ML20039C755
| ML20039C755 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1981 |
| From: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Tauber H DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112300127 | |
| Download: ML20039C755 (8) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:-- 4 i DISTRIBUTION: O DocketeFile i bec: ~LB#1Rdg'. ^ '^ TERA ~ BJYoungblood PDR 4 DEC 3 1981 MRushbrook LPDR LKintner -NSIC DEisenhut TIC l SHanauer ACRS -{- 67f idh Docket No.: 50-341 RVollmer i TMurley ( fE J<l, [(,/"f'/ M '( RMattson .s j tir. !!arry Tauber RHartfield, MP D L] F If i Vice President OELD ff O[yj 8.i. k*4upaISS/s 3 Engineering & Construction 0IE(3) j Detroit Edison Company ZRosztoczy 7-2000 Second Avenue (_T 3 Detroit, Michigan 48226 /A V s l
Dear Str. Tauber:
CD
Subject:
Requests for Additional Information in Fermi 2 Operating License Application Regarding Seismic and Dynamic Qualification of ??echanical and Electrical Equipment Important to Safety s 1 Our trip report for the Ferni 2 seismic criteria implementation review neetinq held on July 27-31, 1981 identified seven Follow-up Actions, I including eiqht Open Items (NRC flenorandum dated October 20, 1981). l Follow-up Action Nos. (1), (2) and (3) and Open Iten Hos. (6), (7) and (8) were scheduled to be provided by August 31, 1981. The remaining Follow-up Actions depend on conpletion of construction and are scheduled j to be completed Septenhor 1, 1982 (3 nonths prior to issuance of the j operating license). j By letters dated August 31 and Septenber 4,1981, you provided the information scheduled to be provided Auoust 31, 1981. nie '1 ave completed j our review of this information and results are sunnarized herein. l Your letter dated Auoust 31, 1981 acceptably responds to Follow-up Action Hos. (1) and (2) and Open Iten No. (8). To complete our review of the j responses to Open Iten Mos. (6) and (7) provided by your letter dated August 31, we need the additional information requested in the enclosure. Your letter dated Septenher 4,1981 does not acceptably respond to Follow-up Action No. (3) because the seismic response spectra provided therein do not meet the acceptance criterion in Paragraph II.1.b of Standard Review Plan Section 3.7.I " Seismic Design Parameters". As aqread in our October 7.9, 1981 neeting on this subject, response spectra neeting this acceptance criterion will be resubmitted in Decenber 1981. i 4 i, m 2aod m gaa % -~ oDR ADOCK o PDR .............I I SURNAME) i pare > NRC FORM M 00-80) NRCM Ono OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam msm*o
Mr. Harry Tauber DEC 3 1981 Please amend your application by providinq the information requested in the enclosure. Our review schedule is based on the assurption that the additional infomation will be available for our review by Decenber 31, 1981. If you wish clarification of the requests or if you cannot neet this date, please telephone the Licensing Project Manager, L. Kintner, within 7 days after receipt of this letter. Sincerely, Original signed by,3 / William Kana d/ C' B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensino Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Infomation cc w/ encl.: See next page n0' kh,,$ljqk(((,, DL;,LBel,,hf( D
- omer, suamue > L K,j,n tn,e,r[]S.,
Z,8,0,s,d t,0,G z,y,, ,,BJ,y,9,mjhh.10Qd............. 12/1/81 12/')../81 12/..,<.. /.81
- one, esc ronu aia oan sacu om OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usa c ini-m aw
Mr. Harry Tauber 1 Vice President Engineering & Construction Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue-Detroit, Michigan 48226 cc: Mr.. Harry H. Voigt, Esq.. LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20036 ' Peter A. Marquardt, Esq. Co-Counsel The Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue i Detroit, Michigan 48226 Mr. William J. Farner Project. Manager'- Fermi 2 The Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue ~ Detroit, Michigan 48226 Mr. Larry E. Schuerman Detroit Edison Company 3331 West Big Beaver Road Troy, Michigan 48084 David E. Howell, Esq. 3229 Woodward Avenue Berkley, Michigan 48072 Mr. Bruce Little U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector's Office 6450 W. Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 Dr. Wayne Jens Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue ' Detroit, Michigan 48226 \\ 's
ENCLOSURE Request for Addition' l Information a Fenni 2 Operating License Application Open Item No. (6) Barton Flow Transmitter (SQRT Audit Item No. 20) This differential pressure transmitter (Differential Pressure Transmitter Equipment No. B31-N014A, Barton Model No. 368) is located in the Reactor Building at an elevation of 562'. It weighs 9 lbs. and measures approximately 8-1/2" x 6" x 9". It is fastened with 4 bolts to a moderately thin base plate which is mounted on an instrument stand with another 4 bolts. The instrument stand is welded to the floor and has several 'other instruments of various sizes mounted on it. Physical dimensions of the transmitter mounting plate and actual positions of the bolts were provided by applicant's letter dated August 31, 1981. The transmitter is located in the recirculation system and measures the recirculation flow. It is not required either for hot standby or for cold shutdown conditions. It is designed per reference design specifications GE PPD 1450 3026. The Qualification Report No. GE 117C3387 entitisJ, " Differential Pressure Transmitter", contains a section (VPF 145C 3025-4a, dated November 9, 1971) by Wyle Laboratories on vibration test results for the transmitter. This report was reviewed and accepted by GE. Test results show that the transmitter has a natural frequency of 30 Hz in the front /back direction. Vibration endurance tests using frequency sweep over 1-50 Hz range are presented to establish the operability of the transmitter up to an input g-level of at least 1.5 g in th'e two horizontal and the vertical directions. The corresponding design basis accelerations in side / side, front /back and vertical directions are 1.5 g,1.5 g and 0.14 g I respectively. The qualification report does not specify mounting configuration (as compared with field mounting) for the transmitter during 9-
n these tests. The report also does not make it clear why a single frequency, maximum input acceleration test was not conducted at the natural frequency of 30 Hz even though such a test was specifically required hy GE design specifications. Details of field and test mount conditions pr~ovided hy applicant's August 31, 1981 letter satisfactorily respond to Parts 1 and 2 under Open Item (6). A response to Part 3 under Open Item (6) regarding possible amplification of the input acceleration hy the instrument stand and the base plate, and the operability of the transmitter at its natural frequency was also provided by applicant's letter dated August 31 1981. However, we need additional clarification for the following' two areas: 1. The magnification factors at various damping ratios calculated for the case W = P = 30Hz, i.e., when the driving frequency is equal to the natural frequency. The correct magnification factors are given in the following table. Damping Ratio (N/P) Magnification Factor 0.02 25.00 0.03 16.67 0.04 12.50 0.05 10.00 Thus, even assuming 5 percent damping, the fragility limits (5.0 g horizontal) and 3.0 g vertical) do not envelop the magnified accelerations based on the Ferm.i design requirements (1.5 g horizontal and 0.14 g vertic al). 2. The effect of amplification of the input acceleration by the base plate.
. Provide additional clarification of the above two areas in your discussion of the operability of the transmitter at its natural frequency (30 Hz). , Open Item No. (7) G. E. Relay (SQRT Audit Item No. 21) The HGA Relay (E11A-K001A: G.E. HGA Relay) is part of the residual heat removal system. It is energized to initiate the emergency core cooling system actions. The relay is a small box-like equipment which measures 4" x 4-1/2" x 2-1/2" which is field mounted to the H11-P617 panel. The panel is located in the Reactor Building at the 613'6" level. The relay qualification tests are contained in GE Document No. 225A6250, " Seismic Test Results, G.E. HGA Relay", dated, May 5,1970 and in G.E. Document No. 234A9802, " Seismic Tests Results", Relay HGA, dated May 5, 1971. Both of these tests are summarized in G.E. Docurent No. 225A6964, " Seismic Qualif cation Summary, Relay G.E. HGA", dated August 24, 1973 and approved by C. A. Vondamn. The relay, when de-energized and with normally closed contacts, will not chatter for a time duration in excess of 10 ms for input motions of up to 1.5 j g in the most critical axis when vibrated over the frequency range from 1 to 30 Hz. The critical axis is normal to the front face. The' tests also show f that the relay will operate normally up to 1.1 g's along this critical axis, if the chatter limit is 1 millisecond. The other two axes will tolerate 4 g's and 5 g's respectively. A resonance occurs at 32 Hz in the critical axis direction and appears to be the limiting factor for this equipment. For the application of the H11-P617 panel, the limitation of 1.5 g's is the maximum malfunction limit for which documentation is available. This limit is applicable only if the 10 ms chatter is the acceptable duration.
~ ~ The required acceleration at the floor level of this equipment is 1.5 g in both the S/S and F/B and 1.4 g in the vertical direction. Therefore, the relay can operate successfully at the 1.5 g level only if there are no resonances on the control panel over the frequency range of excitation since this would amplify the input at the mounting point of the relay. Following a review of the equipment during the site inspection visit, two open areas remained for this equipment: (1) A statement for the acceptable chatter limit for the HGR Relay. A response was given during the meeting and is listed in the memo as 20 m sec. But the malfunction limit of the equipment for this ~ chatter limit was not documented. (2) The resonant frequencies of the panel and the amplification factors at the location of the relay. The resonant frequencies of a similar panel were listed on the memo as occurring within the excitation frequency range. But the seismic test report of the similar panel was to be sent. The seismic test report for this equipment entitled, " Test Report Cofrentes H13-P618", GE No. DRF No. H13-42" was transmitted.by applicant's letter dated August 31, 1981 (EF2-54390). We have reviewed this report. This panel is similar to Fermi H11-P617. Table 8-1 of this report shows sizeable resonances over much of the panel. Amplification factors are as high as 7.8 at the top of the panel. Further down, at about half the height, the amplification is 4.0 at 25 Hz. The seismic qualification documentation regarding the G.E. HGA Relay is therefore still incomplete. It cannot be concluded.fran the documentation that the equipment can satisfactorily function under the required seismic environment.
- To sum up what is revealed in the documentation: a) The relay can withstand 1.1 g for a chatter limitation of 1 ms. b) The rel'ay can withstand 1.5 g -for a chatter limit of 10 ms. c) The acceptable chatter limit for this equipment is 20 ms, but malfunction limit at 20 ms is not documented. d) The required acceleration at the floor level is 1.5 g. e) A similar panel (Cofrentes) has resonances in the frequency range up to 33 Hz with the maximum amplification of 7.8 at the top and with an amplification of 4.0 toward the center. f) The nature of the similarity between the two panels loaded with their own instruments or the rationale of the dynamic relationships that might be expected between them is not documented. As a result of our revi,ew of applicant's August 31 submittal, several questions remain to be answered. Provide the following information regarding this equipment: (a) Rationalize the dynamic similarity betweea tne Cofrentes panel H13-P618 and the relay panel H11-P617 from the point of view of the differences in the instrumentation loading as well as from the structural viewpoint. (b) What would be the expected maximum amplification factor at the relay location on the Fermi panel? (c) What is the malfunction limit in g's of the relay? M}}