ML20050H361
| ML20050H361 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 04/05/1982 |
| From: | Jackie Cook CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 16614, NUDOCS 8204140140 | |
| Download: ML20050H361 (29) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:> Consumers Power James W Cook C0mpanY Vice President - Projects, Engineering and Construction General offices: 1945 West Parnell Road, Jackson, MI 49201 * (517) 788 0453 April 5, 1982 9 g q e ,h,? h g7 ,O D -1 ?? % ~ liarold R Denton, Director g g Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ) US Nuclear Regulatory Commission g g Washington, DC 20555 A MIDLAND PROJECT MIDLAND DOCKET NO 50-329, 50-330 SER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING MEB ISSUES FILE: 0505.83 SERIAL: 16614 ENCLOSURES: (1) CP C0 TELECONS OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCES BETWEEN NRC STAFF AND CP C0 DURING NOVEMBER 1981 (2) APPROVED SAR CHANGE NOTICES FOR TABLES 3.2-1, 3.2-3 AND 3.2-6 (3) B&W COMPUTER PROGRAMS USED IN THE SEISMIC SUBSYSTEM ANALYSES (4) TABLE 1.0 HIGH ENERGY BRANCH LINES FOR WHICH BREAK SELECTION HAS BEEN COMBINED WITH MAIN RUNS The purpose of this letter is to document information provided in a meeting between the NRC staff and Consumers Power Company held on March 31, 1982. The meeting was held to resolve issues with regard to the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on Sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.6.2, 3.7.3 and 3.9 of the FSAR. is notes of a series of telephone conferences held in November 1981 to clarify the FSAR information and resolve as many of the draf t SER issues as possible. Enclosure 2 consists of the approved SAR Change Notices we committed to provide, as early documentation concerning Tables 3.2-1, 3.2-3 and 3.2-6. is a response from B&W concerning their computer codes and verification used in seismic subsystem analysis. This response is applicable to the FSAR Subsection 3.7.3 and will be incorporated in Revision 43 of the FSAR. The NRC staff has expressed a concern regarding the number of significant modes used in the NSSS seismic analysis. B&W has responded in a memo to $O01 Consumers Power Company by stating: s "In the seismic dynamic analysis, all the modes below 50 HZ are selected. The modes above 50 HZ are selected on the basis of higher [( participation factors of the critical component. This procedure takes into account all rigid bo<ly modes if they were above 50 HZ." oc0482-0059a100 8204140140 820405 PDR ADOCK 05000329 E PDR
2 This information is also scheduled to be incorporated in FSAR Revision 43. Tables 3.2-6 designates the safety classification of the decay heat removal coolers as I-3 for the tube side and I-4 (nonsafety) for the shell side. We can confirm that the decay heat removal coolers are treated as safety class I-2 for the tube side and I-3 for the shell side for preservice and inservice inspections. This is documented in " Volume I - Preservice Inspection Plan" submitted to the staff for review. During the March 31, 1982 meeting, more documentation was requested on the method for postulating pipe breaks at branch connections. Break locations have not been selected at the large branch to main run intersections unless the calculated stress or usage factor has exceeded the threshhold criteria..0 is a table listing some of the plant systems which contain high energy piping requiring postulated breaks. For each system, the main run size is given along with the size of the smallest branch run for which break selections have been combined with the main runs. For branch connections smaller than those in Table 1.0, a terminal end is postulated at the branch connection. We believe this letter and the enclosures adequately document and clarify the issues discussed earlier with the NRC staff concerning the preparation of the SER. JWC/WJC/dsb CC PChen, ETEC, w/a RJCook, Midland Resident Inspector, w/o R11ernan, NRC, w/a RWlfuston, Washington, w/a DBMiller, Midland, w/a JRajan, NRC, w/a l l l l l l I oc0482-0059a100 1 \\
G d o l I ( l ETCLOSURE 1 CP Co Telecons of Telephone Conferences Between NRC Staff and CP Co During November 1981
MIDIAND PRCJECT SAFTIY & LICENSING DEPARTME!!T Copies To: TELECON RECCRD TJS X JEB Date 11/5/81 Partieieants Comenny X Frank Cherney NRC Tony Capucci NRC BLH Bob Bosnak* NRC DMBud::ik* CPCo MS Bruce Henley CPCo Te(C CPart Time Dave Perry CPCo Harry Daykin CPCo OSE X Don Lewis Bechtel DTP X s ' Rob Burg Bechtel DFL X Bill Cloutier/ CPCo RCB X
SUBJECT:
Cocies To: File 0505.8C FSAR Chapter 3 PraWNry Draft SER UFI: DISCUSSION: The purpose of this telephone conference was to discuss a change in plans for the review meeting on open items on the subject draft SER. This meeting was scheduled for November 17, 1981. The new plan is to postpone or cancel this meeting and try and resolve as many of the draft SER issues through a series of telephone conferences. This would cllow the staff to utili::e their time more efficiently on reviewing the underErcund piping issue. Another meeting on the reactor vessel anchor bolt issue will be held carly in December. Bob Bosnak suCgested we reassess our progress in resolving the issues during the inct week of November to detemine if a review meeting needs to be rascheduled. Wa spent the rest of the telephone conference discussing the issues CPCo identified in their letter serial 14538, dated October 16, 1981. We were able to provide some in-femation and also detemine which issues hart to be det7rred for later telecon. Bill Cloutier and Tony Capucci will speak ar.iu on Meniay, Nov mber 11, 1981 to schedule come of the telephone conferene.
