ML20070V270
| ML20070V270 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford, 05000000, Shoreham |
| Issue date: | 12/13/1982 |
| From: | Bagchi G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Noonan V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082480769 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8302170218 | |
| Download: ML20070V270 (9) | |
Text
' -.. -.. s. -..L.J... -.. =,. -.. -
~
/-
8
'o UNITE 33TATES g
- l 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/ l g
j wAsnmoron,o.c.aoses
/j s
,/
...c.
ll g ga DEC 1i 1092 i
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Vincent S. Noonan, Chief d
Equipment Qualification Branch
- ;e -
Division of Engineering FR0r4 :
T. Y. Chang Equipment Qualification Branch Division of Engineering THRU:
Goutam Bagchi, Section Leader /
Equipment Qualification Branch" Division of Engineering SUBJECT :
SECOND TRIP REPORT FOR SEISMIC CRITERIA IMPLEMENTATION
~:'
REVIEW MEETING WITH LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (LP&L)
ON WATERFORD NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 3 The Seismic Qualification Review Team (SQRT), consisting of engineers from the-Equipment Qualification Branch (EQB) and the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL, EG&G), conducted two site visits to Waterford Nuclear Power Generating Station Unit 3 near New Orleans, Louisiana, during 'the periods of September 14 through September 18, 1981, and August 30 through September 3, 1982. The visits served two purposes:
(1) to perform a plant site review of the seismic and dynamic qualification methods, procedures, and results for selected safety-related mechanical and electrical equipment and their sup-porting structures, and (2) to observe the field installation of the equipment in order to verify and validate equipment modeling employed in the qualifica-tion program. The trip report for the first site visit was issued on August 30, J
1982. This present trip report is a report about the second sitt. visit.
The background, review procedures, findings and required follow-up actions are summarized below. A list of attendees at the conference is contained in Attachment I, and a list of the equipment selected for audit is shown in Attachment II. The SQRT visit report is included as Attachment III.
1.
Backaround I
The applicant has described the equipment qualification program, consisting of analysis and dynamic testi 6, in Sections 3.9 and 3.10 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). This program is used to confirm the ability of seis-mic Category I mechanical and electrical (includes instrumentation and con-trol) equipment and their supports, to function properly during and after the i
safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) specified for the plant.
l The plant site reviews were performed to determine the extent to which the qualification of equipment, as installed in Waterford 3, meets the current licensing criteria as described in the Standard Review Plan (SRP) l Sections 3.9.2 and 3.10.
i 8302170218 830202 PDR ADOCK 05000322 A
~ "~~
~~-
~
~:
~ ~ - ' rir.
.w.. :
N T T m i,erJ ~ ~
.Z
.l
. ~.. ~ -...
a L P
Vincent S. Noonan 2
2.
Review Procedures l
Prior to the site visits, the SQRT reviewed the equipment seismic qualification information contained in the pertinent FSAR sections and the i'
reports referenced therein. Representative samples of seismic Category t mechanical and electrical equipment, including both NSSS and BOP scopes were j
selected for each plant site review. The review consisted of field observa-tion of the actual equipment configuration and its installation, followed by the review of the corresponding test and/or analysis documents. Brief tech-nical discussions were held during the review sessions to provide SQRT's feed-back to the applicant on the equipment qualification. An exit conference was held to summarize and conclude the plant site visit.
3.
Findings The results of field observations and the review of the qualification reports and pertinent documen+.s for equipment as listed in Attachment II are summarized in Attachment III for each piece of equipment evaluated.
The two plant site reviews identified a nead to provide additional information on some generic issues and certain clarifications for individual pieces of equipment. A subsequent submittal, dated September 27, 1982, resolved most of.
the open issues / items from the first review. The remaining open issues / items from the first review, and those from the second review are presented in the following section.
4.
