ML20069A592

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Trip Rept of 801117-21 Site Visit in Ottawa,Il Re Seismic Criteria Implementation
ML20069A592
Person / Time
Site: LaSalle, 05000000, Shoreham
Issue date: 02/25/1981
From: Chen P
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Rosztoczy Z
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML082480769 List:
References
NUDOCS 8103160808
Download: ML20069A592 (43)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:.- ? I t', M. [O? 7')'t.t.c y, c a g,, /g 'o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [,,,. th l 81, i.e., g wAswiscTou. o. c.20sss g.,

g.,

l s h ~ +# FEB 2 51981 j cf f k MEMORANDUM FOR: Zoltan R. Rosztoczy, Chief Eq0ipment Qualification Branch Division of Engineering' t. FROM: Pei-Ying Chen Equipment Qualification Branch Divisian of Engineering THRU: Charles H. Hofmayer, Section Leader Equipment Qualification Branch Division of Engineering

SUBJECT:

TRIP REPORT FOR SEISMIC CRITERIA IMPLEMENTATION MEETING WITH COMMONWEALTH EDISON ON LASALLE UNITS 1 AND 2 The Seismic Qualification Review Team (SQRT) consisting of engineers from the Equipment Qualification Branch (EQB) and the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL, EG&G) made a site visit to LaSalle Units 1 and 2 near Ottawa, Illincis, on November 17 thru 21 1980. A list of attendees at the meeting is contained in Attachment I. 4?. The purpose of the visit was to conduct a plant site review of t.he qualification k.$ methods, procedures, and results fer a list of selected Seismic Category I p mechanical and electrical equipment and their supporting structures. The intention was also to observe the lield installation of the equipment, based on which judgments can be made as tr the validit/ of the equipment modelling employed in the qualification r.ogram, with respect to the equipment confirgura-tion and its mounting condit 4 n. ji The background, review procedures, findings and the required follow-up actions are summarized below. 1. Backaround The applicant has described the equipment qualification program in Sections 3.9 and 3.10'of the Final Safety Analysis Report, consisting of dynamic testing and analysis, used to confirm the ability of seismic Category I mechanical and electrical (includes instrumentation, control and electrical) equipment and their supports, to function properly during and after the safe shut'down earthquake (SSE) specified for the plant. The applicant has also described the program for the qualification of safety-related equipment for the combined seismic and hydrodynamic vibratory loads. associated with the MARK II cont &inment suppression pool. I In instances where components have been qualified by testing or analysis to other than current standards such as Institute of Electrical and 4 Electronics Engineers Standard, 344-1975, "Recorr. ended Practices for j,,@?g Seismic Qualification of Class IE Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating rg

e

,1 XA Copy Has Been Sent to PDR f 1: .$105)(#0207 p . - _. = - y--,

7

. '. 7 '.o l l FEB 2 51981 l 63, 9 W c-li Stations," and Regulatory Guides 1.92, " Combining Modg1 Responses and Spatial Components in Seismic Response Analysis," and 1.100,'" Seismic ] Qualification of Electric Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants," or where equipment is affected by and was not qualified for the suppression pool hydrodynamic loads, the applicant has' undertaken a reevaluation and requalification program. The applicant has identified those items of nuclear steam supply systenj and balance-of-plant equipment requiring reevaluation, has described the methods and criteria used to determine the acceptabi?Ity of equip-1 ment qualification to meet the req 6tred dynamic loads, has schmitted l plans for a confirmatory in-situ impedance test and an in-plant SRV test program, and has submitted the up-to-date reevaluation and requalification i p results. The plant site review wa: performed to determine the extent to wMeh the qualification of equipment, as installed in LaSalle 1 and 2, meets the current licensing criteria as desefibed in the Standard Review Plan (SRP) Sections 3.9.2 and 3.10. L 2. Review procedures Prior to the site visit, the SQRT reviewed the equipment seismic qualifi-t,,3 . cation information contained in the pertinent FSAR sections. and the reports he, 4 ' referenced therein. A representative sample of Seismic Cat'egory I mechanical and electrical equipment, including both NSSS and BOP scopes as shown in Attachment II, were selected for the plant site review. The tuview' con-sisted of field observations of the actual equipment configuration and its installation, followed by the review of the corresponding test and/or analysis documents. Brief technical discussions were held during the review sessions to provide SQRT's feedback to the applicant on the equipment qualification. An exit conference was held to sunmarize and conclude the plant site visit. 1j. 3. Findings s The results of the review of the qualification reports and pertinent documents l for equipment as listed in Attachment II are sumarized in Attachment III for each piece of ecuipment evaluated. Due'to' the time limitation,the SQRT, at the conclusion of the site visit, requeste'd the applicant to provide the test and/or analysis reports for the following four items for further review: .i a) RCIC pump with turbine (NSSS-16) i b) 2" Air-operated control valve (80P-5) c) Diesel Fuel' Storage Tank (BOP-T7) d) Local Panels (NSSS-21) t

e

( l i' -.. - - -. w...,,,.... t.

' l i ^ FEB 2.; 1981 . The plant site review identified the need to provide additional info mation and to clarify the details of the qualification for some pieces of equipnent as described in Attachment III. The applicant has committed to submit additional information and clarification for a follow-up review. The follow-up actions are described in Section 4. 4. Follow-Up Actions In order to complete our review we requested the applicant to provide the following information: A. Provide qualification rep, orts as list.e4 in Section 3 for further review. 8.' Provide completed SQRT forms for NSSS and BOP equipment identified as "Open" in the CECO let.ter of December 12, 1980. C. Identify all equipinent which has haec modifie.d or replaced as a result of the reevaluation /requalification program. (includename,model number, manufacturer title and date of qualification report and system in which equipment is loc.ated). State reason for modification or replacement. The staff agreed that this information was not essential for its SER.and need not be provided until the completion of the requalification program. , g.. Provide the following information: E i.. D. i (a) Results and conclusions of fatigue evaluations. Describe applicability of evaluations to draw generic. conclusion: for all equipment in the plant. (b) Results and conclusions of exploratory testing of relays. E.. Provide schedule for submission of results and conclusions of SRY Test .I, Program a's it relates to the equipment being monitored during the testing. '. Provide results and conclusions of the inplant imp edance. tests. In F particular provide the detailed information to support the qualification of the following items: a) HPCS 4" Gate Valve by MSIV Leakage Control System Exhaust Blower. 1 cj HPCS 12" Globe Valve. )' dp SRM and IRM Preamo11fier Enclosure. I ej SGTS Equipnent Train. l . f) SGTS Primary Supply Fan. g) SGTS Control Panel. h) 1.imitorq6e'Plotor 0perators. )l} p, o l p !I .n.,

. g,:. =. r - ;

n

  • {
i. c,

s. FEB 2 51981 4 m i G. Provide the results and conclusions of the reassessment of valve qualifications. Provide the piping analysis results as they relate to the qualification of the following items: p HPCS 4" Gate Valve. J' a)i 18" HPCS Gate Valve. b d ch HPCS 12" Globe Valve.- 3 d!I RCIC Pump. j e) 2" Control Valve Air Operated. f) Limitorque Notor Operators. H. Provide clarifying details as discussed in Attachment III for the ') following items: i

3 a HPCS 4-In. Gate Valve.

i i b RHR Heat Exchanger.

c. HPCS 12 Ine Globe Valve.

d. d SLC Storage Tank. .e Condensing Chamber 1 Local Panels.

i g Level Indicator Switch.

h Differential Pressure Transmitter. 1 SGTS Equipment Train. j 72-inch Secondary Containment Isolation Dampers. k SGTS Control Panel: ."1 Post LOCA Hydrogen "Recombiner. /' .m) HPCS 011 Storage Tank. i + 3s The review of the. pplicant's implementation of the equipment qualification program is continuing and the applicant is required to resolve all outstanding items as ide'ntified in Section 4 above. l 44 - 'ei-Yin Chen Equipment Qualification Branch Division of Engineering j i

Enclosures:

l-As stated cc

R. Vollmer w/o enc 1. [ V. Noonan j. R. Tedesco i B. Youngblood s l W. Russell, w/o enc 1. 1! R. Hermann, w/o enc 1. [ C. Hofmayer 1 A. Bou'rnia A. Lee B. Barnes, INEL M. Reich, BNL i I i',. } nJ k .7..-

7.,

---***

  • G737* ' *.*? c

. 777'd.V.Q75 ?{' 77,$f"*.} .-.--..3.-.-----,,.-.v4...e3.