y g MIDLAND h 'ECT SAFETY & LICENSING DEPART >C T Copiss To: TELEC0!! RECORD TJS 1 RCB X Date 11/9/81 Particicants Comeany ~ ~ ry.B X Tony Capucci NRC BFH X Bill Cloutier / CPCo HWD X JWC GSK X
SUBJECT:
Cocies To: File 0505.80:- Telephone conference schedule to resolve MEB FSAR Chapter 3 Issues. UFI: CCramer X RBurg X DFL X _. RWH X Ddood X DISCUSSION: DTP X I returned the call to Tony to schedule telephone conferences to resolve Draft SER issues. The following schedule was agreed upon: DATE TIME TOPIC (SECTION) 11/12/81 1:00 pm BC-TOP-9 and BN-TOP-2 (Section 3.6.2 P.3-2) 11/12/81 1:00 pm Break Freeze Criteria (Section 3.6.2, P.3-3) 11/12/81 1:00 pm Criteria for Bolt Analysis & Seismic Anchor Displacement (Section 3 9 3, Page 3-16) 11/12/81 1:00 pm Method of Postulating Breaks - May 21, 1972 Meeting (Sectior. 3.6.2, Page 3-3) 11/16/81 1:00 pm R*4 0lide 1.92 - (section 3 7 3, Page 3-6, 7 Stem 3) 11/19/81 1:00 pm Cefirmatory Piping Analysis - BPC to make up-l dated submittal by 11/16/81(Section391, Page 3-9) 11/18/81 1:00 pm Table 3.9-9-10-11 and 15 and Code Case 1441 - B & W issue (Section 3 91, P 3-13) 11/23/81 1:00 pm Inservice Inspection (Section 3 9 6, P3-20 and3-21) i E M
6, DISCUSSICU: The following issues listed in the CPCo October 16 letter are considered confirmatory, ,cr will be handled seperately: ISSUE (SECTION, PAGE) STATUS IDCA and jet impincoment analysis Confimatory l (Section 3.6.2, Page 3-3) Class 1 piping analyzed using Class 2 Confimatory procedures (Section 3.6.2, Page 3-3) B & W computer codes for NSSS analysis Confinatory (submit 1 month (Section 3.7 3, Page 3-5) ahead of Feb.1982 FSAR Rev.) Analysis of Piping and components for Confimatory (submit 1 month interactive effects (Section 3 7 3, ahead of Feb.1982 FSAR Rev.) Page 3-5) Verification of ME101 Confirmatory (Feb. 1982 FSAR Revision) Interactive effects of Cat I piping Waiting NRC Feedback on response with Non-Cat I piping to Reg Guide 1.29 18 inch containment purge valves To be handled seperately by Equipment Qualification Branch Underground Piping Currently being, discussed with the staff RVAB Problem To be discussed at a meeting in Bethesda in December, 1981 O e i v p-n'
4 C IA".D P20.,IC SAFE!! & :.!CENSI3G OIPA,m Copies To:
- E* ECCN *ECCRD I,,3 y Date 11/12/81 Partici; ants Cec:any AJCappucci NRC FCCherny NRC HE ' -
MHartzman NRC RCE - PChen ETEC JBrammer ETEC RWH b-lY9/ E / HWDaykin CPCo R3 /- DDKopinski BPC DFL g RJBurg BPC DTScribner BPC Co ies To: JALegette BPC File 0505.80. MEl gmaly BPC BFHenley CPCo ty7;.