Issues / Items for Follow-Up Actions 4.1 Generic Issues / Items 1)
There are still equipment and component mostiy in BOP instrumentation and control area not seismically and dynam-ically qualified at the time of the second SQRT audit. The status and schedule of qualification of these equipment were l
requested by the SQRT in the second audit. Subsequently a status report was received by the SQRT on September 2, 1982.
This status report should be submitted monthly for staff review until completion of qualification of all safety-related equip-ment. All safety-related equipment should be qualified before fuel loading.
l 2)
An evaluation of Waterford 3's seismic qualification program should be performed by the applicant using the applicable criteria from Standard Review Plan Section 3.10 to ensure that all safety-related equipment has adequate margin to perform their intended design functions during seismic events when considering the effects of possiblu multi-mode response and simultaneous vertical and horizontal excitations on equipment operability. The applicant has not yet provided any report indicating the results of such a review.
i,
!~
- '**y
- d
._......-..a....--...-.-~._.....u
- i Vincent S. Noonan 3,
The applicant provided draft justification during the second SQRT audit, which concluded that the equipment qualified by the IEEE 344-1971 Standard can still be demonstrated to be quali-g fied, and therefore operational, using current NRC criteria.
}
The justification is basically rely'ing on the following:
(1) all floor response spectra have only one peak response, t
namely, they are all narrow band, (2) peaks occur at very low frequency due to the dominant soft soil response around 1.6 Hz for horizontal peak and 2.2 Hz for vertical peak, (3) the response spectra values decay. rapidly and monotonically so that all practical purposes the zero period acceleration (ZPA) is, lj reached at 5.0 Hz, and this is much lower than 33 Hz used for most plants, (4) the SSE ZPA values on all floors are equal to lf or less than 0.5g horizontally and 0.4g vertically.
The staff reviewed the above justification and compared'then with containment structure floor response spectra contained in Section A of CBI Stress Report for Waterford Station Unit 3 Steel Containment Vessel (Prepared by CBI, December 6, 1977).
These justifications apparently are valid for various contain-ment floor response spectra in the vertical direction, however, not all the justifications are applicable for containment floor response spectra in the horizontal directions. Generally, for horizontal spectra in the containment, there are more than one peak responses; furthermore, the zero period acceleration is reached not at 5.0 Hz, but closer to 8.0 Hz. Therefore, the applicant should identify equipment that are qualified by single frequency and/or single direction test which are not covered by the justification provided by the applicant as men-tioned above. Additional justification-should be provided by the applicant on the qualification of these equipment.
3)
The etlect of aging on the seismic capacity of equipment located in the mild environment should be addressed by the applicant.
The applicant indicated that surveillance and periodic testing program will be established in lieu of actt. ally aging the equipment before subjecting it to seismic testing.
Inservice testing 4.nd inservice inspection program of pumps and valves will be submitted to NRC for review by October 1, 1982. Normal maintenance program for electrical equipment is in the process of preparation by the applicant. The applicant is committed to provide samples of this program for NRC review when this program is completed.
l-4)
Seismic qualification of complex electric equipment by analysis alone to ensure operability is highly questionable, and IEEE 344-1975 cautions against this. The failure mode of such equipment may not be adequately addressed by purely analytical method. For example, it is a common practice to qualify some i
i i
7
.a y +
+
7-
-,. +
,y-g_
e
- 5 - se. s7 l
+
- - -.. -... ~. - - - - - -.. - - -
l-s.
1 Vincent S. Noonan 4
large electric motors seismically by analytical means; however, the insulation by wiring in the motor may become brittle after a certain duration of service due to the aging of the insulation. Thus in reality the motor may not be able to 3
perform its designed safety function during and afte'r 1
I' The applicant should perform a review of all electrical equipment where operability qualification was performed by analysis, and provide additional justification for the validity of the qualification by providing supporting test information on similar items and/or specific reasons why operability can be assured on the basis of analyses alone.
5)
From the first site visit, it was noticed that during the i
review of NSSS-PE-10 (Deborating Ion Exchanger), NSSS-PE-15 i
(Purification Filter) and NSS-PE-33 (Hold Up Tank), nozzle loads were neglected in the stress analysis. This seems to be a generic pattern for all ASME Section VIII tanks and vessels in the NSSS scope.