.. ~.. ~... - - -. - . - - ^.. -^

1

^ ^ [ s., e

t f,

. l ATTACHMENT 1 SQRT VISIT TO LA SALLE L i List of Attendees ) 1. C. H. Hofmayer NRC/EQB 2. Pei-Ying Chen NRC/EQB 3. J. Sinnappan Sargent & Lundy 4. Phil Peterson Sargent & Lundy j 5, A. E. Heligt Sargent & Lundy 6. R. W. Hardy GE 7. E. Falb CECO I 8. G. R. Crane CECO 9. J. N. Singh EG&G' Idaho, Inc. 10. G. L. Thinnes EG&G Idaho, Inc. 11. G. K. Miller EG&G Idaho, Inc. 12. J. F. Etzweiler LILCO j.'},, 3 ir '} l: l l-V l; 4 s 9 ( . I 1 ,r l,',

i. #:~.

4 i l

s... c.;J)

'?.s> 's li .. c-2 -e.. m e - -. - v-a-:-cr.:: m erv.o.cm t w ' ' I k

I _... A ....-. I a.. 1 ~ 6 $* E *Y 2 l & EGzG ',' N P.O. BOX 1625,loAHO FALLS,loAHO 83415 January 21, 1981 i j i 1 Mr. R. E. Tiller, Director ] Reactor Operations and Programs Division j NRC. Dynamic Qualification of Saf2ty Related Electrical and Hechanical Equipment II (A6415), August 4,1960 j (b) G. E. Marx ltr to S. B. !!ilam, tiarx-335-80, Transmittai of flew 189a Statement of Work (A6415), September 24, 1980 J

Dear ftr. Tiller:

i References (a) and (b) describe in detail the task being performed by EGAG j Idaho, Inc. in support of the Equipment Qualification Branch (EQB) of the The EQB has the lead responsibility Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC). (3 for reviewing and avaluating the dynamic qualification of safety related j $g/ electrical and mechanical equipment which may be subjected to vibration j frcm earthquakes and/or hydrodynamic loads. The details of this equipment I j ard how they mec.t the design criteria are described by applicants in a .I Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). On completion of the FSAR review ]3 evaluation and approval, the applicant receives an Operating License (CL) ,) for comercial plant operation. Applicants are required to use test or analysis methods or a combinatien of f,j both to qualify equipment essential to plant safety, such that its safety f function will be ensured during and after a dynamic event. .he objective o# this project is to obtain expert technical-personnel to assist the EQS in carrying out their responsibilities relating to the review and evaluation of equipment dynamic qualification aspects of FSARs l 1 subt.iitted by electric power utilities for operating licenses. ? Reference (b), Task 1, Subtasks 2 and 3 describes one of eight plant site (.3 Seismic Qualification Review Team (SQRT) visits being performed as a part ] The enciesure is a report by EGaG Idaho personnel (G. L. Thinnes, of this task. J. fl. Singh, and G. K. Miller) who assisted the NRC in the on-site SQRT This review of the LaSalle plant selected seismically qualified equiement. l 4 !1 ! ( '1f,ff.) %] j 1 -t ! 4 Y ,1 m _.m

.p Mr. R. E. Tiller O. JAD-24-81 97 January 21, 1981 Page 2 ~ review consisted of field inspection of the equipment, detailed review of the qualification reports, and resolution of questions or identification of action items encountered during the review. The enclosed report covers i the initial findings on the above items and defines four pieces of equipment j to be used for a follow-up in-depth confirmatory review. a 4 The enclosure completes Subtask 3 of Reference (b). Su5 tasks 4, 6, and 7 1 .t remain to be done for this plant. Very truly yours, H wg- 'l ny J. A.

Dearien,

Manager Code Assessment and 'i i' , Applications Division BLB:clj t$g-)

Enclosure:

-{: As stated [Y.ChenNRC-DE I cc: C. H. Hofmayer, NRC-DE R. W. Kiehn, EG&G Idaho 1 r 6 l l ,1 k. i ~[ la i,

y
,..~-

..-... m,.--._.,

-.i I g .e Attachment ,s 3 JAD-24-81 d ,{ January 21, 1981 b Page 1 of 36 i F 1 .4 ',s i iIt

1 i
1 LA SALLE 1 AND 2 b

1 SQRT VISIT REPORT 1 a e 9 i-5 Ot y.*.ie' 1 4 >E,g' *?) (g 'i i i. 1 ; l r t i \\ 4 1 ' !J + s a t i e f ~ ! ! 4 4 1 ;* i 4 ? tj$ lg, cg.j. } n [. ;.V$ s l Ij lt gi s .g i 1 ~~~~wz: .m -- ~- ~- -....-,f ~

~~ ~ ._ S 1; s - t TITLE j S.N. REF. N. ~ I[l] mv HPCS 4-In. Globe Valve 1 NSSS 2 ll RHR Heat Excnanger 2 NSSS 5

p MSIV Leakage Control System Exhaust Blower il 3

NSSS 8 4 NSSS 11 18-In. HPCS Gate Valve 5 NSSS 13 HPCS 12-In. Globe Valve 6 NSSS 15 HPCS Diesel Service Water Pump 1 7 MSSS 16 RCIC Pump ifj 8 NSSS 18 SLC Storage Tank f 9 NSSS 20 Ccndensing Qiamoer 10 NSSS 21 (b)j DC Power Supply .h; 11 NSSS 21 (b)2 .Feedwater and Recirculation Instrument Panel lp Nuclear Steam Supply Shut-Off Process 12 NSSS 21 (b)3 Instrument Panel j 13 NSSS 21 (c); Pressure Transmitter

j l

14 NSSS 21 (c)2' I'I, Loca) Panels 2 ) (9)3, (e)3, (g)2 15 NSSS 21 (e)j, (v) Level Indicator Switch .] h h. ^~ 16 NSSS 21 (g);, (j) Differential Pressure Transmitter ,4 i 17 NSSS 22 (j) SRM and IRM Preamplifier Enclosure 18 BT 1 SGTS Equipment Train s 19 BOP 2, 20 Cooling-Coil Caoinets 2-In. Control valve, Air Operated f 20 ST 5 SGTS Primary Supply Fan 21 80P 6 !, 'l 22 BT 7 Isolation Dampers 23 BOP 11 SGTS Control Panel Post LOCA Hy&oren Recomoiner ll:j 24 BT 12 25 BOP 14 Limitorque Motor Operator 1 1 ,l 26 BT 15 Namco Limit Switen l'y 27 BOP 16 HPCS Waterleg Pump hi 23 B T 17 HPCS Oil Storage Tank 8-In. Motor-Operated Butterfly Valve 29 80P 18 ij 'l 30 BT 19 Control Cabinets i) ? , ll 1 9 1 ' h) M["rja -l ih } 1 nyl I . i sf u4 'I U

