ML20072L317

Forwards Responses to Sqrt & Pump & Valve Operability Review Team Audits & Responses to Addl Items Discussed at 830513 Meeting W/Nrc in Bethesda,Md

ML20072L317
Person / Time
Site:	Byron, Braidwood, 05000000
Issue date:	07/07/1983
From:	Swartz E COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20072L320	List: ML20072L317 ML20072L341 ML20072L348 ML20072L351 ML20072L353 ML20072L355 ML20072L360 ML20072L363
References
6907N, NUDOCS 8307130309
Download: ML20072L317 (14)

Text

___

N Commonwealth Edison ,

,/ ;Ci / one First Nitionit Plaza. Chicago. Ilknois v Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767

'. Chicago, Illinois 60690 July 7, 1983 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Byron Station Unit 1 Response to SQRT and PVORT Audit Items NRC Docket No. 50-454 References (a): February 3, 1983 SQRT Audit Report i~

(b): April 4, 1983 PVORT Audit Report (c): March 9, 1983 Draft SER

Dear Mr. Denton:

The purpose of this letter is to provide the Commonwealth Edison Company response to the References (a) and (b) equipment

, specific items, and Reference (c) generic items which resulted from the September 13-17, 1982 SQRT (Seismic Qualification Review Team) and PVORT (Pump and Valve Operability Review Team) audits at Byron Station. Also included are responses to additional items discussed at the May 13,1983 meeting with the NRC Staff in Bethesde on this subject.

Responses to Reference (a) SQRT equipment specific open items and revised SQRT forms are contained in Attachments Al through A20, and responses to the Reference (c) SQRT generic items are provided in Attachment A21.

Responses to Reference (b) PVORT equipment specific items are contained in Attachments Bl through B7, and responses to the Reference (c) PVORT generic items are contained in Attachment 88.

Please address any questions that you may have concerning

, this matter to this office.

.l b

\ (

8307130309 830707 PDR ADOCK 05000454 A PDR

One (1) signed original and fif teen (15) copies of this letter are provided for your use. However, due to the extreme volume of the Attachments, only one. (1) set is being provided.

Additionally, one (1)-set of the Attachments is being sent directly to Mr. L. N. Olshan and one (1) set.of the Attachments is being sent directly to Mr. Bruce Miller at Brookhaven National Laboratories.

Very truly yours,

.d -

E. Douglas Sw Nuclear Licensing Administrator Attachments cc: J. G. Keppler - RIII w/o Att.

RIII Inspector - Byron w/o Att.

Mr. Bruce Miller w/Att.

Brookhaven National Laboratories Building No. 130 Upton, New York 11973 1

l 6907N l

t

i

e. SARGENT & LUND.Y .

' d[_3 INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM ,,

[ From N. Damianovich - 17 X2766 Date Dec. 16, 1980 4391,2/4683,4-00 k Project No.

Dept /Div. _ Mechanical / Engineering Mechanics Spec. No. F/L-2733 File No. EMD-027353 Page No. 1 Of 1 Client CECO Stn. Byron /Braidwood Unit 1& 2 Subject Review of Environmental Qualification Report for RCFC Fans LL c2 C3 Toi S. N. Planjery - 31 (SAFETY-RELATED)

<C CC: J. C. LaVallee - 22 l8 K. L. Adlon - 17 A. P. Dimopoulos - 17 EBB /AEM/ND - 30/17 EMD File - 30 in .

Reference:

1. Joy Manufacturing Co. Report No. X-604, Dated 3-20-80

2. Joy Manufacturing Co. Letter, Dated 9-18-80 0 I have reviewed the referenced documents for compliance with seismic requirements and find it to be acceptable.

Please note that this report is intended to qualify only the tested unit. All other units being supplied will be qualified by a separate seismic report, as stated in Ref. 2.

ND/ws /'

'~

l l

O

l . .

