ML20023A479
| ML20023A479 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, LaSalle |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1982 |
| From: | Rosztoczy Z Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20023A480 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-82-366 NUDOCS 8208250506 | |
| Download: ML20023A479 (8) | |
Text
.
l
- ' ya u:vy jog //L _, [
UNITED STATES j
E
-- s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o-E fj //
WACHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s% *. < #s ~ _() / <..
PRibcip;a cif ee i
g
~}
~
4!,,v-I 06 W
[r, l
nj B.
l i
u MEMORANDUM FOR:
Albert Schwencer, Chief EEi t.'
Licensing Branch No. 2 M TP j i
Division of Licensing u
l I
.FROM:
Zoltan R. Rosztoczy, Chief Equipment Qualification Branch Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
REVIEW 0F LASALLE HVAC EQUIPMENT SEISMIC AND DYNAMIC QUALIFICATION-On August 2, 1982, the staff of EQB conducted a mini Seismic Qualification Review Team (SQRT) audit on six Zack Co.
purchased equipment of the LaSalle County Station 1 and 2.
The audit consisted of the review of the seismic and dynamic qualification file for these equipment at the Chicago office of the architect-engineer, Sargent and Lundy Engineers. is the trip report prepared by the EQB staff for this mini SQRT audit. The staff conclusions and recommendations are summarized below:
The audit demonstrated that the methodology used to requalify these HVAC equipment are in general in compliance with the intent of the IEEE Std. 344-1975 and current licensing criteria as described in SRP 3.9 and 3.10, and are acceptable to SQRT.
Furthermore, it appears that, as far as seismic and dynamic loadings are concerned, there is adequate margin in the design of these equipment.
However, since during the staff review it was discovered that S & L did not use the proper method in requalification in some cases, S & L should perform a sample review of the B0P equipment in order to ensure that the improper method used will not have adverse effect on safety.
The result of this sample review should be reported for staff review and approval prior to full power license.
..a.
9 9..../
h.
ZoltanR.Rosztoczy,ionBran/
Chief Equipment Qualificat ch Division of Engineering
Enclosure:
HVAC Equipment Mini SQRT Audit Trip Report XA Copy Hos'BeWSstEPdRl N
AUG 161962 unso ro' $\\
n
cc:
H. Denton D. Eisenhut R. Vollmer J. Knight W. Johnston Z. Rosztoczy W. Haass D. Terao J. Spraul
[A.Bournia C. Norelius, RIII SDLQ Members I
i e
a 4
w*
9
- wp
,,am>-
m-y 7- -,.
.--.e-
.,.e--
n
-e+,, - - - -
MEMSRANDUM FOR:
Zoltan R. Rosztoczy, Chief Equipment Qualification Branch 4
Division of Engineering THRU:
Goutam Bagchi, Section Leader Equipment Qualification Branch Division of Engineering
~
~
FROM:
T. Y. Chang,
Equipment Qualification Branch Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT FOR REVIEW OF LASALLE HVAC EQUIPMENT SEISMIC AND DYNAMIC QUALIFICATION
REFERENCE:
1.
Memo from R. J. Bosnak to'T. M. Novak, dated 7/31/82, titled "LaSalle/Zack Co.
Allegations, HVAC System On August 2, 1982, as per recommendation of reference 1, 3a), the staff of EQB conducted a mini Seismic Qualification Review Team (SQRT) audit on certain Zack Co. purchased "HVAC accessories" of the LaSalle County Station 1 and 2 (Commonwealth Edison Co., CECO). The audit was performed at the Chicago office of the architect-engineer, Sargent & Lundy Engineers (S&L).
The SQRT, which consists of members from the EQB staff and consultants from Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, had reviewed available information and made a site audit on November 17 through 21, 1980 to confirm the extent to which the qualification of equipment, as installed in LaSalle, meets current licensing criteria as described in SRP Sections 3.9.2 and 3.10.
A representative sample of Seismic Category I mechanical and electrical equipment, including both NSSS and "w
- - g
- v--
e-,tP's---rw y
w-gy
-re
.,e--
--ev-w 3.,-----
w
BOP scopes were selected for the plant site review.
The review consisted of field observations of the actual equipment configuration and its installation followed by the review of the corresponding qualification (test and/or analysis) documents.
This 1980 SQRT
' audit concluded, as reported in the SER, that an appropriate qualification program has been defined for the Seismic Category I mechanical and electrical equipment which will provide adequate assurance that such equipment will function properly during and after the excitation from vibratory forces imposed by the safety shutdown earthquake or hydrodynamic loads associated with discharges into the suppression pool or by the combined earthquake'and hydro-dynamic loads.