~ ~ ___..Z._...~.1~-'~~ -~ . _ ~ ^ ~ -; s ij l.' ti il LA SALLE 1 AND 2

l. j j

M SQRT VISIT REPORT l h 1. HPCS 4-In. Gate Valve t ?, l The HPCS 4-in. gate valve is provided by Darling Valve and 9 Manufacturing Company and has Equipment No. E22-F012. It is located in the Reactor Building on piping subsystem HP06. It is qualified by calculations per# ora a by Sargent and Lundy dated August 28, 1980. 'Lio The valve was qualified by analysis using hand calculations. Natural 11 frequencies of 46, 61.5 and 101 Hz for the valve were calculated, the first of which is a torsional frequency. m f 3: Stresses were calculated.n the operator-yoke bolting, yoke-bonnet .i The bolting, yoke leg, neck of bonnet, flange coltihg and flanges. l;dj calculations indicate that if the valve is subjected to 1.2 g or less in

j the three axial directions simultaneously, all stresses are less than 1

allowable. It is therefore concluded in the report that the valve is h"k ~' qualified to an input level of 1.2 g. j 3, In addition, allowable nozzle Toads for tne three directions were J i i calculated to be i n.. '6 Fx = 10.7 k ] Fy = Fz = 2.67 k , ij Mx = Mg = Mz = 69.3 in-kip. Ik As discussed under the HPCS ~ 12-in. glooe valve, the treatment of the flexibility of this valve is questionable. '4 i In order to complete our review, we require tne applicant to provide: j (1) further clarification of the treatment of the valve flexibility, and ' )1 (2) the results of the piping analysis and impedance tests as they relate j to the qualification of this valve.- s l]k' 922b 5 1 2 for elevations 694 f t 6 in. and 710 f t for the reactor building at tne RHR f heat exchanger locations. These spectra accounted for the hyorodynamic i loading. A 27, damping for SSE and 11 for OBE was used. The computer ^8 proyam used was SLSAP. The frequencies for the seven modes used in tne klO analysis were as follows: + hj = 14.97, 25.57, 53.75 Hz h2 = 14.92, 24.36, 53.73 Hz V = 62.82 Hz. l1 l The forces and reactions at elements were used to calculate stresses -] at critical locations. The calculated t. tresses were then compared to t Ij allowables taken from Form 3508 (S&L standard consistent with ASif Codes). .i During the review it was found that the adequacy of the internals were i not demonstrated in the analysis. In response to this question. the !I applicant responded tnat even if the internal tubes were to rupture.the f; functionability of the equipment would not be hampered. In order to '] conclude that the RHR heat excnanger is adequately qualified for the

j prescribed loading, we require additional information from tne applicant to support this contention.

.: $2a 2 1 t- )! a ,s i #! -f 1) n I : 2 n----y-2.-,-,..,

1.. J ., 1 y l 't ? 3. MSIV Leakage Control System Exhaust Blower -C u.d The equipment number of the blower reviewed is (GE 478518664) ,a E 32-CD01. It is mounted about 5 f t off the floor on a steel beam wnich is anchored into the concrete floor of the reactor building at elevation 673 f t. The blower housing is bolted to a steel plate which is welded to ] the beam. GE qualified the blower in the Lab Report No. 5430-6069. The O in-service mounting was qualified by Sargent and Lundy.

1 Dynamic analysis of the support beam and blower housing yielded a peak v) j h

response of 1.36 g's from the absolute sum of the seismic and SRV spectra. j; SLSAP 09713066 was used in a beam model assuming a rigid housing to lC determine the support response. A resonance search of the housing was performed over the.1 to 33 Hz range and no natural frequencies were found. Then biaxial testing in two horizontal-vertical planes was performed, eacn Q Maximum being a sine sweep test over the range of 3.5 to 33 Hz. ,.j N acceleration in tne tests was 3.0 g's. Requalification to the SRV .s is i dependent upon the impedance tr,st performed on tne installed equipme..c. 3 1 l

  • Considering the test'.ng and analysis performed on the equipment and

,i, ',.1 inspection of the instaliation, it is concluded that, if*the impedance test 4 l' shows no significant frequencies of the blower in the 33 to 60 Hz range, ,j the qualification is valid. We requrested the applicant to submit the f.1 impedance test results for tnis equipment to support this assumption, ,j bi 4. 18 In. HPCS Gate Valve f! This valve (Equipment No. E22-F015), built by Darling Manufacturing n Co., is located at reactor building elevation 710 ft. The GE Qualification j ,.j Report f1r this valve is No. VPF 3173-135-3, dated Oct.ser 24, 1974. The I valve has holted pipe flanges. ,e a d l1@ 3 3

l

.l 4. ~ - - * -

ha* k' '11 Qualification was performed by the equivalent static analysis of the ~ < hh valve and operator for a specified g-load of 4 g's. That g-load, applied A simultaneously in three directicns, produces the largest allowaole stresses (ASif Class 2) in the valve oody when comoined witn the pfping nozzle 4 Due to the fact tnat two frequencies of the operator and valve were j load s. calculated in the i to 60 Hz range, the limiting g-load wt.ich will De 2 h allowed to be applied to the valve was reduced from the calculated 4.0 g's to 2.67 g 's. This g-load limit, will be imposed upon the piping analysis, g The piping nozzle loads will also be limited to those used in the valve a j analysis. ~' d, Based upon review of th'e analysis report, the valva can be considered ~ y tj qualified as soon as the piping analysis is verified to produce a maximum acceleration of less than 2.67 g's and piping nozzle loads less tnan l l] specified in the valve analysis.. In order to complete our review, we require the applicant to provide the results of the piping analysis as it. l]) relates to the qualification of this valve. s.

l i

5. HPCS 12 In. Globe Valve l The HPCS 12 inch glooe valve is provided by Anchor Valve Co. and has Equipment No. E22-F023. It is located in the Reactor Building at It is qualified by calculations performed by Sargent i elevation 694 feet. and Lundy dated August 26, 1980. The vaive was qualified by analysis using nand calculations. Natural -] frequencies of 9.3, 28.9 and 60 Hz in the yoke leg were calculated, the first of which is a torsional frequency. o

  • )

Stresses were calculated in the cperatcc-yoke bolting, yoke leg, '] } yoke-bonnet bolting, bonnet bolting, and flanges. The calculations indicate that if the valve is subjected to 0.93 g or less in the three 'l 'h axial directions simultaneously, all stresses are less than allowaole. It is therefore concluded in the report that the valve is qualifed to an inpot a

)

level of G.93 g. .a d(/$b.si '.? j 4 4 q$ 3 s 3 I j d i a 1 "J -+++4---.;,

.. ~. J.... _.. ~ t .r

  • ~

[3 In addition, allowable nozzle loads for the three directions were V.E calculated to be i ,e Fx = 68.6 k j Fy = Fz = 17.1 k i Mx = My = Mz = 1386 in-k. It i: questionaole as to whetner the fictibility of_ the valve has been In the appropriately accounted for in qualifying the valve to 0.93 g. [.: analysis, the valve's flexibility was considered by dividing the allowaole l1,) g-loads at the centroid of the valve by 1.5, and using this value as the

j allowable load for the valve. This method accounts for tne valve flexibility by allowing an amplification in peak acceleration values of I

