ML20090F297
| ML20090F297 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/29/1983 |
| From: | James Smith LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| SNRC-923, NUDOCS 8307050274 | |
| Download: ML20090F297 (35) | |
Text
r
. a l.'
\ s
.r. -
l LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION P.O. BOX 618, NORTH COUNTRY ROAD e WADING RIVER, N.Y.11792 Direct Dial Number June 29, 1983 SNRC-923
\
i i
Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dynamic Qualification Test Results/
Pump and Valve Operability Tests Shoreham Nuclear Power Station - Unit 1 Docket No. 50-322
Dear Mr. Denton:
l l Enclosed you will find revised responses to NRC requests 112.6,
[ 112.9, 223.10 and 223.69. Our revised response to 223.69 refers
) to a new FSAR Table 3.9.4A-2 which provides the results of the l
seismic qualification of instrumentation and electrical equipment within the SWEC scope of supply, as well as a summary of mechanical equipment qualification including pump and valve operability. These revised responses and a revision of Section 3.9A will be included in the next formal FSAR revision scheduled for the beginning of August 1983.
This information, along with letter submittals, SNRC-916 and SNRC-921, should completely resolve Safety Evaluation Report outstanding issue number eight:
SNRC-916 Justification for interim operation with equipment not fully qualified (i.e., documentation packages not yet complete)
SNRC-921 a) Sample calculations of fatigue usage factors and clarification of how fatigue testing was conducted to assure the design basis response spectra is enveloped, l b) Confirmatory statement ensuring that complete SQRT
}'
test reports are included in our permanent plant files, including clarification of anomalies, and c) The field modification status lists (Shoreham Category I Equipment Change Record for BOP and NSSS safety-related equipment) .
8307050274 830629 ,
E L
L
g ,
-5.-
+
.:e..
. g --
- ' e yg
--41.-
.l-- ___,
f -SNRC-923.
. June 29, 1983 Page.2 1
~ ~
In'accordance with R. L.-Tedesco's letter to LILCO, dated l- -
' January 21', -1981, four 1 copies of this submittal, including enclosures are being . forwarded directly to .Dr.- Morris Reich at
-,Brookhaven~ National Laboratory.
Should you'have any questions regarding this' material, please do -
not hesitate:to call.
Every.truly;yours, ', ,
C. ,
< s. .;: , <-
'~
..L.-Smith Manager, Special Projects Shoreham, Nuclear) Power Station' /
.GJG/ law'S3-Enclosures.
- cc
- .
~
J. Higgins Dr. Morris. Reich, BNL (4)
All Parties Listed in~ Attachment 1:
5 +
7 1
%- g
&A
'v, J
?
1 i
~
.._:. _- - _ _ _ . _ . - - - 1
.~ m - y -- . -.,,, - -
f- ,-
TTACHMENT 1 !
l .
Lawrence'Brenner, Esq. . Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Administrative Judge Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Board Panel Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Christoper & Phillips Washington, D.C. 20555 8th Floor l 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Dr. Peter A. Morris Administrative Judge
' Atomic Safety and~ Licensing Mr. Marc W. Goldsmith Board Panel Energy Research Group U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4001 Totten Pond Road Washington, D.C. 20555 Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Dr. James H. Carpen'ter MHB Technical Associates Administrative Judge 1723 Hamilton Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Suite K Board Panel San Jose, California 95125 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 .
Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
- - . Twomey, Latham & Shea Daniel F. Brown, Esq. 33 West Second Street Attorney P.O. Box 398 Atomic Safety and Licensing Riverhead, New York 11901 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.
i 9 East 40th Street
l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l -
Washington, D.C. 20555 '
. Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.
State of New York Department of Public Service James Dougherty Three Empire State Plaza 3045 Porter Street Albany, New York 12223 r Washington, D.C. 20008 o
e 4 e %. k a ..au . .4 - +J d.a. .s- a .
SNPS-1 FSAR
,t 4.
Request 112.18 (3.9.2.4)(5.2.1.7):
The information presented in Sections 3.9.2.4A, 3.9.2.4B, 5.2.1.7 of the FSAR concerning operability of active pumps and valves is not completly acceptable.
Design by analysis of active pumps and valves to assure structural-integrity may not necessarily guarantee operability under faulted condition loadings. Acceptable procedures for pump and valve operability assurance are given in Attachment 1.