SUBJECT:
Telephone Conference to Resolve Chapter 3 Draft SER Issues OISCUSS!CN: The first issue discussed was the design criteria for embedded support bolts and the support seismic displacement load combinations. (Section 3 9 3, Pg 3-16). Mark Hartzman clarified the earlier discussion on seismic load cec:binations being cocbined as primary stresses rather than secondary stresses. John Legette BPC, confir.ned that Midland was already ccabining the stresses in accordance with what the NRC was requesting..BPC licensing is actioned to check that the FSAR states this compliance or issue and SCN to reflect this compliance. Concerning the design criteria for the bolts we stated that.9 FY was used for the nor.nal stress allowable under fault conditions. The NRC staff has to review FSAR section 3 8.6 to check the applicable design codes and standards. Seperately M. Hartzman was under the impression that Bechtel report BP 'IOP-1 conceming seismic design and closely spaced modes was applicable to the Midland Project. We stated that this Topical was not applicable to the Midland Project and CPCo position on Reg Guide 192 would be discussed with them on 11/19/81. The staff stated that they felt strongly in favor of applying Reg Guide 192 to the Midl a nd seismic analysis. The next topic for discussion was the BC-TCP-9 and -TOP-2 (Section 3.6.2, Pg 3-2). The NRC staff feels that a dynamic intensification. actor (DIF) of 1.10 SY should be used in pipe break analysis. Don Scribner (BPC) stated that Midland is using a 1.2 DIF based on BC 'IOP-9A which the staff has reviewed and accepted. The staff will have to do = ore research on this matter. CPCo offered to send references which justify the higher DIF via Roger Huston.
d . The next topic for further discussion was the break freeze criteria for HEIRA analysis (Section 3.6.2, Pg 3-3). We reaffimed our position that ve do not intend to postulate new intermediate breaks if our stress analysis results in new high stress positions which are not greater than 2.14Sm or 0.1 usage factor. The staff agreed that the revision to the SRP 3.6.1 was vague on what is meant by verifying the consequences of the new hi6h stress position to other safety related systens. They stated that this was meant to be left in our engineering judgement as to when to verify the consequences of the new higher stress positions. We agreed to justify any particular break points of interest to staff at a later date. The final topic for discussion was the method for postulatin6 pipe breaks at branch connection (Sectinn 1.6.2. Pg 3-3). Don Kopinski BPC stated the agreement' resulting from the/May 21, 1976 meeting minutesJ There does not seem to be any disagreement on wh'at should be done, but there is scne confusion with EiEC on interpretation of what N4Aland is doing. We a6 reed to send a copy of the subject meeting minutes to the staff and ETEC.
~~ MCLAND ?L7C"' SAF'2:T & CCr: SING OEPART*CT Copies To: 2 00*: FICOP3 TJS / DIP / Date 11/18 & 11/19/81 Pa-* iei.: ant s Ce=.:any WJCloutier k /(/ 9/ CPCo INDaykin / CPCo BTd / DIPerry CPCo g y DFLewis BPC RLBaker B&W RAW / FJLevandoski B&W RJB /
- HBaker B&W JBran::.er EIEC RIS /
AJCappucci NRC FA /
- MHart=an NRC
- EMorgan B&W DFL /
First Day Only RT"' /
- Second Day Only File 0505.803
SUBJECT:
Telephone Conference To Resolve Chapter 3 Draft SER Issues. DISCUSSION: The purpose of this telecen is to document our recent discussion with the MEB staff on draft SER issued durin6 n/18/81 and n/19/81. On Nove=ber 18 we discussed Table 3 9-9-10-n and 15 and Code Case 1441 (section 3 9 3, Page 3-13). John Brs==ers concern was that there are sc=e points in the tables that shcw stresses above the elastic allowables. B&W stated that those points were analyzed on an elastic-plastic evaluation and the allowable was based on the usage factor per code case 14kl. This was acceptable to the staff and we agreed to clarify the tables to indicate that wherever the calculated stress was above the elastic anovable the usage factor beca=e the applicable anowable. Tony Cappucci was concerned that the three code class 1 valves identified in Table 3 9-3b had no apparent justification for not having a fatigue analysis. On Nove=ber 19, B&W stated that these valves did not require a fatigue analysis because their sizes were 4 inch diameter or less. B&W will initiate an SCN to footnote Table 3 9-3b to indicate this fact for the next FSAR revision in February. On November 19 Dave Perry discussed the CPCo position en the applicabilitf of Regulatory Guide 192 concerning closely spaced = odes and the design based seis=ic analysis. He stated that the CPCo position was not to i=plement R.G. 1 92. l Tony Cappucci questioned us on the nargins to code anowables frc= our sample study in Table 3D. Dave Perry stated that the =argin was changing because of the changes in the building design. He suggested a better seismic =argin analysis will be done in our Seis=ic Margin Review progrs=, wnica would include the effects R.G. 1 92. This progra= would analyze a sa=ple of the safe shutdown co=penents as 1 1 l 1
2 an offline licensing analysis. John Ers==er and the staff was concerned abcut the extent of the sa=ple size of ce=ponents to be reviewed in this Seismic Margin Review. We stated that we were still for=nlating the sa=ple of equip =ents to be reviewed. Tony Cappucci stated that this issue would have to be discussed further with their management before it could be resolved. Bill Cloutier agreed to send a copy of the CPCo proposed Seismic Margin Review Pro 6 ram which we submitted to the staff earlier in Au6ust. 's s k
~ e ENCLOSURE 2 Approved SAR Changes Notices for Tables 3.2-1, 3 2-3 and 3.2-6 I l l
\\ QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM "IGI#4 ~ SAR CHANGE NOTICE ,,, 4, '/ ' Wilig ^ YSAR
- t. a ~ o ~y
'OB NO. 7 Z 2('
- 2. DISCIPLINE / COMPANY "e
f ". /
- 3. No. Sti"'E
- 4. ORIGINATOR b
- 5. DATE /X
/ // 'N'8 ~
- 6. REFERENCED Sr.CTIONS OF SAR W
3 7 ~ d' j/
- 3. 2 ~/,
), ,3,
- 7. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE g < e j&
f-x / B. REFERENCED SPECIFICATIONS OR DRAWINGS M4
- 9. JUSTIFICATION
// { -1 f /:c <a v ca 4.
- 10. BECHTEL DISCIPLINE INTERFACE REVIEW:
INTERFACING STAFF REVIEW: C)LRCH O PLANT DSN O ARCH O MECH VCIVIL O PQAE OCML O NUCLEAR O CONTROL SYS O STRESS O CONTROLSYSTEM O PLANT DSN O ELEC D OTHER O ELEC O REUABfuTY 24A6CH/ NUCLEAR O GEOTECH O STRESS Y ' " A A// d'. .../.(/ e f $s/,
- l"'"
i n ,. / +E% w C,,- n G~l an. o S ~ L i 1. red'IEWED BY DATE
- 12. REVIEWED BY DATE
- 43. REVIEWED BY DATE (Group _Supervisori (SAR COORDINATOR)
(NUCLEAR ENGINEER) ' l)i lh. [. '. S $uh ?, n.2 c ;; c_ 2
- 14. CONCURRENCE BY DATE '} 5.' PPhVED BY (OhCo)DATE
- 16. CONCURRENCE BY DATE (PROJECT ENGINEER)
(NSSS SUPPLIER) uc iiens wv e re p DLsa c e
12-31 ~ 0003152 ~ 9,, UNITE.D 8TATes [ g}qgi NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHiseG108W, D. C. 20846 FEB 2 :! 1902 g 9 0 S 13 E 00cket Nos.": 50-329 and 50-330 h MEP.ORANDUM FOR: Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for ' Licensing. OL FR0 : James P. Knight, Assistant Director for Congenents & Structures Engineering, OE