1.5 from the valve's attachment location in the piping to tne valve's centroid. Depending on the nature of the motion of Stattached piping at the yalve location ano on the natural frequencies of the valve, nigner amplifications could occur. In order to complete our review, we require the applicant to provide: a /..4 C (1) further clarification of the treatment of 1.ne valve flexibility, and (2) the results of the piping analysis and impedance tests as tney relate to the qualification of this valve. 4 6. HPCS Diesel Service Water Pump t The service water pump is provided oy General Electric Co. and has - -i Equipment No. E22-C002. It is located in the Auxiliary Building at elevation 673 feet. It is qualified by calculations performed t y Sargent and Lundy dated August 20, 1980. The pump was qualified by analysis using hand calculations. ine following natural frequencies were thus determined: 260,1719 Hz Pu g snaft Motor shaf t - 48 Hz Pump pedestal'- 78 Hz g.g . M ;A ' gj a 5 \\: i l + ] ~' .j j 1

  • ?-*~~

~ ~ -.. - -.,,. ~ ' '

f ......-.-..u-.-..

l.a i

,h In the analysis both seismic and nozzle loads were considered. A kI static analysis was used to calculate stresses in the pump and motor A hold-down bolts, pump pedestal, anchor bolts, flange bolts and flanges. u.y comparison between required and appl fed 'g' levels is as follows: t 5 N-S E-w V-1 1 Required g's 0.38 '03 0. 14 5 . d, Applied g's 0.57 0.57 0.22 G. The loads were applied simultaneously in the three directions. All ji l calculated stresses were lower than allowable values. No concerns witn the ), I qualification of this item were identified. I 7. RCIC Pump !t The RCIC pump is provided by Binghan Williamette Co. and has } j Equipment No. E51-C001. It is located in the Reactor Building at elevation 673 feet. It is qualified by calculations performed by Sargent I@ and Lundy dated July la,1980 and by previous calculations performed by l D Binghan Williamette. This iten was qualified-by analysis. Since the review of the analysis j was not completed during the site visit, we requested the appicant to ,4,} provide the qualification reports for further review. Important to tne t.' lj. qualification of the pump is the treatment of the " Terry" turbine drive to ,j which it is connected. v j on tne floor with 18-5/8 in. bolts. ,I (1i) Reactor Level and Pressure Panel 'C' (H22-P005) t y ^ i i Pressure Panel 'C' (Model No. 12701833TD, Rev. 2) is supplied by tne same vendor as H22-P004 and is also located in the reactor building at an b

j j

elevation of 761 ft. It is one of the basic panels itself and has the dimension of 94 in. H x 72 in. W x 30 in. D. It weighs about 1500 lo and d i is attacned to the floor with 12-5/8 in. bolts. .) 1 1 i 12 'l 1 t i ' f I.1 ._.,. g.. . _.:r -v - .r-w

.1 ~ ~. 'i (iii) Jet Pump Instrument Panel 'A' (H22-9010) ~ j (I g[Y l Y. j Jet Pump Instrument Panel 'A' (Modal No. 12701832TD, Rev. 2) from tne i same vendor is located at an elevation of 710 f t 6 in. in the reactor building. In this configuration, it measured 94 in. H x 120 in. g W x 30 in. O and weighs about 2300 lb. It consists of two basic panels f measuring 9', in. H x 72 in. W x 30 in. O and 94 in. H x 48 in. W x 30 in. D bolted to each other along the 30-in. side. These are also bolted to floor ,j ' with 5/8 in. bolts at 20 places. q l 1 Reactor Level and Pressure Panel '0' (H22-P026) j.. (iv)

j This pannel (Model No. 12701830TD, Rev.1), weighing about 2600 lb, l!$

is supplied by General Electric Company. It consists of two basic panels '} (94 in. H x 72 in. W x 30 in. D each) bolted along its 30 in. side and has an overall dimension of 94 in. H x 144 in. W x 30 in. D. It is located in the reactor building at a elevation of 761 ft. This model also has t 24-5/8 in, bolts connecting it to the floor. 2 R?-. N (v) Reactor Level and Pressure Panel 'B' (H22-P027) i General Electric Company is also the vendor for this panel (Model~ i No.127Dl929TD, Rev. 2). This configuration consists of two basic panels (94 in. H x 72 in. W x 30 in. O and 94 in. H x 48 in. W x 30 in. D.) and has an overall measurement of 94 in. H x 120 in. W x 30 in. D. The total asse21y weighs about 2300 lb. and is located in tne reactor building at 761 f t level. The base is attached to the floor with 20-5/8 in. bolts. l l As is evident, all of the above configurations are different comoinations from three basic units. They are 1 (a) 94 in. H x 72 in. W x 30 in. D (b) 94 in. H x 48 in. W x 30 in. D (c) 94 in. H x 30 in. W x 30 in. D j .i I ll 3 w 13 i!-! ll Y h i; l ! q

2 .~ ' {i. a .o n !'i .p b The panels are qualified on the basis of an'alysis done by Sargert and Lundy j Engineers, Chicago. The referenced documents are as follows: ,lf .n [' l. SWRI Report, dated January 18, 1979 j Nutecn Report No. GEN-51-008, dated February 9,1979 ',1 2.

.?

3. Structural data, dated October 18, 1978 4 4 4. GE document No. 994-79-012, dated July 11, 1979 j. 5. GE Spec. 22A4073, dated July '6,1979 3 6. SWRI lab. data, dated January 11, 1979 7. LaSalle Design Adequacy Evaluation - Second Report, ~ Octooer 23, 1980 8. Zimer-1 Local Panel Seismic Adequacy No. 994-79-010 ' f *g 9. SR. Evaluations, dated December 6,1979 j 10. S&L Dynamic Analysis R'eport, dated April 22, 1980. The loads considered in the evaluation are seismic and SRV. SM. analyzed ) tha. three oasic units separately witn 30-beam finite elements. This was a l l 40 modes in the dynamic response spectrum analysis with 2% damping. 'l, j f frequency range cf 0 to 60 Hz were used. The computer program used was d Q$' SLSAP09 713066. The natural frequencies for the tnree basic units are as follows:

l. *,

Frequencies (Hz) !l L i W S-S F-B V i 'Ij 72 in. W 17.7 12.5 17.7 il J 36.7 17.7 32.8 Il] '1 45.9 22.1 36.7 , e.t >3 52.7 31.2 32.8 36.7 i 40.6 f:, 43.6 /l 49.3 58.0 60 o ..f. .W l,3 14 , ' "9 .d .. l aa-- s