4 Provide a commitment to an operability program for all Class 1, 2, and 3 active pumps and valves which is: consistent with Attachment 1. As a minimum, we will require that in addition to appropriate analyses, the operability of all Class 1, 2, and 3 active pumps and valves in the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 be assured by testing complex active devices such as pump
-motors, valve operators, and other electrical, mechanical,
. pneumatic or hydraulic appurtenances which are vital to the actuation _ and continued operation of the pumps and valves when subjected to faulted condition loads.
Response
- GE supplied active pumps and valves for the Shoreham Nuclear
. Plant were procured under specifications issued during 1970 and 1971. These pumps and valves meet the criteria that were applicable at the time of purchase, which pre-date the criteria ,
i: of Branch Technical Position MEB-2. Assurance of the operability '
of the equipment was demonstrated as described in Sections 3.9.2.4B and 5.2.1.7. Equipment Procured at the same time as the Shoreham equipment is currently installed in operating plants such as Duane Arnold, Hatch 1, i
Brunswick & Fukushima-2.
j 3
Table 3.9.4A-2,.in response to Requests 112.6, 112.9, and 223.10, l
! presents the results of the operability assurance program
- employed for SWEC. supplied active pumps and valves as well as a qualification summary of electrical equipment, instrumentation,
.and .other mechanical equipment. Testing of complex active
- devices and valve-operators has been employed as part of this i
program in addition to deflection analyses to ensure maintenance of operating clearances. These results indicate that acceptable programs have been employed to assure the operability of active pumps and valves:for this installation.
1 In addition to the above, Class 1, 2, and 3 pumps and valves will i be' tested in accordance with ASME XI Code IWP, IWV to the extent practical within the limits of design and geometry.
l
^
112-6
~
- SNPS-1 FSAR Request 112.9 (3.10)(3.9.1.2A)(3.9.1.2B):
The response to question 110.10 and information presented in
- Sections 3.9.1.2A, 3.9.1.2B, 3.10A, and 3.10B is not entirely acceptable. In instances where seismic Category I electrical equipment and instrumentation and mechanical components have been previously tested to standards not entirely in accord with i
current NRC requirements, it is the staff's position that certain critical electrical and mechanical components within both the NSSS and BOP scope of supply may have to be retested.
Identification and selection of such components will be based on an inspection by NRC personnel of installed equipment at the plant site.
Response
The programs utilized for qualification of electrical and mechanical equipment, as outlined in Section 3.7.2.1A and referenced in Sections 3.9.1.2A and 3.10A, have conformed with, or exceeded when possible, applicable requirements. As stated in response to Acceptance Review Request 223.2, this program is consistent with the requirements of position B.1 of Branch Technical Position EICSB 10 that IEEE-344-1971 be met. On this basis, the applicant believes that the seismic capability of components has been adequately demonstrated.
Table 3.9.4A-2, in response to Requests 112.6, 112.9, and 223.10, provides the results of seismic qualification programs employed
- for electrical equipment, instrumentation and mechanical components within the S&W scope of supply. These results indicate that acceptable programs have been employed to assure the adequacy of Seismic Category I equipment.
For additional information on equipment within the NSSS scope of supply, refer to the response to Request 223.10.
l 112-9
_ -. . . _ . _ . ~ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ _ . , _ _ _
, SNPS-1 FSAR Request 223.10 (RSP) (3.10):
Section 3.10 of the FSAR states that the Category I instrumentation and electrical equipment within General Electric's scope of supply have been qualified according to the procedures described in GE Topical Report " Seismic Qualification of Class I Electrical Equipment", NEDO-10678. This report has not been approved by the staff. It is the staff's position that only topical reports which have been reviewed and approved by the 1 staf f may be used as a basis for licensing reviews. Provide the seismic analysis, testing procedures, restraint measures, conclusions and results which have been used for seismically qualifying all BOP and NSSS Class IE equipment. The qualification program should include all information requested in Section 3.10 of the Standard Format and satisfy the requirements of IEEE Std 344-1971 as augmented by Branch Technical Position EICSB 10 in Appendix 7A of the Standard Review Plan.
I Response:
In. response to Acceptance Review Request 223.2, reference to NEDO 10678 was deleted. Further, Section 3.10B was revised to address '
seismic testing and/or analysis of Class IE typical equipment as well as compliance with IEEE 344-1971. As stated in response to Request 223.2, the position of paragraph B.1 of EICSB 10 is that IEEE 344-1971 contains acceptable methods for qualifying electrical and mechanical equipment.
i Table 3.9.4A-2, in response to Requests 223.10, 112.6, and 112.9, presents the results of seismic qualification of instrumentation and electrical equipment within the SWEC scopa of supply (as performed by the vendor), as well. as a summary of mechanical equipment qualification including pump and valve operability.
i The information presented in the table confirms that seismic i qualification programs for balance of plant instrumentation and 1
electrical equipment have been conservatively implemented for this installation.
