ML20080T065
| ML20080T065 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 10/06/1983 |
| From: | Knight J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20079F427 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-35, TASK-2.E.4.2, TASK-TM NUDOCS 8310200096 | |
| Download: ML20080T065 (4) | |
Text
.-
Wc
., g.? *. m,(o.
a UNITED STATES S'h g7 j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
wasmuc.ros. o. c. 2osss
(
4.7f,[/
SCT 6 1983 Docket No. 50-400 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing FROM:
James P. Knight, Assistant Director Components and Structures Engineering
' Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT #1 Plant Name: 'Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Unit #1 Docket No.:
50-400 Licensing Stage:
OL Responsible Branch:
Licensing Branch No. 3 Responsible Project Manager:
N. Kadambi Required Completion Date:
November 19, 1982 Review Status:
Continuing The enclosed Safety Evaluation Report (SER) was prepared by DE:M&QE,
(/
Equipment Qualification Branch.
The SER input covers the following l(
items:
f (1) Pump and Valve Operability Assurance Program.
(2) Seismic and Dynamic Qualification of Seismic Category I Mechanical and Electrical Equipment.
The Equipment Qualification Branch has completed its review of the applicant's FSAR Sections 3.9.3.2 for pump and valve operability assurance and 3.9.2 and 3.10 for equipment seismic and dynamic qualification.
The SER input however, follows the format of Section 3.10 of the SRP (NUREG-800).
We find that the applicant has in general defined the programs for l
the above mentioned items.
However, it is not possible to determine the adequacy of the overall programs without an onsite audit.
We plan to conduct the pump and valve. operability assurance audit concurrent with the SQRT audit.
We believe such scheduling should minimize manpower and scheduling conflicts for the applicant, the staff, and our Technical Assistance Contractor, Idaho Engineering National Laboratory.
CONTACTS:
G. Bagchi 49-28251
(
sdeepl@.NRR_ Ext.mskum m amma XA Coff Has Been Seni lo PDR ~
hD 0#
~~
(
r
. (
3.10.2 Seismic and Dynamic Qualification of Electrical and Mechanical Equipment Our evaluation of the adequacy of the applicant's program for qualification of safety related electrical and mechanical equipment for seismic and dynamic loads consists of (1) a determination of the acceptability of the procedures used, standards followed, and the completeness of the program in general, and (2) an onsite audit of selected equipment items to develop the basis for the staff judgment on the completeness and adequacy of the implementation of the entire seismic and dynamic qualification program.
The Seismic Qualification Review Team (SQRT), which consists of reviewers
~
from the Equipment Qualification Branch (EQB) and consultants from Idaho Engineering National Laboratory (INEL), has reviewed 'the methodology and procedure of eq'Jipment seismic and dynamic qualification program contained in the pertinent FSAR Sections 3.2, 3.9.2, 3.9.3, and 3.10.
The SQRT has concluded that the information reviewed in general meets the intent of the
. current licensing criteria as described in Regulatory Guides 1.100 and 1.92, and the Standard Review Plan Section 3.10 (NUREG-0800).
Based on tha criteria defined in Section 3.10 of the Standard Review Plan, IEEE Stds. 323-1974, and 344-1975 are the applicable standards.
By a letter dated June 22, 1983 from M. A. McDuffie to H.R. Denton, the applicant has clarified his commitment to meet IEEE Stds. 323-1974.and 344-1975, and to incorporate the clarificationin
/.
a future revision to the FSAR.
With regard to the use of other dynamic loads
'(
in combination with seismic loads, the letter of June 22, 1983 does not discuss either the basis or the criteria for combining seismic loads with other dynamic loads and appropriate operating loads.
A future revision of the FSAR should include an adequate description of the basis and criteria for combining seismic loads with other operating and dynamic loads caused by postulated transients.
The SQRT will follow the applicant's effort in this area closely, and will confirm its implementation during the onsite audit.
During the plant site audit the staff will review in detail the applicant's implementation of the qualification program to confirm that all applicable loads and combinations of loads have been defined, operability has been verified through appropriate tests and analyses, assemblies rather than individual components have been verified operable, and that for all safety-related equipment operability can be assured through the plant life.
Furthermore, IEEE Std. 344-1975 covers tha seismic qualification aspects; however, the aging and test sequence aspects of the equipment qualification must be in accordance with the requirements of IEEE Std. 323-1974.
A substantial portion (85%-90%) of the equipment must be qualified, documented in an auditable manner, and installed onsite before an onsite audit by the staff can be performed.
Whenever the applicant indicates that his work is substantially complete, the staff will then conduct an onsite audit shortly thereafter.
We shall report the results of our audit and the followup and resolution of our concerns described above in a future supplement to our SER.
O v.-
=,
s-Equipment Qualification Branch
.(
Input for Safety Evaluation Report Shcaron Harris Unit #1 3.10 Seismic and Dynamic Qualification of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment 3.10.1 Operability Qualification of Mechanicar Equipment The Pump and Yalve Operability Review Team (PVORT), composed of the staff and consultants from Idaho National Engineering Laboratory has reviewed the applicant's pump and valve operability assurance program as discussed in Section 3.9.3.2 of the FSAR and compared this.information with Section 3.10'of the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800).
Based on our review, the
~
applicant has provided information~to define how active pumps and valves are generally qualified with respect to operability.
The staff wants the following items clarified:
the various events that comprise the Design Base Events and the definition of critical parameters with regard to specifications and drawings.
I i
However, and in particular, for those components where qualification and/or
{
operability assurance is by analysis alone, some question remains as to the confidence level assured by this methodology.
The necessity for additional component testing is being considered and can not be established without an
- /
inspection at the plant site.
Therefore, for the staff to determine the l
'(
adequacy of the implementation of the applicant's pump and valve operability assurance program, a plant site audit of the equipment and supporting documen-L tation is. required.
The plant site audit will include'an inspection to observe the as-built configurat_ ion and installation of the equipment.
Also during the audit the staff will review specific documentation, for example, purchase specifications, test reports, which are described in the applicant's program.
Thus, our overall review includes an FSAR review and a plant-site l
audit of selected equipment.
Both phases of the staff review must be deter--
I mined acceptable to arrive at a favorable conclusion on the applicant's overall pump and valve operability assurance program.
l The applicant has been requested to provide information on the completion status of the equipment documentation, and on-site installation of the equipment.
Before the audit is conducted, greater than 85 percent completion should be attained for both the equipment documentation and the plant-site installation of the equipment.
Once the applicant has indicated that his work has reached this status, the staff will conduct a plant-site audit shortly thereafter.
Because of the limited number of equipment that can be audited within a reasonable time, the audit results must provide a high degree of confidence to conclude the overall implementation of the applicant's program is acceptable.
O d
-c
[.
Thomas M. Novak l l
l The branch reviewer for item 1 is R. Wright.
The branch reviewer for l
item 2 is G. Bagchi.
l l
Equipment Qualification Branch input is also needed for the TMI action I
items II.E.4.2, and II.D.1.
Sufficient information for these issues I
are not available at the time to provide any input.
Jam P. Knight, Assistant Director Components and Structures Engineering Division of Engineering
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
V. Noonan G. Knighton N. Kadambi R. LaGrange J. N. Singh
((
4 l
l W
3
_ - _ _ _ _ - _ _. - _ _ - _ - _ _