.... 1F w. t .'Jb .e f.4 ? ,.? ~ 48 in. W 18.0 12.6 12.6 ?+hh.. 25.7 25.7 25.7 46.3 34.2 45.0 49.8 36.5 46.3 3 54.3 40.6 54.3 ~ 61.5 45.0 p* 46.3 = 59.0 ,o 30 in. W 16.5 32.9 32.9 44.7 44.7 5 58.3 47.1 .4 53.4 lJ -l; 55.8 t i 11 .i Absolute Maximum Response for Eacn Panel (g's) j 2% W S-S F-8 V I ILI' 72 in. W l.35 2.05 0.9 46 in. W -- -l.,17 - 2.04 0.9 30 in. W l.10 0.76 0.9 l A simil-* panel ( 94 in. H x 72 in. W x 30 in. 0) was tested at SWRI for lg ij GE and documented in a report prepared by SWRI datud January 18, 1979. The natural frequencies were: 1 5-5 F-8 V l .1 l 4 1 9.0 10.5 8.2 .( J J 15.5 15.7 15.5 g 35.5 26.7 25.5 tj 4 30.7 54.0 3 -4 1 , f) <t s i b f' ] 1 15

l. S l

1 -1, '.4

'l .~. s

4

$ h' The equipment mounted in any of the three basic units is to be qualified on the basis of the maximum g-level for that particular unit irrespective of where it is mounted in the unit, t In order to complete the review of the qualification of tnese panels, we requested the applicant to provide the following information: j 1. Demonstrate the validity of the analysis in the light of the SWRI test. 4 2. Demonstrate the conservatism in the analysis since effect of coupling between the basic units is not accounted for. Due to the above concerns and the extensive use of these panels, its report was selected for further review. I 15. Level Indicator Switch (No.159C4384) Level indicator switches (instrument number B21-N024 A/D and k' J.. B21-N031 A/D model number 288A-9688) were supplied by ITT 3arton. All of 821-N024A is mounted on local panel H22-P004 with 4-1/4 inch bolts. these tnree local panels are located in the reactor building at an elevation of 761 leet. The referenced documents are: ITT Barton Report No. Rl-288A-10, dated November 30, 1972, and EMD file No. 00 7919. The loads for qualification are seismic plus hydrodynamic. t This equipment was qualified through test. Both field and lacoratory A resonance search test in the frequency range of mountings were the same. 1 to 60 Hz along the three axes indicated resonant fre.luencies of 38 and 58 Hz for x-axis. The highest required g-level from among their locations was i S-S = 1.35 g F-B = 2.05 g V = 0.9 g. I. 16 3 ~ '1 ,1! ._.._,,.m.....

.J ^: f g:. 1: ) The equipment was suDjected to a single frequency, single axis test. A M sine dwell test at eacn resonant. frequency witn an input g-level of S-S = 4.0 g F-8 = 4.0 g V = 2.67 g was carried out. A fragility test in F-8 direction at 10 Hz with an input '[ of 10 g's was also perfomed. During the review the following problems were detected. ~ .q. [ (a) Report No. Rl-288A-10 of NovemDer 30, 1972 indicated that the model switch chattered at 38 Hz at an input level of 3 g. 1;; (b) In another report No. 54486, dated April 30, 1975, cnattering was reported at 12 Hz with an input level of 1.8 g. a .,i f In order to complete our review we require the applicant to '4 Qj2 denonstrate that the reported chattering does not have an ' adverse effect on the performance requirements for the equipment. i>' 16. Differential Pressure Transmitter (No.163C1560)

1 Diff erential pressure transmitters. (instrume_ t number B21-N027 n

i and E3-N0140, model number ll51DPSA) were supplied by Rosemon't Inc. f 821-N027 is mounted on local panel H22-P027 with 4-3/8 inch bolts whereas B33-N0140 is mounted on local panels H22-P010, 006, 009, and 022 with i' s i 4-3/8 inch bolts. All these panels are located in the reactor building at an elevation of 761 feet. The referenced reports are: Rosemont Report l' No. 9726C, dated Sept. 12, 1972; Wyle Lab. Report No. 43082-1, dated Decemoer 16, 1975 and EMD file No. 005769. The loads consioered are seismic and hydrodynamic. i .) i

Ew 17 1-

^ ,I ~ ~ ~ ~ ::: : : ~ u.---

r x-3.y. - -.

e. 0-. ~t ~ ~. \\

{ . ~ ~ This ' equipment was qualified based on test. It was mounted on a 2in. Schedule 40 pipe whicn was clamped and rigidly attached to the shaker. O 'l' Resonance search test was perfonned along each axis from 5 to 70 Hz with I resonances noted at 70; 62; and 50, 68 Hz in V. F/B and S/S directions, respectively. The required g-level for this equipment in the most severe mounting location was l 'i S-S = 1.35 g F-8 = 2.05 g V = 0.9 g. j

i

's, i.; Both single axis, single frequency and multiaxis, multifrequency tests were i performed on this item. The g-levels for the single axis, single frequency i? test were j i S-S = 2.0 g F-B = 2.0 g j ~ V = 2.0 g. 8 ~ f [/'O}, Since these tests may not be adequate for tne present locations, multiaxis 1 .j and multifrequency tests were performed. j 1 However, the RRS and TRS for tne test were not available at the time j In order to complete our review we require a comparison of the i of review. TRS with tne RRS. The applicant stated that they were under preparation t ,jj l and would be supplied. ~ 1 i 17. SRM and IRM Preasolifier Enclosure l4 These preamplifier enclosures (equipment number H22-P030, 31, 32, 33, l] model numoers the same) were supplied by General Electric Company, H22-P031 and H22-P032 are mounted witn 4-1/2 inch oolts on the walls. iC H22-P032 and H22-P033 are mounted on pillars (2 each) with 4-1/2 incn All of these are located in the reactor building at an elevation of bolts. IJ 740 feet. ( t1,a.pp f h-;l h 18 i4 k b i i i 1 ._y. l-

c. .~ Ii s ^) ii Out of the four, H22-P030 and H22-P033 were the critical ones due to <t d-their mountings and one of them was analyzed by Sist.. The mathematical j model consisted of 30-beam and plate finite elements. All devices and attachments contained in it were considered for mass effects. The computer i code used was SLSAP097130-660. The response spectrum method witn simultaneous lo. ding in three directions was used. The input response a i} spectrum curves were obtained by enveloping 2% damping for SSE and . j.j 1% damping for OBE at an elevation of 740 f t. Seismic and Hydrodynamic loads were considered. The natural frequencies from the analysis were; 7.35 38.72 50.41 'd 1732 4622 55 J9 a 4 23.00 48.98 62.88. di Nine modes were used in the analysis. The stresses are compared to i I j i Form 3508. An impedance test for confirmation of resonances was performed on the The enclosure, but the results were not available at the time of review. / p/ applicant agreed to supply these test results wnen available. j Q d Based on our review of the analysis report, the observed field n 3 installations, and the clarifications provided by the applicant we concluoe ..j'j that the enclosures are adequately qualified for the defined loads, pending b firming . 'the applicant's submittal cf the impedance test results there y con I the results. i ,j 18. SGTS Equipment Train, ' j c :) The train (Equipment No. IVG0lS) is bolted to the floor of the reactor building at elevation 820 f t. It was manufactured by Pennwalt CVI Corp. and qualified by analysis in Report No. B453-9991. l 1 1 !1 1 ijaj 3l 8 19

5 m

.S t ; i.- - -., = - _ _ _... _ _ _ _ _., _, m,

-.x . % --^.r - g y ,M N The analysis consisted of hand calculations of natural frequencies in j f /h the structure and conservative estimates of the rocking and translational accelerations (1.3 g vertical 0.5 g and 0.6 g horizontal) of the 26,500 lb ,L.- 4 1 'w.' i structure. Frequencies exciting the total mass are in the 260 to 279 Hz 1 Local stresses in the shell and support frames)were calculated with 1 range.

.j the g-loads from the SRSS of the earthquake and T-quencher SRV spectra.

Allowables were based on the AISC code (1974). ]; a" The nozzle stresses imposed upon the train by the outlet duct are of } major concern since the present support configuration of the piping shows ] l j. stresses above allowables. Sargent and Lundy is considering various hj options to reduce those stresses. Impedance testing of the train has been !l performedbutresultshavenotbeendocumentedatthiktime. ,,1 1 Considering the analyses performed and the inspection of the unit, the

j analysis is conserrative with respect to the method of dynamic loading of

.] the unit, however, the issue of high nozzle stresses must be resolved. In .f order to complete our review we require tne applicant to: (1) demonstrate the adequacy of the train wall junction for the nozzle loads and (2) 5 j> ,g.., J provide the results of the impedance test to verify the conservative r.-=,,3 t / j derivation of the dynamic loads. I

19. Cooling Coil Cabinets i

The cooling coil cabinets are provided by Sahnson Company and have j j Equipment No. VYO3A. They are located in the reactor building at 1 elevation 694 feet. They are qualified by calculations performed by I Sargent and Lundy dated Novemoer 6, 1979, and July 22, 1980. y! 3 i The cabinets were qualified by analysis using the MRI/ STAR 0YNE 3 finite element program. The finite element model was used to determine

i natural frequencies for the cabinet. There were no resonance frequencies I

less than 33 Hz identified. There were, however, several such frequencies determined in the 33 to 60 Hz range. !1 .l . l dB

'j W 20 l

W.t e 1 j '] 1. j } !;i .m .i re : ~ =r as - * ++ - m --= e..m. x. - .g,g .g p.., 7 m ,....,s.

1. r . g'. ! h In the original quali#ication of the cabinet only seismic loads were ' 00 considered along with deadweight, pressure, and nozzle loads. The caoinet ~. was thus treated as rigid and analyzed statically. In the later .x. qualification hydrodynamic loads were added.with the seismic loads by ooth an absolute sum (ABS) and SRSS combination, but tne cabinet was _again analyzed statically by a simple scaling up of results from the previous analysis. Such a static analysis is an inappropriate approach to determine response to the hydrodynanic loads because of the existence of natural 4 frequencies in the 33 to 60 Hz range. t + t i Because the calculated stresses in all portions of the cabinet are i i!, significantly lower than allowable, a more accurate determination of i j-stresses is regarded to be unnecessary and thus this item is considered b. qualified. 4 20. 2-Inch Control Valve, Air Operated f The 2 incn air operated control valve is provided by ACF Industries ' Q and has Equipment No. E51-F025. It is located in the Reactc.* Building on W7 piping subsystem SC-1. It is qualified by the document " Seismic .n.e i Qualification Test Report, WKM 2-M.," Report No. 02-5099-001, by Southwest f' Research Institute, April 7,1978. l-i

i This control valve was qualified by testing using a random biaxial From the input motion a Test Response Spectrum was generated input motion.

i which should envelope a Required Response Spectrum for the valve. Since i results from the associated piping analysis are not yet available, the 'i fi adequacy of the TRS cannot be ascertained. 4 resonance search was performed which identified the following j j natural frequencies (Hz): [ l a i-j: 15 h2: 11 y: 77, 88, 95.5. h I' I e - 'l:y i gg 21 'i i

i

!.) y,.. y - - - - - -~. - -

a..__ ___ __. _ _____. _] m_ -n .j A total of 5 OBE tests and one SSE test were performed in each 3 orientation. Functionability of the valve was monitored by hydro-leak !f h tests, stem displacement measurements, visual ooservation for cracks and 2 limit-switch monitoring. The valve behaved normally during and after all 4' tests.

t

- 1,. f In order to complete our review, we require the applicant to provide tne piping analysis results to demonstrate: (1) the adequacy of the TRS the loads at tne nozzles are satisfactory. In addition, we i and (2) tht t requested the applicant to provide the qualification reports for further i

review, J

t

21. SGTS Primary Supply Fan The fan (Equipment No. IVG01C) is attached to the inlet plenum of tne

,j $GTS equipment train. It is isolated on its inlet and outlet sides from ] the attached ductug by flexible duct material. The fan and motor are mounted on legs, whien in turn, are bolted to a frame work of steel ~ Th -l l:.1 channels whicn are ancnored into the reactor building floor at elevation + . \\u s 820 ft. The unit is manufactured by Buffalo Forge Co. and it was qualified }j oy analysis by McMahon Engineering Co. in Report No. 76J-25201-27 5 (Reanalysis by S&t. Septemoer 1,1978, June 26,1980). i. Hand calculations of the natural frequencies of various components of 4 { the unit indicated that a static analysis in conjunction witn the g-loads j from the absolute summed eartnquake and SRV curves is appropriate. Tne .i j analysis assumed the framed support to be rigid and, indeed, it appears to An impedance test nas been performed on the unit and should determine j be. j .the validity of tnat assumption. The ZPA values (0.58 g and 0.65 g norizontal and 1.3 gs vertical) were taken from the comoined spectra curves i h corresponding to 33 Hz. The stresses and deflection calculated witn the ,,] g-loaos were very low with respect to the allowanies, j O N h 'O

s. M jl 22 i'k l

1 7 id 3

c. j ..o .s o a ,q In order to complete our review we require the applicant to provide ' j I Ihh the impedance test results as they relate to the qualification of this [! fan. If the examination of the impedance test results indicates the if channel support base of tne unit to be rigid, tne unit is adequately y qualified for the described loading. !) 4

22. 72-Inch Secondary Containment Iso;ation Dampers

\\ The dampers (Equipment No. VR05Y A, B) are bolted at their flanges to a duct whose centerline is roughly 5 f t off tne floor in the Auxiliary ~ j Building at elevation 686 ft. The 4693 lb dampers are constructed by the Techno Corp. and qualified by Techno Report No. Il77A, Rev.1,

1 j

February 22, 7 9. Dynamic qualification was performed for seismic loads. q lj only. 1a Oue to a Sargent and Lundy specification that all ducting be designeo rigidly, the damper analysis assumed the input spectra to be those. of the j Auxiliary Building floor at elevation 686 f t. Inspection of tne ducting I { p@. support raised the question of suppcrt rigidity for lateral translation of

g i

11 W the doct. The damper body and components were analyzed witn static hand calculations, using g-loads of 0.44 g and 0.37 g norizontally and 0.46 g - vertically af ter calculations of fref,uencies showed all damper components to be rigid.. The stress criteria was based upon ASE Code Section III. [4l-4 Analysis of the damper qualifies it for the seismic load if the duct support in the lateral direction can be snown to be rigid. In order to j l4 complete our review we require the applicant to provide an analysis to demonstrate the rigidity of the supports. L

23. SGTS Control panel i

t t . 4 1 The SGTS control panel is provided by Systems Control Corporation and l )j nas Equipment No. PLl7J. It is located in the Reactor Building at i elevation 820 feet. It is qualified oy tne document " Seismic Test Report on Control Panels," Spec. No. J-2561, by Sargent t.nd Lurdy, Feoruary 22, 19 79. gg bdd i .i w 1 ? = .ll i1 ? ~ 3 3 --.- -= ]

~ ~ ~~ _ __ D _. _ _ _1.., _ _ _ _ _ _.. a. _, j,' t , i :' The SGTS Control Panel was qualified'using multiaxis sine beat tests ]@ at 1/2 octave frequency intervals from 1 to 50 Hz 'and at eacn resonance l frequency. The sine beat tests consisted of 5 beats witn 10 cycles per

I beat at each frequency.