PROJECT: VW# d4Mv##D 'Id REVIEWED BY [W- TE:/YN/m O

( 8 Y A OVED BY: 6 D ATE:

PROJECT NUMBER:

S&L SPEC. NO : I-// - [ 7 33 E M D F IL E N O'.":

• 6M '7 ? f 3 EQUIPMENT N AME AND NO.:

dM M#f EOUlPMENT CLASSIFIC ATION:

N ON-S AF TY-RELATED h ACTIVE O NON-ACTIVE

@ SAFETY-RELATED V E N D O R: M- M e VENDOR'S E ORT NO. AHD D ATE: I~ [8 2- 0 8'M

1. CONCLUSION OF REVIEW kccepted O Rejected If rejected, explain:

2. ME"I' HOD OF SEISMIC QUALIFICATION est O Static Analysis O Dynamic Analysis 0 0ther

3. QUALIFICATION BY TESTING

• 6

a. Type of Test: Single Frequency O Multi Frequency f 0 0ther O Single Axis Multi Axis i

t,t ' b. Testing Machine:

c. Supporting Test hYes O No

d. If yes, explain: ,rtch t

U 2^

A.

e. Does test duration fulfill the requirements of IEEE Std. 3hh-1975?

O No If no explain:

kYes a

iS .

a3 18 E

• MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT STANDAED s2 8 CHECKLIST FOR SEISMIC ANALYSIS FOR MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPME"T C'(i FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - NOT TO BE SARGENT&LUDDY SENT OUTSIDE OF SARGENT & LUNDY ,,N,,,i,,,,_ page 1 of 5 l

PROJECT NUMBER: 2,/Qg) f/qg EMD FILE NO.: g.yl3, qp'/ffy

f. Does test g-le' vel meet our requirementn?

kYes O No

g. Was equipment mounting on test table simulating the actual condition?

O Yes go

h. Was equipment in Operating Condition with all operating loads simulated?

Yes O No O NA

1. Were nozzle loads simulated in testing the equipment?

O Yes O No

{NA

j. Were function monitoring devices used?

es O No

k. Did equipment pass the seismic test?

kYes O No

1. Comments

• s M O #A

" . &"/W ./ Mn

-~

s 14 QUALIFICATION BY ANALYSIS

a. Rigidity of Equipment i - Rigid: Fundamental Natural Period ...................(0.03 Sec) 11 - Flexible: Fundamental Natural Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0.03 Sec )

, - b. Rigidity of Supports As A Member of the Ovarall System S

i - Rigid: Fundamental Natural Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0.03 Sec )

11 - Flexible: Fundamental Natural Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 0.03 Sec )

l 8.

as -

2s Es ie

\.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - NOT TO BE ggg SENT OUTSIDE OF SARGENT f, LUNDY ,amesmosas . Page 2 of 5

EMD Fil.E N O.: E,7;4-gj'/Jf3 PROJECT NUWDER: ,lf-l/[j , g[y// ,cc

c. If Flexible, how was the support amplification considered?

{ O Considering 'the support in modeling the equipment i-()T u

11 - O Computed by separate analysis iii - Comments

d. Computer Programs 1 - Were the computer programs properly referenced?

O Yes O No 11 Were the computer programs validated?

O res O No

e. Loading Combinations C.. i Were the nozzle loads considered in the analysis?

O res O No 11 - Comments:

iii - Were the nozzle loads used in the analysis greater than or equal to actual piping loads from PIPSYS?

O No If no explain:

O Yes

~*. N Nd id hb E ::

as e

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - NOT TO BE ggggg SENT OUTSIDE OF SARGENT f, LUNDY awomeomo. Page 3 of 5

PROJECT NUMBER: df.j/p ,d(,Jy//-ce EMD FILE NO.: j'e;y - o r ;Jjgjf

() iv - Were the operating loads considered in the analysis?

% Yes O No O na

(^J L

If no explain:

f. STATIC ANALYSIS i - Seismic coe fficients Major Minor Vertical Horiz. Axis Horiz. Axis Axis OBE level SSE level 11 - Were seismic loads applied in the two horizontal and vertical directions simultaneously?

Yes O No If no explain:

O

g. DYNAMIC A'IALYSIS i - Response spectra used in the analysis (page numbers) 11 - Damping factor used:

l lii - Number of significant modes considered:

iv - Natural period of each h v - Method of combining modal stresses:

! .1 l #, 7 Absolute sum square root of sum of the squares a t-d~ Other, explain:

g

'3 35 - -- . - - .- .. ,, . ... . _.

4

' pW FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - NOT TO BE gggggg

\

j SENT OUTSIDE OF SARGENT f, LUNDY .., ,esumo. h Page of 5

\

s.

