ML20028G325
| ML20028G325 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000447 |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1983 |
| From: | Thomas C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Sherwood G GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8302080411 | |
| Download: ML20028G325 (7) | |
Text
.
JAN 311983 Docket No. STN 50-447 General Electric Company ATTH: Dr. Glenn G. Sherwood, Manager Safety & Licensing Operation Nuclear Power Systems Division 175 Curtner Avenue, Mail Code 682 San Jose, California 95125
Dear Dr. Sherwood:
Subject:
Request for Additional Information Regarding the Seismic and Dynamic Qualification of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Described in the General Electric Application for an FDA for a Standardized Nuclear h'.and (GESSAR-II)
Our review of the equipment qualification portions of your Epplication for a Final Design Approval of your Standard Nuclear Island has identified a need for additional information. Our request is cont &ined in the enclc,sure.
In order for us to maintain the relatively compressed review schedule, we will need completely adequate responses to these questions by February 11, 1983. This request for infomation was previously given to your staff on December 10, 1982 and discussed with them in a rieeting on January 12, 1983.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Dino Scaletti at (301) 492-9797.
Sincerely, l
l l
Cecil 0. Thomas, Chief Standardization A Special Projects Branch Division of Licensing j
,]
DISTRIBUTION:
' Document Control C. Thomas NRC PDR P. Anderson cc: See next page l
% NOM l
8302090411 830131 SSPB Reading M M 18 # lillK PDR ADOCK 05000447 Gray File M h ha ha resgnieg A
PDR b8I0fl. 853 tiesIgets is set repksi rA nr lS DL:SSPB N}P^"
rson' M DL: SPB
,[
1 M ficc one>
.l...........f.l..,....
...J...
MRC FORM 318 00-80) NRCM ONO OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam e-auno
o-GESSAR II e
General Electric Company ATTH:
Glenn G. Sherwood, Manager Safety & Licensing Operation
. Nuclear Power Systems Division 175 Curtner Avenue, Mail Code 682 San Jose, California 95125 cc: Mr. Rudolph Vil.la, ' tanager BWR Standardization General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, CA 95114
/
Mr. L. Gifford, Manager Regulatory Operations Unit General Electric Company 7910 Woodmont Avenue Sethesda, Maryland 20814 Director, Criteria & Standards Division Office of Radiation Programs U.'S. Environmental Protection Agency Tdi M Street, S.W.
v
^
Washington, D.C.
20460 L. M. fiills, Chief Pegulatory Sta'#
Tennessee Valley Authority Bldg. 400, CST ll-C C,hattanooga, TENN 37201 Mr. Daniel F. Giess'ag Division of Nuclear Regulation and Safety i
Office of Converter Reactor Deployment, NE-12 j
Office of Nuclear Energy Washington, D. C.
20545 1
e O
e v
y
,n e
+
~
s
The Following Concerns Pertain to The Seismic and Dynamic Qualification of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Described in GESSAR II "BWR/6 Nuclear Island Design"
GENERAL COMMENT
S Interfaces between the Nuclear Island and Balance of Plants (BOP) 271.01 a.
(3.10) ar'e discussed in Section 1.9 of Volume 1.
Listed are the minimum -
BOP structures and systems to be designed by the Applicant which are necessary for normal operation, safe shutdown and accident mitigatich.
Also listed are the safety and power generation interfaces between the Nuclear Island systems and related BOP systems.
The discussion identifies wher'e General Electric's (GE's) responsibility ends regarding these systems.
The GESSAR II FSAR states that intervening structures or componer1ts that serve as interfaces between the equipment to be qualified and that supplied by others are not qualified as part of GE's program.
The FSAR should clearly define (as in lists or tables)'
all qualified equipment to be supplied by GE and the procedures to maintain this e.quipment as qualified when other qualified components or parts not supplied by GE interface with the quali-fied equipment of GE.
4 b.
Section 3.10.4.1 states that qualification. records for safety-related panels and control equipment are maintained in*a file by GE.
Tnese rec 6rds should also be available at the plant.
c.
A topical report or some quite detailed and comprehensive
. examples would be beneficial in comprehending the GE approach to equipment qualification, l
HYDR'0 DYNAMIC LOADS i
271.02 a.
The GESSAR II FSAR does not contain substantial discussion about.the (3.9) development of hydrodynamic loads for purposes of equipment qualifi-0 cation or how the loads are handled in the qualification.
The limited discussion of this subject in Section 3.9 indicates that the hydro- -
dynamic loads will be represented by response spectra.
But no dis-cussion is presented as to how the response spectra are developed or
'i hcw the hydrodynam,ic loads are combined with seismic loads.
If these loads are combined by. performing an SRSS summation, the t'.
results may be less than conservative.
Dis' cuss more thoroughly.
the treatment of hydrodynamic loads, seismic loads, and their
. combination.
,w,
-,.7
., _. ~
~
Persistently throughout Section 3.9 the statement is made that if equipment can be shown to heve natural frequencies' greater than 33 Hz, it can be considered rigid.
This, of course, may not be true if the equipment is subjected to hydrodynamic loads which have a frequency content greater than 33 Hz.
Where hydrodynamic loading I
is mentioned, a frequency of 60 Hz as the cutoff frequency should be provided since hydrodynamic loads often contain higher frequencies.
271 03
' The modeling approaches discussed in the document (page 3.7-38) are (3.7) geared toward the low frequencies of seismic loads.
Justify neglect of higher frequency dynartic loads in the modeling.
FATIGUE, AGING, AND SEQUENTIA'l TESTING' The GE position on fatigue effects due to hydrodynamic loading 271.04 a.
(3.10) should be discussed.
The argument fer using only one '0BE-intensity earthquake instead of five as stipulated in the IEEE 344-1975 Standard for seismic fatigue evaluation may be acceptable for ce.rtain plants.
The use of only one OBE, however, should n6t be used on a generic basis.
It should rather be justified for each plant'where only one OBE is used.
b.
The qualification program should address the degree of aging or envir,onmental degradation that pieces of equipment could potentially incur prior to the occurrence of dynamic loading.-
The program should assure that the equipment has undergone its maximum expected amount of aging before the dynamic loads are applied in the qualification of the equipment.
Surveillance and maintenance programs needed to assure that the equipment does not age to a degrees worse than qualified to should be described.
Sequebtialtesting"needstobediscussedmorethoroughly.
c.
The discussion should make clear that seismic and hydro-dynamic tests follow other enviranmental' testing on the
' equipment.
The sequence of 'exp;ontory, seismic and hydrodynamic loads and how this scuence properly quali-fies the equipment for all loads incurred during the life g
of the ec;Jipment should be included in the discussion.
l m
. 7 y.. v.;
... ~.,.... -
-..s
- .p. z. n s., ;.- x. w ;_
,-},,,.
- . ; 3
__u RESPONSE SPECTRA 271.05 a.
It is not clear whether ground level seismic response spectra (3.10) presented in the document are intended to be generic spectra apolicable for all plant, or if response spectra will be uniquely determined for each plant.
If these are generic spectra, then their development should. be described.
b.
Will' hydrodynamic response spectra be used as pu c of-the ecuipment qualification program?
If not, how will hydrodynamic loads be treated?
QUALIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT A.
By Acalysis 271.05 It is stated that multimodal response in multi-span structures
~
(3.7) is represented by applying a static coefficient of 1.5 to the peak acceleration of the response spectrum.
For a simply supported structure a static coefficient of 1.0 is used.
Regulatory Guide 1.100 allows the use of a static coefficient of 1.5 for frame-type structures, but requires justification for using static cbefficients in qualifyi: g equipment of other configurations.
Thus. the use of static coefficients of 1.5 and 1.0 as specified requires more explicit justification.
l y
271.07
~
It is stated that if th'e equipment is a rigid body while (3.9) its support is flexible, the overall system can be modeled l
l as r single-degree-of-freedom system.
A substantiation is required in order to classify the system as single-degree of-freedom.
-271.08 a.
It is stated that closely spaced modes are combined tf either (3.9) the D'cuble Sum Method or ar algebraic sum of such modes.
The Double Sum Method is acceptable according to Regulatory Guide 1.92, but an algebraic sum could be inappropriate.
If the
- modes are added algebraically, cancel.lation would occur among modes having opposing signs.
This cancellation could. result in a non-conservative calculated total response.
Justify the L
use of the algebraic sun method.
b.
Two deviations from SRP 3.7.3 criteria are given.
Justification for allowing these deviations should be provided.
3 ;..w
- ,,. p. 3 '
iy 3 e
, :.; ix; g.g p..... N : + k. g.:
~ ;.2
- z. p..;- a.s r
* l ',;. [ -j,, ~ f '
.f * ' V y.l~\\ '
4'
1"
.'**i..
'A '
'271.09 Provide a list of equipment to be qualified by analysis only.
(3.10) 1 l
l B.
B_y Test
{
l 271.10 a.
The document, indicates that a single frequency test input can (3.10) be used if the input is sufficiently intense.
Regulatory l
Guide 1.100, however, stipulates that all non-rigid modes be excited simultaneously to provide sufficient simultaneous mult be,dal effects.
Justify the use of a single frequency test.
b.
The description of q.aolification of some equipment items is quite brief, particularly for dynamic testing performed.
In most cases it is stated that testing was done 'in i
accordance with IEEE 344-1975." Describe how the provisions of IEEE Std. 344-1975 were met in these tuts.
1 1
L 271.11
'a.
Qualification of equipment must sufficiently demonstrate operability-f (3.10) of the equipment during and after application of all. loads.
Opera ~
l bility is most easily demonstrated by testing the equipment.
If'the j
equipment.is qualified solely by analysis, it must b.e showr, clearly I
that a structural evaluation is enough to establish eqt.ipment
.I functionality.
The FSAR should be explicit in describing liinitations on the.use of analysis to verify equipment operability in the quali--
fication program.
.b.
'The terms " tests and analyses" are used frequently in the FSAR.
The-FSAR should be'more specific in this area; for example, it'should be stated precisely what kind of test or analysis was performed for
.each component and the purpose for the test or analysis, c.
In many sections of the FSAR it is not stated what loads were considered durin'g test or analysis, (e.g., LOCA, seismic, hydrodynamic, or other DBAs).
The FSAW should state precisely which loads were included in any test or analysis and the j
sources of the loads.
e i.-
4
271.12 a.
The FSAR implies that tests and/or analysis are per' formed on (3.9) assemblies (the pump and drive motor or the valve and actuator).
The detailed descriptions however,,seem to indicate that motor and I
actuators are more often tested or analyzed separate from the pump or valve.
The FSAR should state precisely wrether or not equipment was tested or analyzed as an assembly or as individual components.
l b.
The sections of the FS/7 which present ' he requirements for t
Justify why there is a,and valves are different in scope.
documentation of pumps difference -:n the documentation requirements between pumps and valves..
In some instances more quantitative and qualitative details are ~
c.
needed ir order to understand the intent of a particular FSAR
^
section.
Phrases or terms are used which are unclear or subjective.
Phrases such as " operation combinations," "as many motor starts.as' possible "
should be dafined or quantified.
Such phrases do not convey the information needed' to form an opinion with regard to the accepta ~
bility of the approach presented.
e e
b N
e 6
t,-
_ _. _ _ _ _ _ - _ - -.