SUBJECT:
SAFETY EVALUATION. REPORT FOR MIDLAND PLANT, UNIT ltOS. 1 AND 2. SECTIONS 3.2.1,3.2.2, 5.2.1.1 AND 5.2.1.2 The Safety Evaluation Report for Section 3.2.'1, Seismic Classification; Section 3.2.2, System Quality Group Classifications; Section.5.2.1.1, codes and Standards Rule,10CFR Part 50, Section 50.55a; and Section 5.2.1.2. Appitcable Code cases; as applicable to Hidland Units 1 and 2 was issued June 6, 1979. We reviewed all the applicable Amendments to the Midland FSAR issued after June 6, 1979 in order to assure that the Safety Evaluation Report for the above sections is still valid. Our review indicated that Table 3.2-1 had been extensively revised in the interim. Enclosure 1 identifies a number of errors and omissions that have been introduced into the 'able. We ' request that the appiteant revise Table 3.2.1 to include our comments in a future Amendment to the FSAR. We find that although Table 3.2-1 has undergone considerable revision the Seismic and Quality Group classification are acceptable. There-fare, there is no need to update the SER for the above sections, provided the changes indicated in the enclosure are ma n FSAR /P A ant Director for James!pon. Knents&$trbpuresEngineering Co:: Division of Engirieering
Enclosure:
As stated cc: R. Vollmer, DE R. Hernan, DL
- 0. Eisenhut, DL H. Bramer,DE DE R. Purple, DL F. Cherny, E. Adensam, OL R. Kirkwood, DE
- 0. Hood, DL
Contact:
R. Kirkwood, DE:MEB, x28436 I v
EhCLOSURE 1 O'll h6l6ccass 06IM5ndunitsyand2 CBicz.m The following coments are based on the HEB review of Table 3.2-1, 3.2-3 and 3.2-6 of the Midland FSAR. Theippropriatetablesshouldberevisedtothe satisfaction of the MEB in a future Amendment to the FSAR. Table 3,2-1 Sheet 1. The seismic Category I classification of the containment building has been omitted. Sheet 6. The feedwater ring header is incorrectly classified non-seismic Category I. ' This component was previously classified correctly as seismic Category I in Revision 28 and other previous revisions to theFSAN. Sheet 8. Hydrazine pumps of the reactor building spray system have been L/' omitted from the table. These pumps should be classified Quality (~,, <, t /' Group B and seismic Category I. The construction code is Section f.s ,,,. / III, Class 2. Sheet 9. The construction code for containment piping is incorrectly classified as Section III, Class 3. Thispipingshouldbeidentified5sSection G $, III, Class 2, for the Combustible Gas Control System. Sheet 16. Note D which is referenced under Seismic Category for the Fuel Handl-M uq ing System is missing. Sheet 18. What does note "By amendment" mean which is referenced for the design 4 p ,. / '" ' / ,V, J,4.$,,,. "f
- N Sheetfo. 'The tube side of the heat exchanger for the decay heat removal system i
'bg 3m / is incorrectly identified 5s Section III, Class 3C. These cceponents / should be identified as Secticn III, Class C. l l l 1 l
_ _ ly Vri 00C3153 ~ ~ 00!4b,l' Table 3.2 3 OSICINAL Sheet 1. Same comment as for Table 3.2-1, Sheet 6. The core folding tanks Tre also incorrectly identified as Section III, Class 3C. These A sa. u.Y-f}omponents should be identified as Section III, Class C. o Table 3.2-6 Sheet 2. The tube side of the DH removal cooler is incorrectly identified as Safety Classification I-3. This component should be identified as Safety Classification I.2, e s id os b '3 wh C[en 3 f DMR 414 3lL o ~ a _a sLsew.2 G~ ~. m I
MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR OCC31[M3 TABLE 3.2-1 DESIGN CRITERIA
SUMMARY
lil 'C2ICI.yg Design FSAR Quality Code / Seismic System / Component Section Location Group Standard Category SEISMIC CATEGORY I STRUCTURES g/, / c..., s ursx Concrete 3.8.1 p o.,,./ f Containment _a Containment C NA ACI-318:21 ][ ] 30 building AWS Dl.1 Crane supports C NA ACI-318CI I AISC AWS Dl.1 Liner plate C NA ACI-31808 I AISC AWS Dl.1 Penetration sleeve C NA ACI-31801 I Personnel lock, C NA ACI-318ai I emergency airlock, AISC 30 equipment hatch ASME Containment 3.8.3 Internal Structures NSSS supports C NA ACI-31808 I AISC AWS Dl.1 Other internal C NA ACI-31803 I structures AISC AWS Dl.1 Auxiliary 3.8.4 A NA ACI-31808 I Building AISC AWS Dl.1 l Diesel Generator 3.8.4 G NA ACI-31808 I Building AISC AWS D1.1 ! ( (F (sheet 1) 1 (' Revision 30 10/80 s L
IIIDLAND 1&2-FSAR "D21CI M TIBLE 3.2-1 (continued) Design FSAR Quality Code / Seismic System / Component Section Location Group Standard Category ?EACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM Reactor Vessel 5.3 Vessel C (73 III-A I Closure head C (73 III-A I Closure head C (?) III-A I O-ring Closure assembly C (73 III-A I 30 flanges for incore detector Head studs, nuts, C (73 III-A I and washers Reactor Coolant 5.4.1 Pumps Casing and C (73 III-l I internals ) Motor C (73 SIP I totor stand C (73 SIP I 30 Steam Generators 5.4.2 Tube side C (73 III-A I Shell side C (73 III-A I Fcedwater header C (73 B31.1
- 1 30 Reactor Coolant 5.4.3 C
(73 B31.7 I Piping Decay Heat 5.4.7 Rnmoval System Pumps A (73 III-2 I Pump drive A (73 SIP I H3at exchanger / Tube side A (73 III-SC I Shell side A (73 VIII I 8 Piping and valves A,C (7) III-2 I (sheet 6) Revision 30 1 10/80
$ el - bi S 2. MIDLAND IL2-FSAR [ c> oc s 78.BLE 3.2-1 (continued) Design FSAR Ouality Code / Seismic System / Component Section Location Group Standard Category ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES Rocctor Building 6.2.2.1 Spray System Spray pumps A B III-2 I 33 Spray pump A NA NEMA MG-I I '"" ' 9# A 15 M T hM moto Piping 5 - f j_ e., Spray header C B III-2 I ~' Other 0,C,A B III-2 I 113 Spray nozzles C NA NA NA f30 Valves Motor operated A B III-2 I Other A,C B III-2 I Tcnks 93 flyira zine A B III-2 I Bera ted water O B III-2 I storage III-2 l30 Rzeirculating Air 6.2.2.2 ' fooling Units Motors C NA IEEE-323/ I 334/344 Fano C NA AMCA I 34 Cooling coils Tube side - service water C C III-3 I Shell side - air C NA NA I combustible Gas 6.2.5 Control !!ydrogen C NA IEEE-323/344 I l 30 recombiners Motors A NA NEMA MG-1 NA Fano A NA AMCA NA Demisters A NA MSAR-71-45 NA 30 Electric heater A NA NEC, UL NA llEPA filter A NA liSI-306 NA Carbon adsorber A NA CS-8T NA Ductwork A NA SMACNA NA Earpers A NA ANSI N509 NA l30 Git an d. I5. ' ~ ~ s p,,,adddu dof CC
- ~'
v on 34 w 3.z s. u -w 'u-e-j e/e1 m m.,.+ 4 I 1 e/ p '.#[cM x$-- i u
ort 6td AL MI DI.ANf J I L 2-l'S AR g;g q TABLE 3.2-1 (continued) Design FSAR Ouality Code / Seismic Sys tem / Component Section Location Group _ Standard Category Piping and valves Containment C,A B III-2 I isolation valves 30 and piping p [ g III-3 other containment C I / piping 34 Piping outside A D B31.1 NA containment s Core Flood 6.3.2 l 34 System ). " ["$ 8 hC Core flooding t (7) III-C I b tank Piping and valves ,,e 0 7 9 Tank to check O (g g9gC B III-2 I valve Check valve to C A III-1 I s reactor Core flood tanx C B III-2 I vent system piping 37 and valves Reactor Building 6.8 Penetration Pressurization System Pressurized water A B III-2 I storage tanks Nitrogen tanks U B III-2 I l 30 Piping and valves Associated with A,C B III-2 I isolation valve seal water system and penetration air pressurization system Containment A,C B III-2 I penetrations Other A,C D B31.1 NA (sheet 9) Revision 37 9/81 st