PROJECT NUMBER: 4 5'///; t// h [./ w e EMD FILE N O.: g,.'Jyj) - 6f ~Jf58

_, h. DEFLECTION AND STRESSES i - Vere deflections within the allowables?

b Oyes O No O NA ii - Were stresses within the allowables?

O Yes O No O NA iii - Conments

1. FOUNDATION LOADS

• i - Were the foundation loads given?

O Yes O No O NA 11 - If yes, what are the load values?

Fx = Fy = Fz =

%= My = Mz =

iii - Were the stresses in the anchor bolts within the material's allowables?

O Yes O No iv - Coments :

\

m O

a . ',

n,i~?

v e tc hE E ,- *FOR REFERENCE COORDIN ATE SYSTEM SEE:

o tu 4" A. S &L DW G. NO.*

B. MFG, D W G. N O.:

h.

t /

s FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - NOT TO BE gg g SENT OUTSIDE OF SARGENT f, LUNDY ,emowesums. Page 5 of 5 l .

SARGENT Li LUNDY

.. WTER.0Frict: ,s.;g ;!OR ANDUM tg, (I '

November 7, 1930 From S. N. Planiery -

31 x6430___2 Date Project No. 4 3917J3T2/ 4 6 &i7F6 94-00 9 Dept./Div. Mechanical /HVAC - - - - - Spee. .%.

File No.

F/L-2733 Page No. 1 Client Commonwealth Edison Co . sin , Byron /Braidwood Unit 1& 2 Subject IEEE-323 Oualification I'epart To: D. P. Galanis/N. K. Agnihotri - 24 K. L. Adlon - 17 cc: B. G. Treece (1/0) - 24

• W. B. Paschal (1/0) - 31 .

F. A. Kosik (1/l) - 18 Attached is a copy of revised Environmental Qualification Report' for RCFC fans and Joy Manufacturing Company's response to our comments on the previous revision (dated April 6, 1977). Please review and provide your comments to D. P. Galanis for processing g

the report.

l I

SNP:rg

. Attachment l -

l l

N l

,__m-- -----

.o4/ -

, ., .h l I G

'" , 1.NUICUB3 s

SAMGENT & LUNDYi M/,M a .. i N

November 3, 1980 $ fl. NN EY'/ l 3

/ i Sargent and Lundy 55 East Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60603 Attn: Mr. J. C. LaVallee l

'AN5. 'B Y

~.% cc: Mr. m F.Wirkus-Commonwea'lthE'dison.Cyhekoy

. . . . *Q Traffic & Expediting t h Ms. C. Schaffer - Commonwealth Edison Company - SNE.a Mr. T. Allen - Carrier Syracuse Subj: Byron /Braidwood Station

. , . _ P.O. #213409 and #213410 Specification #F/L-2733 Carrier Job #7500D2093 and 96 bentlemen:

^

. Enclosed are four (4) copies of Joy Manufacturing Company n, X-604 Qualification Test Report.

Very truly yours, Qc,g CARRIER MACHINERY AND SYSTEMS DIVISION , t G .

. t .

g,**

W. G. Loots .

['

Sales Department ,

d~\ , /

ps l-( , .

[

r .s Enclosures cc: S. Planjery - S &L (Enclosures)Ql THis copy pog , 77 o

i V

d 1 .

,,,n o, CH4A( 7;-

df M DCrabCn 735 North Cass Avenue. Westmont. Ilknois 60559. Pione: (3127 956-4200

r 4

JOY INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY

'g

\ NEW PHILADELPHI A OlVISION w

O Septenter 18, 1980

= = -

NEW PHILADELPHI A. OHIO 44663 Carrier Air Conditioning P.O. Box 4808 Syracuse, New York 13221 Attention: %MriTillias ~BerininB Senior PEjECT691rfeer

Subject:

Comnonwealth Edison Company Bryon/Braidwood - Units 1 & 2 RCFC Fans; S & L Spec. F/L-2733 J0Y NPX-68203 X-604 Qualification Test Report Gentlemen:

Please note that X-604 is an environmental qualification test report, and is not intended to be a seismic qualification test report. .It 3 is not intended for seismic qualification of any unit other than the test unit, via resonance search.

Seismic qualification of individual units is by a combination of Report S-1 and the appropriate seismic report, S-121 for the unit in question.

X-604 did not address inlet and outlet cones or other accessories because there were none for the test unit. These items when supplied as part of the fan are included in the specific seismic analysis.