The applicant informed the SQRT during their second site visit 3
that nozzle loads have actually been simulated in the original i
analyses for all ASME Section VIII tanks and heat exchangers.
The applicant further notified the SQRT that a follow-up effort was conducted where nozzle loads were directly evaluated for each specific component, and this analysis verified the vali-dity of the original designs. The applicant is committed to send a letter to the staff to confirm the result of this analysis by October 1, 1982.
6)
Walkdown from the second audit revealed that there are still air lines and heater cables not connected (because of on going testing), and loose cables (not yet tied down) are noted in l
several of the electrical cabinets.
In addition, there are L
items from the first audit that modification should be made,.
L
,i such as the change of design of the hold up tank. This generic concern will be followed up by the NRC resident inspectors.
4.2 Specific Open Items:
Clarification, verification and/or confirmation should be provided for the following items:
1)
Control Components (80P-E-68, first visit).
Confirm that components which malfunctioned in the qualification testing are not included in Waterford safety systems, or confirm that the malfunctions will not adversely affect the systems.
i 2)
Pressure Switch (NSSS-ICE-16, first visit), and Low 011 L
l!
Pressure Switch (NSSS-PE-31, first visit). Assurance must be l
l*
W?O; ' %,i; Z' C.5 i.7 M' v
,~49
.-r i.
}
J
...._l.T_..-s.-....__....
_ ~
if 4
i Vincent S. Noonan 5
provided that chattering of the switches will either not occur or will not be detrimental to safety should it occur.
I 3)
Boric Acid Makeup Pump (NSSS-PE-14, second visit).
6 I
a)
An explanation must be provided for load cases 4 and 5 which shows that they are conservative.
b)
An explanation must be provided for the load combinations used in computing bolting stresses which shows that they are conservative.
4)
Boric Acid Tank Circulating Valve (NSSS-PE-25, second visit).
a)
Verification must be provided for the computer calculations based on Engineering Standard ES100, Revision B, dated 4/8/75.
b)
Confirmation must,be provided that the deflections calculated in Seismic Analysis for Order 1-46610, dated 4/3/76, for Tag No. CH-511, will not cause interference on valve closure.
5)
Holdup Tank C (NSSS-PE-33, first/second visit). Assurance must be provided that required support modifications' have been completed.
6)
Resistor Input Card (NSSS-ICE-Sa, second visit). Verification must be provided that operability of the resistor input card was demonstrated by testing.
7) 1151 Indicator (NSSS-ICE-8-1, second visit).
Confirmation must be provided that the SY, variation observed during testing is not detrimental to safety.
8)
CEDM Reed Switch Position Transmitter (NSSS-ICE-15, second l
visit). A test report must be provided which demonstrates an adequate basis for the qualification of the transmitter.
The review of the applicant's implementation of the equipment qualification program is continuing and the applicant is required to resolve all outstanding items as identified above in an expedient manner.
/ 1.
-y y C# -
T. Y. Chang Equipment Qualification Branch Division of Engineering 4
h.
I i
' * ***"*'***-**"?'g*.r'.y 37f fc -- ~ *
+
5., ;-
....,3 9'.
v*
r
~
1 l
i I
Vincent S. Noonan 6
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
R. Vollmer, w/o closure W. Johnston
)
T. Novak i
G. Knighton S. Black 4
V. Noonan G. Bagchi A. Lee l
J. JacEson J. Singh, INEL i
M. Reich, 8NL
-i
.I 4
4 l i
4 P
l.
4 i
4 e
i 1
i i
i
.. g I
i n
-- r
.s r. -
+ :.
e -. cm u. a,.
..-.. c t;~.rp 177,, -. ---
. - v,-s
~ - - -.