.tJ 'b A total of 5 OEE and 1 SSE tests were conducted in two mutually =i perpendicular planes. A sine beat test at eacn frequency constitutes one 1 sucn test. .ki'.a Resonance search tests conducted in the _two perpendicular planes ] identified the following natural frequencies:

{1

{ >a

d j: 16, 17, 25, 26 h2: 18, 19, 26, 28 V: 16, 17, 18, 25, 28.

h . -1 ,!j The sine beat tests were performed with the following input g-levels 1,, l for tne SSE: i h j: 0.54 h2: 0.54 V: 0.94. it tSA h'N Correspondingly, the required zero period acceleration levels are: 4t ~ 1, ,i j j: 0.54 h2 : 0.54 V: 0.75. n l1-These values are derived from a response spectrum corresponding to !i combined seismic and hydrodynamic loads. i )'4 During tests, two General Electric relay contacts and two Agastat timing relay contacts were monitored in tne open and closed conditions. No a 4 i'q. improper deflections, openings, or closings in these contacts occurred. l 1 t '] In order to complete our review we require the applicant to provice: l, (1), justification for single frequency testing and (2) tne impedance test ) results as they relate to the qualification of this item. ] i i '. [b h b) k-I i 24 f j l

._.-.....~_._..,

_ m. 3

fl I a.-_._.. ...,.c.- } l .a o Ij '

24. Post LOCA Hydrogen Recomoiner

..s. ph u,. ,y g j The ny& ogen recomoiner is provided by Atomics International and has '] Equipment No. HG01A. It is located in the Reactor Building at j elevation 786 feet. It is qualified by Wyle Laooratories Report . N No. 58129-1, dated December 29, 1976. 3] The recombiner was qualified by testing using multifrequency multiaxis Tests were conducted over the 1 to 100 Hz range and a Test Response input. Spectrum was generated. The TRS thus developed nearly envelopes the ~ Required Response Spectrum for the recombiner. The RRS corresponds to combined seismic and SRV loading. _.It n [] For complete envelopment of the RRS, sine beats were superimposed on .) the random signals at discrete frequencies from 1.25 to 4 Hz for the j horizontal axis and to 8 Hz for the vertical. Five random tests of 30 seconds duration were run in eacn of two mutually perpendicular planes. C7h Functional operaoility of the recontainer was verified af ter the t, sts e and no problems occurred. During the Wyle tests the "Barton" transmitters i exnioited some anomalies (electrical spikes). Since the safety function of the recombiner is needed only after an event, these present no difficulty. q I 2 A 3 or 4 in, pipe enters the Hy& ogen Recomoiner from tne plant. The i ! .] } influence of nozzle loads exerted by this pipe have not yet been 3 considered. In order to complete our review, tne applicant was requestec

g

'j to demonstrate the adequacy of qualification of the recombiner with these nozzle loads included..

!.3 l'i t
25. Limitorque Motor Operator

/ g ?i The Limiterque motor operators are provided by Limitorque Corporation !t and are of several models including SB and SMB units. They are located on ^ 'j piping systems in botn the Auxiliary and Reactor Buildings at several ] i l I j? #29 .i ss -l 1 25 J 4 j 1, ' " ' ~ """~~~~ 1 ET i ~ '" ]

L l...._ _ 4 s il' ~ Q elev ations. They are qualified by the document " Seismic Qualification ] t.y/ j J Limitorque Valve Actuators," EMD File No. 019152 (for tests performed by I Aero Nav. Laboratories, Inc. and Wyle Laboratories). I The operators were qualified by testing. Tests were performed on a group of valve actuators representative of the generic range of models from l] fl SMS-000 to SMB-5. l

'z,'

The tests performed on a typical model (such as SMB-000-5) included a Witn .] resonance scan in each of three axes at 0.1 g from 5 to 33 Hz. resonance defined as a minimum acceleration multiplication factor of two, 1 f there were no resonances identified. Seismic dwell tests of 30 seconds duration were the:1 conducted at a frequency of 33 Hz in each of tne tnree '9ii The dwell tests for each axis were performed at a j axes, independently. casic input level of 6 g. To mis base of 6 g were added cross coupling factors to account for coupling between axes. In this fashion, the operators were qualified to a simultaneous loading of 6 g in each direction. fragility ' ests were run at a frequency of 33 Hz. ,m t On model 58-3-100, g*;~.y Witn an input level of 8 gs in each axis, no malfunctions occurred. Since the present qualification of the Limitorque Motor Operators does i not consider hydrodynamic loads, the potential for frequ'encies oeyond 33 Hz is not addressed. The results of impedance tests, whicn are to be performed, will have to be reviewed to assure that tne operators can still be qualified to 6 g over an expanded frequency range. Since the operators are qualified oy requiring of the piping designer that no valve operator be subjected to higher than 6 g's, a review of the piping analysis results is needed to verify this to be the case. In orcer to complete our review we require the applicant to provice i } the impedance test results and piping analysis results as tney relate to i i'j the qualification Of the Limitorque Operators. l; i .g 26 i 1 = ii "i t, ' h........ I

~~ a ,i c, ~- '] n 'H' s i Q

26. Namco Limit Switch

! f@ j The switch (Hodel No. EA 700) is bolted to the support post of duct l dampers throughout the system. This switen was qualified by test by Autonetics of Rockwell International, EMD No. 017958, dated March 22, 1979. 1} il Oue to the fact that ducts are designed by specification and dampers 1 snown oy analysis to be rigid, the floor spectra are tne required input. 1 l] Absolute sum spectra envelopes for all floors of the reactor building for <j f the earthquaxe and T-quencher loads in each of the three principal directions were used as the RRS for the test. A resonance searen was. ll performed over the 1 to 40 Hz range and no frequencies discovered. '.3 i Ii Qualification was performed using biaxial tests (vertical-horizontal) in ji ] two ortnogonal norizontal riirections using input motion of complex ranoom Five OBE level tests of at least 30 seconds duration and one SSE 'i form. I level of at least 40 seconds duration were performed. During the tests the l switch was energized and'the output response was monitored and i, functionality verified. k K,g The testing was 0 iy conducted up to 40 HI. Tne g-load level of tne '4 TRS was so hign (appronmctely 10 g at 40 Hz), however, tnat tne IPA of the TRS would not be expected to fall below the RRS level of 0.8 9 Thus, tne j ij' TRS would most probaoly envelope the RRS. Therefore, the item is ,f) considered qualified for the given dynamic loads.. i)

27. HPCS Waterleg Pump I ?1 The item (equipment numoer 2E22-CD03 model numoer 3062 size AA) was e

']1 It is attached to the floor supplied by Crane Company, Demming Division. 3,l with 4'-5/8 inch bolts at an elevation of 674 fect in tne reactor ouilding. Referenced report is " Mcdonald Engineering Analysis Company report i ? 'j numoer ME-211, dated 6-17-77." The seismic, nydrodynanic, nozzle and I : ", normal loads are considered in the qualification. >4 J l) .l. e 27 j' .l !} II

~... -....-.] ..-..... ~. ...._...T- ~ 4 ^ *.. ~ { ; ~'g .o s. J

'4 b

q ' HPCS Waterleg pump was qualified througn analysis. A dynamic lumped f mass model was developed and a computer frequency analysis made for r

J q

frequencies of the system. The first two frequencies were 52.78 and. [h Before tne SRV qualification, the cut-off frequency for seismic 77.00 Hz. Since both of the frequencies were higher than 33 Hz, a static l7 was 33 Hz. The jj load analysis was performed using the ICES-STRUOL-I. computer progam. Y required / qualified SSE spectra were, s i} h) = 0.62/2.0 g; h2 = 0.73/2.0 g; V = 1.35/2.0 g. -i U Thus, a requalification was necessary to show its adequacy for SRV loads. The requalification was pe-formed using g-values taken from the combined y ] The new required g-levels with 1% and seismic and SRV response spectra. jj j] 2% damping values for OBE and SSE, respectively, were, i, hj = 0.81 g; h2 = 0.81 g; V = 0.35 g. j I l .I Since the new requirements were less than the original qualification 6 j R.; requirements a new calculation was not required. Tne stresses and e. deflections for the equipment were compareo with ASME or other industry-d a l applicable code allowaoles and fou.id adequate. 3 e,. Based on our review of tne analysis reports, observed field i

