ML20082G650

Forwards Seismic Qualification Review Team Summaries Re Differences W/Respect to Seismic & Hydrodynamic Effects. Summaries Indicate Listed Equipment Seismically Qualified for Svc

ML20082G650
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	11/28/1983
From:	Schroeder C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20082G653	List: ML20082G650 ML20082G657 ML20082G667 ML20082G675 ML20082G690 ML20082G698 ML20082G715 ML20082G721
References
7678N, NUDOCS 8311300284
Download: ML20082G650 (2)

Text

~

T N Commonwealth Edison -

O ) One First Nitionit Plaza. Chicago, Ilhnois O ' Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767 Chicago lilinois 60690 November 28, 1983

.i Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of; Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W a sh i n g t on , DC 10555 Subje :: LaSalle County Station Units 1 and-2 Differences with Respect to Seismic and Hydrodynamic Effects NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374 References (a): C. W. Schroeder letter to H. R. Denton dated November 12, 1983, on this subject.-

(b): Telecon request of November 15, 1983, from Dr. A. Bournia for SQRT data.

Dear Mr.-Denton:

At the request of Dr. Bournia of your staff, the Reference (a) information is being augmented per the Reference (b) telecon. Th i s letter 1provides Seismic Qualification Summaries (SQRT) for the following equipment wh ich is, in part, different between LaSalle Unit 1 and Unit 2.

Equipment Unit 1 Unit 2 Safety-Relief Solenoid IMF-2 CVG-01 SRV Position Indicator LISA LVDT (Red)

Back-Up SRV Indication Thermocouple & Themocouple &

Th e rmowe ll Th e rmowel l Electric Penetrations Conax Amphenol with Conax Modules The following SQRT summaries were extracted to indicate th e qualification status for these items; they include references to checklists. 3RS or TRS plots of acceleration vs f requency and some descripti'c information for cases where FSAR information is not readily available,

l. LISA - Lift Indicating Switch Valves Assembly for SRV position indication on Unit 1.

2. Main Steam Safety Relief Valve on which LISA, LVDT, IMF-2 and CVG-01 solenoids are mounted.

mal 8311300284 831128 f v} g PDR ADOCK 050003{g P ,

f a v .

H. R. Denton' November 28, 1983

'3.- -LVDT Linear. Variable. Differential Transformer for.SRV position indication on Unit 2.

4. IMF SRV actuator used on Unit-1 SRV's.

5.- Temperature Element for SRV discharge piping, mounted in thermowells. l t-

6. Feed through Adapter (Conax Mo'dules). for original Amphenol-Sams penetrations.

i 7. .Conax.LVP Electric penetrations.

These summaries indicate that the above equipment is Seismically qualified for service in the respective LaSalle Units. Seismic Qualifi-cation file numbers. listed in the reports are available for inspection at the A/E's engineering library or at the station on microfiche.

To the best of my knowledge and belief the statements contained

, herein and in the attachments are true and correct. .In some respects these statements are not based on my personal knowledge but upon information furnished by other Commonwealth Edison employees and consultants. Such information has been reviewed in accordance with

! . Company practice and'I believe it to be r'e liable.

If there-are any questions regarding this matter please contact this office.

p Very truly yours, asfy,g/93 C W. Sch roeder Nuclear Lfcensing Administrator im I

cc: NRC Resident' Inspector - LSCS 1/0 7678N

.. j Commonwealth Edison k E T- o t m e. r A

~

one First Nate nel Plaza Chicago. Illinois

! l Address R ' ply 12: P;st Office Box 767

\s ,/ Chicago, Illinois 60690 I

November 12, 1983 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 Differences with Respect to Seismic and Hydrodynamic Effects NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374 Reference (a): C. W. Schroeder letter to H. R. Denton dated November 8, 1983.

Dear Mr. Denton:

At the request of Dr. A. Bournia of your staff, we submitted Reference (a) regarding the differences of Units 1 and 2 with respect to seismic and hydrodynamic effects. This letter revises Reference (a) by adding a discussion of Unit 2 Safety Related equipment.

To the best of my knowledge and belief the statements contained herein and in the attachment are true and correct. In some respects these statements are not based on my personal know-I ledge but upon information furnished by other Commonwealth Edison employees and consultants. Such information has been reviewed in accordance with Company practice and I believe it to be reliable.

l If there are any further questions in this matter, please contact this office.

l Very truly yours, 1

4 /s2./g3 C. W. Schroeder Nuclear Licensing Administrator 1m l

cc: NRC Resident Inspector - LSCS

/ hu$

v.

a l.

7603N <

V

9 ATTACHMENT The following statements and references are pertinent to the_ conclusion that differences between LaSalle Units have been ,

appropriately acknowledged during design and have been previously documented on the LaSalle docket.

Unit 2 Seismic Analysis The seismic analysis model of LaSalle County Station (LSCS) includes both Unit 1 and Unit 2 structures as shown in Figure 3.7-9 of LSCS FSAR.

Joints 1 through 17 in this shear structure model represent the Reactor, Turbine, and Auxiliary Buildings of Unit 1 and Unit 2.

Joints 18 through 59 represent the containment structure, reactor pedestal, sacrificial shield, etc. for both Unit 1 and Unit 2.