a k M 5 ca a y MIDIJfD 1&2-rSAR p TABLE 3.2-{ l MAJOR COMPONENTS DESIGN CODEm g 33 FSAR System /Componu t Section Design Code Date or Rev. j endum A Reacter Coolant System 5.0 Reactor vessels A3ME III, Class A 1968 Summer 1969 Steam generatora ASME III, Class A 1968 Summer 1968 Feedwater rang headers ANSI B31.1 1968 Errata, March 1969 !32 Pressurisera ASME III, Class A 1968 Summer 1968 React.nz coolant-pumps ASME III, Class 1 1971 None Reactor cool.nt piping ANSI B31.7 1968 Errata, June 1968 -l19 Decay Heat Removal Systes* 5.4.7 Decay heat removal (1.PI) pumps ASME III, Class 2 1971 Winter 1971 Decay heat removal coolers: Tube:mide ASME III, Class C 1968 Winter 1969 l3, Shell side ASME VIII 1968 Winter 1969 i Core flooding tanks ASME III, Class 3 1968 Summer 1968 132 containment Heat Removal System 6.2.2-liydrazine pump ASME III, Claus 2 1977 Winter 1978 l13 Re ctor building spray pump ASME III, Class 2 1971 Summer 1973 ilydrazine tank ASME III, Class 2 1974 Winter 1977 Recirculating air cooling. units; 32 rans AMCA-210 1974 None AMCA-300 1967 1971 Cooling coils ASME III, Class 3 1974 Summer 1975 Combustible Gas control in 6.2.5 containment Hydrogen recombiners IEEE/323/344 Reactor Building Penetration 6.8 Pressurization System Pressurized water storage tanks ASME III, Class 2 1974 Winter 1976 l 32 Onsite Power Systems 8.3 Emergency diesel generators ASME III, Class 3 1974 Summer 1976 IEEE-387 1972 None 15 DEMA 1972 None Table 3.2-3 (sheet Il Revision 39 11/81
MICLA?O 1&2-FSAR ,0DC3153 i V ' *1.3LE 3. 2-6 (continued)
- ORICI347, Decay heat removal system a.
DH removal pumps Main steam safety valves 32 Core flooding tank a. Core flooding tank manwa gaskets ggg Q 1-l32 /35 A Safety Classification I-DH removal cooler.(tube side) l 32 Makeup purification system a. Seal return cooler b. Letdown cooler (shell side) l 32 afety Classification I-4 DH removal cooler (shell side) l 32 Velve - Main FW control Velve - Startup FW control Valve - Turbine bypass Lithium hydroxide mix tank Boric acid mix tank Lithium hydroxide pump Hydrazine pump I f l l (sheet 2) Revision 32 1/01 l
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM ~ ~$7j SAR CHANGE NOTICE ORICII;AL
- AO' 3,pggg FSAR JOB NO.
M270
- 2. DISCIPLINE / COMPANY 4M/4 <'
//8MQ. No..T' c 7
- 4. ORIGINATOR l M#N 5.DATE M23/8Z-
/ /
- 6. REFERENCED SECTIONS OF SAR 7 A 3 W 3 2. - /
- 7. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 7 Doe pguco cepp fx 73 57z91 no p R=A L CMLf2s
- 8. REFEHENCED SPECIFICATIONS OR DRAWINGS smiramw n ze-naa), z=s. c genu v. a. i y'EA PC?L 7Df 7 2 70 -h Gy - d - 9 ffET~ W I/ M
/
- 9. JUSTIFICATION f/fp4TO St4 L bos # a-3t>cC&ZA4
- 10. BECHTEL DISCIPLINE INTERFACE REVIEW:
INTERFACING STAFF REVIEW: O ARCH O PLANTDSN O ARCH O MECH O CIVIL O PQAE OCML O NUCLEAR O CONTROLSYS O STRESS O CONTROLSYSTEM O PLANT DSN O ELEC O OTHER O ELEC O REUABtUTY $ MECHi m O GEOTECH O STRESS _,s.i /. A/ w%? l,?l W W.1=w, S/W_. Vy;, WWl' ldsf
- 11. REVIEWED BY DATE
- 12. REVIEWED BY DATE [3. REVIEWED BY DA'TE (Group Supervisor)
(SAR COORDINATOR) (NUCLEAR ENGINEER) I h 3lNk1 wf {u VM !4 i/APhVED BY (
- 14. CONCURRENCE BY DATE Co)
DATE
- 16. CONCURRENCE BY DATE (PROJECT ENGINEER)
(NSSS SUPPLIER) g-.u.,.
I'-IDLI.1D IL2-FSAR ()g('3(jil9 T.I. ELE 3.2-1 (continued) ORIGINAL Design FSAR Quality Code / Seismic System / Component Section Location Group Standard Category Self-cleaning strainer vessel W C III-3 I Motors W NA IEEE/323/344 I Component Cooling 9.2.2 Water System Surge tank A C III-3 I CCW pumps A C III-3 I CCW heat exchangers A C III-3 I CCW booster pumps A D HI NA RCP seal coolers C DI III-l I RCP motor coolers C 17 TEMA-C NA CRDM C Di NA NA Letdown coolers C D1 III-3 NA Fuel pool heat A C III-3 I exchangers Radwaste evap-A D VIII NA orator condensers Dsgasifiers, A D VIII NA effluent coolers, and condensers Waste gas com-A D NA NA pressors Reactor plant A D VIII NA sample system 30 coolers seal return A ni III-3 NA coolers Decay heat removal A heat exchangers nj' I I 2L RB spray pump seal A C j scad-I coolers M Decay heat removal A DI III-3 I pump seal coolers chemical pot A D NA NA feeders Makeup pump lube A (7) TEMA-C I oil coolers (sheet 18) Revision 30 10/80
y- -. s ENCLOSURE 3 B&W Computer Programs Used in the Seismic Subsystem Analyses miO482-0057a100
p 2 Section 3.7.3 Extensive use was made of several Babcock and Wilcox computer programs for the seismic analyses. Some of them were structural analysis codes and the remaining were data reduction codes. These codes have been verified by hand calculations, compared with classic solutions, experimental test data or public domain computer codes. All codes used were Q/A certified which means that they are verified in accordance with NRC Standard Review Plan. In addition, there is an in-house program going on for verification us,ing NUREG/CR-1677, " Piping Benchmark Problems," dated August 1980. All of these codes represent state of the art. 1.0 Structural Analysis Codes 1.1 STALUM Version 16.0 and Up 1.2 HYDROE Version 3.0 and Up 1.3 RESPECT Version 9.6 and Up 2.0 Data Reduction Codes 2.1 STDEC Version 9.2 and Up 2.2 SI235 Version 4.0 and Up 3.0 STALUM A computer program for analyzing three-dimensional, finite segment systems consisting of uniform or nonuniform piping segments, closed-loop arrangements and supporting elements. STALUM performs both static and dynamic structural analyses undergoing small linear, elastic deformations. The static analysis is miO482-0057a100
c 3 based on the matrix displacement method. The static loadings are static mechanical forces, thermal and/or support displacement loadings. The dynamic analysis is based on lumped-mass and normal-mode extraction techniques. The dynamic input loadings can be response spectra or force time history. The essential input to the program consists of the physical properties of the system, the boundary conditions and/or the loading information; the essential output consists of the resultant point displacement, rotations, forces and moments at both ends of each segment and stresses at various locations in each segment. 4.0 HYDROE A computer program which calculates the hydrodynamic mass matrix for a system of coaxial cylindrical shells coupled by a fluid gap. The boundary condition of the shells can be arbitrary whereas the end conditions of the fluid gaps can be pressure released or hard wall. The solution is based on a wave equation for the fluid region with structural motion imposed on the boundary conditions. The structural mode shapes are then expanded as an eigenfunction series in terms of the acoustical mode shape. 5.0 RESPECT A computer program which calculates maximum acceleration response of a single degree of freedon (SDOF) oscillator subjected to an input acceleration time history at the base. A SDOF is described by a second order differential equation which contains a coefficient described as the eigenvalue or natural frequency squared. When this equation is solved for an input acceleration miO482-0057a100
e 4 4 time history with varying eigenvalues, the resulting maximum acceleration response and natural frequency form an acceleration response spectra (ARS). 1 This program also calculates an ARS due to structural amplification between a known point and an attachment point. This technique requires a structural response spectra solution (accelerations and inertia forces) and the associated acceleration time history). 6.0 STDEC A pre-and post-processor code used to link various codes to edit the data and to calculate key frequencies. This code tabulated frequencies and component participation in a more usable format. 7.0 SI235 A post processor program used to tabulate force moments, displacements and rotations in a report format. l l i miO482-0057a100 l
1 0 i ENCLOSURE 4.0 Table 1.0 High Energy Branch Lines for Which Break Selection Has Been Combined With the Main Runs
e TABLE 1.0 High Energy Branch Lines for Which Break Selection Has Been Combined With the Main Runs System Main Run Size Branch Run Size Inside Containment Main Steam 36" 26" Main Feedvater 18" lh" Steam Generator Recirculation 3" 2" 3" 1-1/2" Decay Heat 2-1/2" 2" Outside Containment Main Steam 36" 26" Evaporator Steam 36" 26" Letdown 2-1/2" l-1/2" Makeup and Purification 2" l-1/2" h" 2-1/2" .}}