  • A installations and clarifications pro"ided by the applicant this plece of

'I equipment is adequately qualified fer 1 1 prescribed loads. l]2 l.j .28. HPCS Oil Storage Tank i 4.I The HPCS oil storage tank is provi-ded by Cnicago Bridge and Iron and 1 h has Equipment No. 0002T. It is located in the Auxiliary Building at elevation 710 feet. It is qualified by calculations performed oy Sargent !j and Lundy dated October 20, 1978. ) 3, t. t n,1 Ibh q 4 28 13i j t 2 l-8

... _. -. i. f. ] .. -. - ~ -. - '.*y I The This item was qualified by analysis using hand calculations. k.h review of the analysis was not completed during the site visit; therefore we requested the applicant to provide the qualification report for further It was noted that the allowable value for stress in the tank wall review. appears to be high. Therefore, the applicant also was requested to provice l' justification for the hign value. 8-Incn Motor Operated Butterfly Valve 29. l The valve (Equipment No. VPil3 A, B) is flanged an'd bolted to the adjacent chilled water piping. It 'was manufactured by Continental Division of Fisner Controls and was qualified by analysis at the company in Report i f Nos. 5A094 and SA095, dated December 19, 1978. The finite element computer program " Seismic 4" was used for the dynamic analysis for natural frequencies and the first mode was at The sum of the seismic and SRV acceleration values inoicate pean i 39.5 Hz. accelerations of 4.38 g and 2.58 g in the horizontal and 3.7 g in the vertical directions. The static stress analysis considerea 6 g in the (",., horizontal and 7 g in the vertical direction. Piping nozzle loads were determinea in tne "PIPSYS" piping computer code and applied to the valve. Stresses at these g-lqvols were compared against ASIE Code, Section III allowaoles and found acceptaole. I-While a frequency determination was not made in the 40 to 60 Hz range, the conservative g-loading applied in the analysis would provide adequate

i l

margin for amplification of any mode in that region. i-After consideration of the analysis and inspection of the valve the unit is considered qualified for the earthquake and T-quencher loads. 30. Control Cabinets The cabinets (Equipment Nos. 0)M14J and OPM15J) are bolted into the floor of the control room in the 4 xiliary Building at elevation 768 ft i i 3. g 29 1 i i I a 2.* ._m

i .~ li Og with eight 1/2 in bolts. They are faoricated by Gene. al Atomic Company and were qualif fi.id by test at Wyle t.aboratories (Report No. 58380). On ly seismic loads are considered.- The test had been performed for a more severe condition than Lasalle's In the test the TRS envelopes the RRS except in the range of less RRS. th an 1.5 Hz. Tne test was run with the cabinet welded to the test fixture The cabinet was which is a case of lower damping than found in situ. test.ed with all components in place. The qualifying test was a i; multi-frequency, biaxial test over the range of 1 to 100 Hz in which j; functional operation of instruments was monitored during and after tne 1 Five OBE level tests were run before the SSE level test. !s test. . i ..Ofj Upon review of the test and inspection of the caoinet in place, tne cabinet has Deen considered qualified for the seismic load. 1 m., .~ B 6 e f 5 I 4 i i i .) s t e a l -lo $p3 ,'. #n n

  • s'. '3 [
i, t>

li ' 30 I -1 ? t -a f. - m..., cc :.. w..g e--. -

C.. . ~- r ...j -j bi SQRT VISIT TO LA SALLE (O: M _f.' List of Attendees liff i 1. C. H. Hofmayer NRC/EQB {l 2. Pei-Ying Chen NRC/EQ8 ig 3. J. Sinnappan Sargent & Lundy

f; 4.

Phil Petersen Sarge.it & Lundy 3 5. A. E. Heligt Sargent & Lun.1y 6. R. W. Hardy GE

y 7.

E. Falb CECO a!]Q 8. G. R. Crane CECO [I 9. J. N. Singh EG&G Idaho, Inc. l[j 10. G. L. Thinnes EG&G Idaho, Inc. lj 11. G. K. Miller EG&G Idaho, Inc. 12. J. F. Etzweiler LILCO ..j 1 .1 lt -f "*'.s %- % Yo q i .o t ? 1.j 4 2 0 1 4 t 'I r

i i

a 7 )'i l j 0 2 4 ... f 0 4 t; i,j s, 2 31 '9 . ~. -.... .%.9..,%.,,.,. w.,.... ,.,.s.

-r 3, ~ LA SALLE 1 & 2 . l: 1. ~_ ; (A) List of Open Items 1. HPCS 4-In. Gate Valve. 2. RHR Heat Exchanger. 3. MSIV Leakage Contr01 System Exnaust 81ower. ] 4. 18 In. HPCS Gate Valve. S. liPCS 12. In. Glove Valve. b 6. RCIC Pump. ~ 7. SLC Storage Tank. I 8. Local Panels. 4 ' 9. Level Indicator S.sitch. 1 Ii 10. Diff erential Pressure Transmitter. 1

11. SRM and IRM Preamplifier Enclosure.

j

12. SGTS Equipment Train.

13. 2-Inch Control Valve, Air Operated. ^tj

14. 72-lach Secondary Containment Isolation Dampers.

i' I 15. SGTS Control Panel. 1 (h Ih

16. Post LOCA Hydrogen Recomoiner.

} 17. Limitorque Motor Operater. 2 ]

18. HPCS Oil Storage Tank.

i I s 4 e iJ A i -9 i .,m } @1.) M i 1 1 . x

  • *""' - " *~** M e*

,,w-,,, p,

v ..s.. - 1 .=P

l. 1 i

,1-et . a,.. (B) Items Dependent on " Impedance Test." (0 pen) ,.:c -I %Q, l. HPCS 4-In. Gate Valve.

'j

,2. MSIV Leakage Control System Exnaust Blower. 3. HPCS 12-In. Glove Valve. p, !j 4. ,STM and IRM Preamplifier Enclosure. m) 5. SGTS Equipment Train. 6. SGTS Control Panel. Jj 11 7. Limitorque Motor Operator. A p. t, k si n M) 9 Y 'l, 8-$D'. l! Ei~?f ) M, iiW ,j .j 4 e4 i 1 .1 i s t a. j.8 4, ',j 2 a J .j 4' t 4 l.i 3 I ( > ~3 171 lls] (m.h. f ' 3 p c.-c.y 2 .1g !. s., E t,

,,- ~. -.--,f -.-- -...,.. ;. 7, ~.et

b 1

-l (C) Items Dependent on " Piping Analysis." (0 pen)

.#.,F.

4: W l. HPCS 4-In. Gate Valve. .c 18-In. HPCS Gate Valve. 2. 3. HPCS 12-In. Glove Valve. ) 4. RCIC Pump. ,j

l, 5.

SGTS Equipment Train. 2-Incn Contol Valve, Air Operated. 6. .j , j 7. Post LOCA Hy& ogen Recomoiner. I 8. Limitorque Motor Operator. 1 r-4$ 5 tj

  • i:

'l!!

I i

i k @-:l? ./ t e. ? } =, 4 li. . i I I i i. i a ? i b3. h e4 D i 3 + 1 <~w- . ~. -. ,,,,,,o, . -.}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20069A592&oldid=4429824"