectra and required requalification, and (2) equipment which was found acceptable, together with the necessary information to justify the adequacy of the original qualification.

7.

Describe procedures and schedule for completion of each item identified in item 6.(1) that requires requalification.

8.

Describe plans for a confirmatory in-situ impedance test and an in-plant SRV test program or other alternatives to characterize the ability of equipment to accommodate hydrodynanic loading.

e

3-l 9.

To confirm the extent to which the safety related equipment meets the requirements of General Design Criterion 2, the Seismic Quali-fication Review Team (SQRT) will conduct a plant site review. For selected equipment, SQRT will review the combined required response spectra (RRS) or the combined dynamic response, examine the equipment c < figuration and mounting, and then determine whether the test or analysis which has been conducted demonstrates compliance with the RRS if the equipment was qualified by test, or the acceptable analytical criteria if qualified by analysis.

The staff requires that a " Qualification Summary of Equipment" as shown on the attached pages be prepared for each selected piece of equipment and submitted to the staff two weeks prior to the plant site visit.

The applicant should make available at the plant site for SQRT review all the pertinent documents and reports of the qualification for +,he selected equipment. After the visit, the applicant should be preparc to submit certain selected documents and reports for further staff review.

e r*

4

- I

Qualification Surmary of Equipment I.

Plant Name:

Type:

1.

Utility:

PWR 2.

NSSS:

3.

A/E:

BWR II. Comoonent Name 1.

Scope:

[ ] NSSS f 3 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.

W. fight 6.

Location: Building:

Elevation:

7.

Field Mounting Conditions [ ] Bolt (No.

, Size

)

[] Weld (Length

)

[]

8.

a.

System in which located:

b.

Functional

Description:

c.

Is the equipment required for [] Hot Standby [] Cold Shutdown

[] Both

[] Neither 9.

Pertinent Reference Design Specifications:

12/80

III. Is Equipment Available for Inspection in the Plant: [] Yes

[] No IV. Equipment Qualification Method:

[ ] Test

[ ] Analysis

[ ] Combination of Test and Analysis Qualification Report *:

(No., Title and Date)

Comany that Prepared Report:

Co@any that Reviewed Report:

V.

Vibration Input:

1.

Loads considared:

a. [ ] Seismic only

b. [ ] Hydi oc(ynamic only

c. [ ] Combination of (a) and (b) 2.

Method of Combining RRS: [ l Absolute Sum [ ] SRSS

[]

~

~(6Ener,speciT9]-

3.

Required Response Spectra (attach the graphs):

4.

Da@ing Corresponding to RRS: OBE SSE 5.

Required Acceleration in Each Direction:

[ ] ZPA

[ ] Other (spTcifi] ~

o l

OBE S/S =

F/B =

V=

i SSE S /S =_ _ _______ __ _ _ _____ _ F /B =~~--

---

V=---

'i 6.

Were fatigue effects or other vibration loads considered?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

't If yes, describe loads considered and how they were treated in overall ll qualification program:

• NOTE: If more than ene report co@lete items IV thru VII for each report.

12/80

_ VI.

If Qualification by Test, then Complete *:

[ ] random 1.

[ ] Sino;e Frequency

[ ] Multi-Frequency:

[ ] sine beat

[]

2.

[ ] Single Axis

[ ] Multi-Axis 3.

No. of Qualification Tests: OBE SSE Other g gg77j)--

4.

Frequency Range:

5.

Natural Frequencies in Each Direction (Side / Side, Front /Back, Vertical):

S/S =

F/B =

V=

6.

Method of Determining Natural Frequencies

[ ] Lab Test

[ ] In-Situ Test

[ ] Analysis 7.

TRS enveloping RRS using Multi-Frequency Test [ ] Yes (Attach TRS & RRS graphs)

[ ] No 8.

Input g-level Test: OBE S/S =

F/B =

V=

SSE S/S =

F/B =

V=

9.-

Laboratory Mounting:

1.

[ ] Bolt (No.

Size

)

[ ] Weld (Length

) []

10. Fur -tional operability verified:

[ ] Yes [ ] No

[ ] Not Applicable

11. Test Results including modifications made:

l

12. Other test performed (such as aging or fragility test, including results):

l l

i l

• Note:

If qualification by a combination of test and analysis also complete l

Item VII.

12/80 l

l

o.

VII. If Qualification by Analysis, then complete:

1.

Method of Analysis:

[ ] Static Analysis

[ ] Equivalent Static Analysis

[ ] Dynamic Analysis:

[ ] Time-History

[ ] Response Spectrum 2.

Natural Frequencies in Each Direction (Side / Side, Front /Back, Vertical):

S/S =

F/B =

V=

3.

Model Type:

[ ] 3D

[ ] 2D

[]10

[ ] Finite Element

[ ] Beam

[ ] Closed Fo?m Solution 4.

[ ] Conputer Codes:_________________________

Frequency Range and No. of modes considered:, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

[ ] Hand Calculations 5.

Method of Conbining Dynamic Responses:

[ ] Absolute Sum [ ] SRSS

[ ] Other:

g g ------------ _ ---

6.

Danping: OBE SSE Basis for the damping used:

7.

Support Considerations in the model:, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

8.

Critical Structural Elements:

Governing Load or Response Seismic Total Stress A.

Identification Location Combination Stress Stress Allowable Maximum Allowable Deflection B.

Max. Critical to Assure Functional Opera-Deflection Location bility 12/80

-,