The sample included some HVAC equipment such as SGTS primary supply fan and 72" secondary containment isolation damper, however, no HVAC equipment purchased by Zack Co. was chosen in that 1980 SQRT audit.
The purpose of the 8/2/82 visit is to investigate and report on the adequacy of the seismic and dynamic qualification of the HVAC equipment which are purchased by Zack Co. to CECO's specification.
These equipment were originally seismically qualified only by the various manufacturers and reviewed and approved by S&L.
A requalification of these HVAC' equipment was performed later on by S&L, in view of the additional hydrodynamic vibratory loads associated with the MARK II containment suppression pool.
The Required Response Spectra (RRS) used for this requalifi-l cation is the envelop of various combinations of SSE, Safety Relief
--..-----,n,,
,,,r..-,
,-,,n--v--
-,r
Valve (SRV) discharge, and LOCA blowdown such as condensation oscillation and chugging.
During the 8/2/82 mini SQRT audit, the following HVAC equipment purchased by Zack Co. were chosen for audit from a list submitted to the NRC by S&L on 7/29/82:
Equipment Name Manufacturer 1.
Fire damper American Warming and Ventilating (AWV)
- 12. Air flow monitoring Air Monitor Corp.
3.
Balancing damper AWV 4.
Gravity damper AWV 5.
Ventilation filter American Air Filters 6.
Duct silencer Industrial Acoustics Co.,
Inc.
These equipment are all safety-related, all covered by the S&L deisgn specification J2590, and may belong to any of the following
" safety-related HVAC systems *" in the LiSalle County Station 1 & 2:
1.
Control Room HVAC System 2.
Diesel Generator Building HVAC System Note:
- Namely those systems or portions thereof which serve safety-related equipment that are required to operate during abnormal or accident conditions.
1 7y-gi y
4 9---w
-~. -
4 3.
Auxiliary Electric Equipment Room HVAC System 4.
Standby Gas Treatment System i
5.
Emergency Switchgear Heat Removal System 6.
ECCS Equipment Area Cooling System Among the six equipment audited, the three dampers have moving parts but are classified by S&L as passive, namely they are only required to stay in place during earthquake, the other three equipment (air flow monitoring, ventilation filter, dust silencer) do not have moving parts, thus in all the cases, structural integrity of the equipment will imply operability.
For equipment audited, qualification was uniformly accomplished by static or static coefficient analysis.
The only test performed (in addition to static analysis) was on AWV model 475 fire damper; where a static strength test was perforned by Toledo Testing Laboratory, Inc. to determine the maximum allowable load of its blade retaining linkage (strap) and the frame.
Furthermore, the frames of these HVAC equipment are made of 3" x 3" x k" angle steel and are considered by S&L to be rigid.
r The static and static coefficient analysis qualification methods, if properly employed, are acceptable to IEEE Std. 344-1975 for this type of equipment, and are thus considered acceptable by the SQRT.
The exceptions here I
i m-m-
-,.-----n w-
a-
~ - -
- being the three dampers manufactured and originally seismically i
qualified by American Warming and Ventilating, where the funda-mental frequencies are determined by analysis to be less than 33 Hz, the dampers are thus in the flexible range.
- However, static method instead of the more proper static coefficient method was used for the qualification.
The S&L requalification of the dampers used the same methodology, the stresses when compared to the allowables, nevertheless, indicated that if the dampers were being qualified by the static coefficient method, there will still be adequate design margin left.
For equipment in flexible range the proper dynamic load should be derived as a product of the peak acceleration from the RRS and
~
a proper dynamic amplification factor (e.g., 1.5 for frame type structures).
During the staff review it is evident that S&L did not use the proper method in some cases.
It is desirable that a representative number of calculations for all safety-related equipment be reviewed by S&L to ensure that the improper method used will not have adverse effect on safety.
The air flow monitoring and ventilation filter were properly qualified and requalified by the static coefficient method (a static coefficient of 1.5 is used) with adequate design margin. The fundamental frequency of l
duct silencer was shown by analysis to be greater than 33 Hz and this rigid equipment was properly qualified and requalified by the static method with adequate design margin.
l
,r+ --,
o-
,,,,ym--v-
-r 4
n n
n
,,-,,w.,,-asw--,--,,r-,,--,,
b
I 4 In summary, based on the audit of the six Zack Co. purchased HVAC equipment, it can be concluded that the methodology used to requalify them are in general in compliance with the intent of the IEEE Std. 344-1975 and current licensing criteria as described in SRP 3.9 and 3.10, a,nd are acceptable to the SQRT.
Furthermore, it appears that, as far as seismic and dynamic loadings are concerned, there is adequate margin in the design of these equipment.
S&L should perform a sample review of the safety-related equipment as discussed above and report for staff review and approval prior to full power license.
i O #