The enveloped response of Unit 1 and Unit 2 obtained from a seismic analysis of this model is used in the design of the structures, systems, and equipment of both Unit 1 and Unit 2.

Unit 2 Pool Dynamic Analysis Figure 5.1-1 of LSCS DAR shows the pool dynamic model. The analysis details and design assessment of the plant for pool dynamic loads is explained in Section 5 of the DAR.

The model shown in DAR Figure 5.1-1 is the same for both Unit 1 and Unit 2 since:

, (a) The containment and internal structures are identical in

! both Unit 1 and Unit 2.

l (b) Unit 1 and Unit 2 are located symmetrically about the geometric (E-W) centerline of the plant.

(c) The pool size, quencher locations, downcomer vents, and hence the pool dynamic loads and responses, are the same for both the Unit 1 and Unit 2.

Unit 2 Reactor Internals Analysis The reactor vessel shroud for Unit 2 differs from that on the l Unit 1 RPV. The vessels were made by different fabricators. The moments and loads on the Unit 2 piping / nozzle interface, therefore, differed slightly from those of Unit 1. The reactor

. vessel internal loads also differed slightly because of this I

difference in vessel shrouds.

s l

4 4

The design adequacy report for the NSS New Loads,-NEDO-30159

-(July 1983) was forwarded to NRC by C.W. Schroeder letter to

~H.R. Denton dated August'5, 1983. It provided the Unil 2 reactor vessel evaluation including reactor vessel supports and RPV internals. It'also covered the.NSSS piping systems (within primary containment) and concluded that the Unit 2 NSSS-safety-related equipment retained positive design margins when subjected to NRC approved combinations of seismic and hydrodynamic' loads from the unique reactor building structural responses.

Separately, the generic fuel lift report NEDE 21175-3-P was augmented with.the Unit 2 specific results as had been done for

. Unit 1. The peak accelerations (1.3 and 4.2g) were less for Unit 2 and well within the evaluation basis accelerations (3.6 and 12.0g). The maximum calculated fuel. assembly gap (0.12

-inch) was markedly less than the disengagement gap limit (0.52 inch) for the fuel assembly. See C.W. Schroeder letter to A.

Schwencer dated June 20,-1983.

Pipina System Analysis Unit 2 Piping systems within_LaSalle Unit 2 were specifically analyzed

for configurations which differed significantly'from the Unit 1 l configuration. A detailed-stress report was issued for those l diffeiing systems. Otherwise, the Unit 1 piping analysis was l retitled for Unit 2 becuase'the two system configurations were the same and the stress reports are identical.

Th e C.W. Schroeder letter to H.R. Denton dated September 13, 1983 reported the evaluation to.NUREG-0808 Load Definitions and all piping systems (Unit 1 and Unit 2) and all pipe supports-w ere designed with large margins (3x) for the frequencies under question.

Containment Analysis Unit 2 l ~ The containment structural adequacy was reported in the final l structural results of the LaSalle SRV test covering Units 1 and

! 2; it was submitted by C.W. Schroeder letter to H. R. Denton

!. dated October 14, 1983. The results indicated wide margins for suppression pool loads on submerged piping, the suppression pool liner and structures. No further actions were deemed necessary on the basis of test verification of suppression pool loads.

The- thermal adequacy of the suppression pool had been demon-strated by the inplant SRV test of late 1982, the results of

j. which were documented to NRC via transmittals of March 4,1983 L

(quick look data), March 30, 1983 (general, first appraisal),

August 16, 1983 (detailed thermal evaluation), and the October 14, 1983 transmittal referenced above. Containment analyses and conclusions for Unit 1 apply to Unit 2 also because the

- containments are identical including their internal structures.

l l

l

F

{

s 1

Safety Related Equipment Unit 2 The LaSalle Seismic / Hydrodynamic Qualification Program for safety-related equipment (SQRT) included equipment for both Unit 1 and Unit 2. The equipment is almost completely replicated between units. The SQRT Summary Sheets, which were submitted to the Commission, identified both units along with the equipment tag numbers. Likewise, the periodic SQRT Program Status Reports (eleven separate submittals) also cited applicability to both LaSalle units on the header to the tables. The entries in the tables were non-designated tag numbers for simplicity of entry.

The SQRT qualification binders have been reviewed to assure coverage for Unit 2 and where unique differences exist, an augmented qualification data package was inserted for Unit 2.

Three examples of this type were: 1) Unit 1 has Conax electrical / penetrations whereas Unit 2 initially has Amphenol electrical / penetrations until modified at the first refueling outage with Conax inserts; 2) SRV solenoids on Unit 1 are Model IMF-2 whereas those on Unit 2 until the first refueling outage are Model CVG-01; anJ 3) SRV position indicators on Unit 2 are part of the Set Point Verfication hardware (although independent of that function), whereas Unit I has the Crosby LISA devices which are entirely different. For these latter items a confirm-atory SRV discharge pipe thermocouple confirms the open-closed indication for the SRV valve.

Safety-related Unit 2 equipment is therefore qualified for seismic and hydrodynamic loads as documented in the LaSalle SQRT program.

I i

L