._ ~ a :. s.-
?
y e -
~
J. :.. - -- -. -- -....
._ ((
[:- -.}L. 22 T -(( [^ ~}
^ - -[
}7 l
Vincent S. Noonan 7
ATTACHMENT I lt SORT VISIT TO WATERFORD 3 l
LIST OF ATTENDEES i
i R. S. Alexandru EBASCO S. Black NRC T. Y. Chang NRC W. Cetta EBASCO J. 02 Bruin EBASCO t;
L. Constable NRC A. Desphande EBASCO
'g-A. DeVito E8ASCO R. J. Esnes EBASCO i
F. Drummond LP&L T. E. Fitzsimmons C-E (PE)
K. K. Gala LP&L J. Hart EBASCO A. Jones EBASCO J. Kealy EBASCO E. Livesy EBASCO M. Meyer LP&L
+
R. W. Macek -
EG&G, Idaho T. MacNair C-E L. V. Maurin LP&L E. Miller W CCD B. Mowry ESASCO S. Nath EBASCO R. L. Novgrod LP&L s/u J. Parello W RD lj H. Parikh EBASCO l
'i R. Prados LP&L W. Ritter W IED l
M. J. Russell EG&G, Idaho Z. T. Shi EBASCO E. Siegel C-E J. N. Singh EG&G, Idaho F. Sistino C-E
[
R. K. Stampley EBASCO I. V. Sydoriak EBASCO F
V. Tokarz C-E (PE)
U i
J. Tompeck EBASCO l
!l R. Vidal EBASCO i
M. G. Williams LP&L l
J. Zudans NUS t
4
.,;g.g I
.o
....._........_m.
-........._._a i
1 1
Vincent S. Noonan 8
ATTACHMENT II SQRT VISIT TO WATERFORD 3 LISTOFEQUIPMENT$ELECTEDFORAUDIT a)
NSSS Equipment 1.
BORIC ACID MAKEUP PUMP (NSSS-PE-14) f 2.
BORIC ACID TANK CIRCULATING VALVE (NSSS-PE-25) l 3.
BORIC ACID PUMP DISCHARGE VALVE (NSSS-PE-24/29/28) 4.
HOLDUP TANK C (NSSS-PE-33) t l
S.
FEEDWATER CONTROL VALVE (NSSS-PE-52) 6.
RESISTOR INPUT CARD (NSSS-ICE-Sa) 7.
1151 INDICATOR (NSSS-ICE-8-1) l 8.
RESISTANCE TEMPERATURE DETECTOR (NSSS-ICE-10-1) l 9.
RCP SIGNAL PROCESSOR (NSSS-ICE-2f)
- 10. REACTOR TRIP SWITCHGEAR CABINET (NSSS-ICE-3)
- 11. RECORDEk (NSSS-ICE-9-1)
- 12. CEDM REED SWITCH POSITION TRANSMITTER (NSSS-ICE-15) 13 ROSEMOUNT PRESSURE TRANSMITTER (Model PT-101D) b)
BOP Equipment 1.
20 KVA INVERTER (SQ-E-10) ll l
2.
DIESEL GENERATOR LUBE OIL PIPING (SQ-E-74/76) l l
3.
LEVEL SWITCH (SQ-E-84) 4.
AXIAL FAN (SQ-HV-11) 1 5.
HVAC WATER PUMP (SQ-HV-13) l' 6.
GRAVITY DAMPER (SQ-HV-39) l 7.
THREE INCH 150 LB OIAPHRAM VALVE (SQ-MN-57) 1 8.
ONE INCH 2500 LB RELIEF VALVE (SQ-MN-148) i r
1 l
l I
..,..q..
-,;.y. 3
i
' k Vincent S. Noonan 9
i -
9.
HALF-INCH GLO6E VALVE (SQ-MH-255)
- 1 10.
1151 INDICATOR (SQ-IC-1) 11.
ELECTRIC RELAY (SQ-IC-60) 12.
FOUR INCH 300 LB GATE VALVE (SQ-MN-106) f s
,i 8
4 1
l l
- .*4^
..s
-