Table 3.10.lB-1 lists all essential equipment in the NSS scope of I supply. The results of seismic qualification are listed in the 4
table.
223-10
-,w--- .- ,,- - - 4 +,%e-c.,-,m.s.--,,,u-re--me ---,.yv-p-,=vwy-,-e--,-,,,-,+---,.m-e,w.~w--,,,.,,,,mvv-. w,- -m-yww,-v,--vv*r-,vi-,1.-e,v-w-ir-*v++w*v-ewe ~-;
" ~
SNPS-1 FSAR Request 223.69:
Tables 3.10.1B-1 and 223.10 of the FSAR submitted in response to request item 223.10 indicate that some of the results of the seismic qualifications are not available to date or the tests have not yet been performed. Update these tables to include all the missing information or indicate in the same tables when this information will be made available for our review.
Response
Tables 3.10.lB-1 and 3.9.4A-2 include all currently available I information on the results of seismic qualification. The remaining results will be incorporated as the information becomes I available.
Interim justifications have been provided for those items which may not have their qualification fully completed by the time of fuel load.
l l
I 223-69 L
.. ii..ii.. ii.. ii.. ii l
a r
l a
r isinn psii ssnn ppii ssnn ppii ssnn pp!i ssnn ppii sspp u u p 3
t t c c 0019 0062 009 0099 0007 00 u u 0000 0013 0001 1500 0011 70 r r 5200 8000 20 9400025000 2600 56 28 82 11ld td td 46 ae Se 22 2300 3300 00 1200 Sei i ni df df ==== = === = === = === ==== = =of ii ni ni tr a r a r ae e e rV
'lV lV w w w e a a o o o w w py ny ny xl xl xl xo al xo al Ot ot ot al al al S wMA wMA wMA wMl wMl w ir iitr' ii T
L ag tr ag xl o.. xl o.. xlo.. xl o.A xlo.A ol xl ag al ue U re re altt altt alll alt . all .
S E
et pn et pn MAff ee MAffeeMAff ee MAff MAff ee MAnt ee an R Oi Oi SSDD SSDD SSDD SSDD SSDD SSMI T
N .
E e M n P s s I s s s i U s- s s s s m ce ce ce ce ce r Q ir ir ir ir ir s e E tt tt . i t
, t tt tt tt D t s aSn aSn aSn aSn aSn see E N ,' . sez
, ,e t o t o t o t o t o lysD Sri Sri Sri n d T
A I O
sqTH sq .H
, .T z Sot ri Sri ot ot tfc ot tfc ot aoonn' nptao L T ie iel tfc tfc tfc E FA xrt5 xrl3 n e n e n e n e n e As i emst R
OC I AFa3 AFe3 esl e- w- lif esl lif esl lif lie'sfl lieslf cRuea rsm Y DF ase ase ase ase imgtsr T OI leeB4 ggem ggem l ll eeD1 ilvyDase ilvyD ilvyD ilvyD ilvyD anceo E HL nierf F TA nnno nnno uad uad uad uad uad-A EU iiir iiir qnn qnn qnn qnn qnn yspte S MQ SSSF SSSF EAa EAa EAa EAa EAa DUSSD 2 M
- A A H 8 4 E
_ R 2 9 O f H o 3 S Q1
/ EZ 2 E O RH 2 3 0 0 1 7 1 L C Ff 8 9' 2 > 1 1 3 1 B L A I T L F
O N ST 8 0 3 0 7 7 2 8 O R 4 3 4 0 0 4 2 I
'G E 0. -
T V 0 0 0 2' 1 1 0 0 A D C
I 'L 9 0 0 0 0 2 F
I A3 U
7 6 7
- 0. -
6 6 6 4 L
A Q@ 0 0 0 3- 1 1 1 0 U
Q T 0 0- 2 0' 0 0 0 3 SR 2 3 2 0 5 '0 4 2 C E I
'G V 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 M
A D N 0 0 0 0 0 '0- 1 8 2
Y 'Q R 5 5
- 4. -
- 7
- 3. - 7. '
9 D EO
'RH 0 0- 0 0- 1'- 0 0- 0-ip i p tm - p. tm nu o nu . s-CP o CP r N L e O dc . -
.dnrc n I s nr d i T d p p ai
.sp e .ai a r
DP a- .m - l m C . C u ou s s .t NI AR l
C P oP .yr lom.u yr S C .