Calculations for the specific seismic analysis are performed with the fan in the service rounting and response spectra and danping coefficient are per the specification for a particular order (see S-1 and 5-121).

l The following comnents apply to corresponding item numbers on the l 6-23 letter.

1) The March 20, 1980 revision of X-604 has a statement on qualified life on Page 19.

,- 2) Appendix F added on the March 20, 1980 revision, contains 1- information on the radiation resistance of motor components.

I 'p

/

A J O Y M A N U F A C T U R I N G C O M P A N Y

, Carrier Air Conditioning Page #2 Septenber 18, 1980

/]

N (O

g

3) X-604 is a report of an actual test and, therefore, reports specific values of pressure and temperature to which the unit was subjected. (See Figure 5, Page 16 of the March 20, 1980 revision).

4) The test notor was of a different rating than that used

- for this unit. However, the design parameters and materials of construction are identical to the test motor. Report X-604 is intended as a generic document to qualify all notors designed to these parameters and using identical materials of construction. This is in compliance with IEEE 334 type, testing parameters.

5) Test parameters are listed in Figure 5 on Page 16 of the March 20, 1980 revision.

o Sa) The motor was exposed to 250 F for over on.e (1) year.

This is shown on page 16 of the report.

5b) The pressure is not really relevant to the motor design

(- except that it dictates the amount of horsepower required i

by the fan. With proper motor selection, there is no limit to the length of tine the motor can withstand the pressure.

It should be noted, however, that the high pressure is always acconpaniedbyhightenperatureandherethemotorislimiteg.It is de During the test there were two (2), four (4) hour cycles at high pressure and temperature (see Figure 5, Page 16). -

Sc) The chemical cumposition is listed on Page 8 of Appendix A of the March 20, 1980 revision,

6) These curves were provided by the motor vendor and are based l' on motorette test data. v t

'7) Reasons used to determine the implied average aging charac-teristic are given on Page 5 of the March 20, 1980 revision.

We believe these reasons still valid.

8) The allowable rise per NEMA for standard motors is as stated. However, because of the environment these motors must be designed for, and the nature of the application, JOY in conjunction with the motor vendor has limited the design temperature rise for this type of notor to 65 0C.

T

.1 -

Carrier Air Conditioning Page #3 "~

\ Septenber 18, 1980 b s, G

V _

9) The latter part of Paragraph 9 of IEEE334 which is referred to gives specific instructions as to how to therrrally age a motor. These instructions were followed in aging the test notor. Other parameters mentioned, atmosphere, tenperature, humidity, voltage stress and starting forces were part of the qualification test. The only item not covered is radiation, which as stated in Paragraph 6 on Page 4 of the March 20, 1980 revision, is considered un-necessary because of many tests conducted on the motor conponents which show that direct damage to any material and evolution of radiation produced substances are negli-gible, See Appendix F for supportive data. Specific substanation for this approach is provided in IEEE334, Section 5.1.2, note 2.

10) The unit was tested in a horizontal position. However, mounting the motor in a vertical position does not affect the results. The test report referenced is a report of an earlier test and is not in accordance with the 1974 revision to IEEE323.

( 11) Photographs as submitted are the best available at this point.

p)

12) Maintenance schedules are as specified in the operation and naintenance nanual supplied with the unit.

13) The only accessories supplied with these notars are therno-couples and space heaters. The insulation c.d methods of manufacture on these items is the same as provided with the j motor and, therefore, are qualified.

I 14) The test report is generic in nature and intended to qualify l all motors of this type. This, again in conpliance with

" type-testing" parameters. Therefore, the report cannot reference a specific project. ,'

15) All reference to Report FF-14282 has been deleted from X-604 per the March 20, 1980 revision.

.a O

( -

_o i

Carrier Air Conditioning Page #4 '

Septenber 18, 1980 -

s All data originally .contain_ed 'in FF-14282 has been incorporated into the March 20, 1980 revisien, nak'ing FF-14282 no longer necessary to submit. s .

Very truly yours, J0Y MANUFACTURING COMPANY I Y$ ,c.5/& _

D.E. Fisher Administrative Correspondent Nuclear Fans l

DEF/df

~

cc: CF-NPX-68203 T.A. Bissett ^

B.W. Scholles

~

?

e-

-~

W-

• g

) _

-. / s js ,

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _