ML20041E930
| ML20041E930 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1982 |
| From: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Davidson D CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203150289 | |
| Download: ML20041E930 (4) | |
Text
l DISTRIBUTION:
I tS 2 6 1982 Docket File RWright LB#2 File bcc: TERA DEisenhut/RPurpl e NSIC RTedesco NRC PCR ASchwencer Local PDR
' Docket Nos. 53-440/441i JStefano ACRS (16)
EHylton Thessin, OELD Hr. Dalwyn R. Davidson g on III o\\
k Vice President Resident Inspector C
/(D, 4 System Engineering and Construction SHanauer
/
"9 p;
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company RMattson i
I ~.
l7
< 7)
P. O. Box 5000 HThompson Cleveland, Ohio 44101 RVollmer RHartfield, MPA
'2
./
}\\ '>.
/
Dear Mr. Davidson:
GBagchi RLagrange
Subject:
Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2: Request for Additional Information - Seismic and Dyrmic Qualification of !!echanical-and Eleccrical Equipment As a result of our review of your application for licenses for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, we have need for additional information pertainthg to seismic and dynamic qualification of mechanical and electric equipe.ent.
Enclosure (1) lists the questions and applicable FSAR sections for which information is needed for ovr safety evaluations. Your continued and expeditious response to this request is urged and will be most appreciated.
Please advise the project manager for Perry, John Stefano, when we may expect to rec dve your response within seven (7) days of receipt of this letter.
Sincercly,
/
A. Sch encer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page
/
n DWfB #2/.PM DL:1.%)2/C A
I...............
OFF CE
..........t
..k..d.h.o,{p,$,,,,,@,,g,g,,p,{,,
CUENAMt id1;..,/gf,82 2
,3=,/y
,,c 8203150289 820226 M
PDR ADOCK 05000440 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY esam mi-m-m e
PER
(
Mr. Dalwyn R. Davidson Vice President, Engineering The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company P. O. Box S000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 cc: Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, 0. C. 20006 Donald H. Hauser, Esq.
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company P. O. Box 5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Resident Inspector's Office U.S. N.R.C.
Pannly at Center Road Perry, Ohio 44081 Donald T. Ezzone, Esq.
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 105 Main Street Lake County Acninistration Center Painesville, Ohio 44077 Tod J. Kenney 228 Soutn College, Apt. A Bowling Gre.en, Ohio 43402 Daniel D. Wilt
egman, Hesiler & Vanderberg 7301 Chippewa Road, Suite 102 Brecksville, Ohio 44141 Robert Alexander CCRE Interim Representative 2030 Portsmouth Street Suite 2 l
Houston Texas 77098 1
1 Terry. Lodge, Esq.
915 Spitzer Building Toledo, Ohio 43604
.q, O
5 S
g S
4
i A
ENCLOSURE (l)
PERRY l & 2 FSAR QUESTION LIST FOR SECTIONS 3.9.3.2 AND 3.10, SEISMIC AND DYNAMIC QUALIFICATION OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICtt. EQUIPMENT.
a The following request for information references Section.3.9.3.2 o.f the Perry 1 & 2 FSAR.
1.
Page 3.9-84, subsection 3.9.3.2.3.1.1, paragraph a. - Explain what is meant by hydrodynamic loads.
2.
Page 3.9-85, first paragraph - Indicate whether the reference to IEEE 323-1971 is correct and, if so, justify referencing this spec.ification for performing a dynamic test.
3 Page 3.9-85, last paragraph - Describe how the valve's resonance frequencies are determined as part of the overall steaciine analysis.
i 4
Page 3.9-86, paragraph c. - Provide the criteria that was used to conclude that the 20 inch test valve is representative of the MSIVs.
i 5
Page 3.9-88, Subsection 3.9.3.2.3.1.4 - Explain what is meant by a typical valve and provide the criteria used for selecting i
the the test va've.
Describe what maximum capability load means.
Also, indicate. wnether the valve and actuator are tested together i
as an assembly.
6 Page 3.9-89, first paragraph - Describe how acceptab.le vibration levels are determined. Also, indicate if a qualified life is determined for all pumps.
7 Page 3.9-98, paragraph above Test Procedure A: - Provide the criteria used to select the test valve, including what is meant by "...most conservative construction."
N.
8 P ;e 3.9-100,_ Test Procedure C.: - Describe how the strains in critical ccmponent parts were determined.
Also, clari fy why more than one
' plant.loaoing condition was simulated if each is larger than the combined.
9 Page 3.9-101, Subsection 3.9.3.2.4.2.1 - Clarify what is meant by appropriate' seismic qualification standards.
10.
Page 3.9-101, Subsection 3.9.3.2.4.2.2 - Indicate whether the check valve's internals are included in the stress analysis model.
Al so,
i indicate whether and how a qualified life is determined for these internal components, 11.
Page 3.9-102, Subsection 3.9.3.2.4.2.3 - Briefly describe how the test valves were proven to be dynamically equivalent to the valves supplied to Byron.
n
J..
The following request for information references Section 3.10 of the Perry 1 & 2 FSAR.
i 12.
Tables 3.10-1 and 3.10-2, pages 3.10-17 through 3.10-63, of the FSAR on Seismic Category I Instrumentation and Electrical Equipment and Supports Identification and Seismic and Hydrodynamic Load Qualifi-cation Summary and Balance of Plant Category I Electrical and Instru-mentations Equipment Qualification Results, respectively, are not complete.
On what date will complete Tables 3.10-1 and 3.10-2 be submitted to the NRC?
13.
For plants for which the CP application was docketed after October 27, 1972, the qualification of electrical equipment and their supports must meet the requirements and recommendations of IEEE Standard 344-1975 and the Regulatory Position of Regulatory Guide 1.100, which endorses IEEE 5.tandard 344-1975.
These documents are generally applicable to all types of equipment and should be used to the extent practicable for the qualification of mechanical ecuipment as well.
Do you plan to commit to IEEE Standard 344-1975 for both NSSS and B0P equi pment?
If not, what are the exceptions and the justification for these exceptions?
14 In qualification by analysis and testing justify the seier.ted values of 1, 2, 4 and 7 percent of the critical damping ratio as stated in Section 3.10.2.1.2 cf the FSAR, page 3.10-4 Are the damping values known or are the damping values assumed?
Co you plan to commit to Regulatory Guide 1.61 for damping values?
15.
In Section 3.10.2.1.3.1, page 3.10-5, of the FSAR the higher cut-off frequency for combined seismic and hydrodynamic loads is. not stated.
What is the numerical value of the higher cut-off frequency?
I 16, The statement "if the fundamental frequency of the equipment is above the input excitation frequency, the equipment is considered rigid" appears in Section 3.10.2.2, page 3.10-8, of the FSAR.
For equipment-with resonant frequencies below 33 Hz and between 33 H: and the higher I
cut-off frequency, is the above statement applicable?
i l
l mi r