P .St CP. .St,
'NS l - .
.r r W W r OE ID T'
a.
t er s
r e
--te a
ee gt aa
.g dd ll
.gc dr li g
dd
.ll e
t a-AT Ma p W rW Bi BC .Bi W e o CN m h IE Vg a e tg r' C h rr rC. .e-FM kh D c Sn o ot. o c IP c . i 1 i 2tC 3tW 1tC i ~
CI 1' 6 t 1e r
1v r Geo ll
. Ga cA Cag c
Wa cA 1v r~
EU 1i PQ 9 .w 4i 7e 2uo. 2em 2ei 2ee 1 e SE 34S 5F 5S 6FC 6RR 6RC 6RR 8S
- 9. -
l
?
= .
e ##CC e e e deCC ean d .C.-.C 3 n a- - 6 Wan- W C .C L eaa-m C .C. L aa--
L 3 3 3 m M 9 N 9 9 3 O O e s= -OL C03- OL CO"N OL 00-6 OL 0006 OOOM 30 OOOM 3O OCom 3O 0003 3O C003 6& E0N00 LW Ld -4000 LW JNOC m e C. O. 4m ON M@ Me e N O. C.
- @ 4 es e c0 =* Me Os @ =*
m2OO ML 2200 ML ~200 ML eNCO Mu N2OO e e o e 14 H 11 ll Va 11 H 11 N Da N 11 14 41 Va 11 II H ll Va H 13 11 11 CO CO CO CO e e o e b b b b
) -O ) -O 3 -O 3 -O )
O e o e O e O e O x- Ch x- Ch X- Ch X- Ch X-e- Own e- Own e- Out e- Opu e-to DE4 --e >E4 --e DE4 --e DE4 --e DE(
e O 96- O wL- O aL- O aL~ O
_J x-.. x-.. eab x-.. eOb x-.. e ab x-..
O m--- e a.b Le e--- Le. e--- Lo- m--- Le- e---
M E all b b e .4 L E 4C b b eML E(bb eWL E(bb e&L E(bb w me ace ce ace ce ace ce ace MMQQ ce E 44McQ 0-> 4480 0 0 Q-> MMQQ 0-> MMQQ O->
9 9 9 9 e W W W eeN eeN OON OON'
-> -H =W -W Oe m E Oe m E Oe m E Oe m E Oe
-> -> => CWO -> C#O ->
a- .C. eL &O u- .C-eLMO p- -eL 4- -eL 4-ee Me6 eg Me6 ee Me6 eg Me6 ee Z w> .c0 d>
.co . u>
(n .cc . W>
M .cc . d>
M O v3 . in
- C WeL C eel C eOL C eel C
& 90 -CO 90 -CO 90 90 =CO 90 64 C x-dN C x-dN C ~x-C .O JN C X-dN C
- 00. mW ( to e Z 4 to e Z <C M m 2 -e.e <Cto e Z e.d-
- . - L .e #
-- L .e .e.
- 6 - L C6 en d
-e *no .9 0 eW e .0 0 em e .0 0 se e .00 mW C- >h. >h - e ao >h - .a0 >h - .aC >h
= .: J --e mUo- --O meOr --e m eO c- --e meo- --e Q >< 3ex Ce sex Ce sex Ce 3 eu x Ce 3ex gCO
= W3 UCO -LCO FCO -LCO WCO -LCO 7CO -LCO F EO W4> ta b o d W4> to 6 0 & W *C > 40 6 O W k tC > to 6 O M W 4C >
E O
O e
- N N b e O
( N
- n. O-WN N & 0% N 3
- p EZ @ @ N O *=
. 6 A A s-M W
.J $ a co a v=
( c. w
& w MW O O O O E
=Qw O. e. N. m. m.
> N - e= M #
Q J O O O O
- C E0 3 O. e. m. M.
0 N A M N @
H O O O O 4
.M w E N. A. O. . N.
O> N e N N 2 Q
= 0 O O O O "J
w O. e. e. M. N.
E e W M n M e
m e
a Z
.O 9
> 8 Q CL ==
Z-MC M D D D D D C O - - - - - O ZM
'Ow O O O O O e
-Q Os Os n O Os e n>.- n>. e= 0 @e n> 9
<C W - > > -
O DE ee ' ee- I- 8- ee C
-W 6E e .
> N .
> m=>
e 3 .>
e c.
> 11
-A eCe eCe eC eC eCe O= Q-D Q-D Q-e Q=e Q-D a
'WD < O 4 0 4 W 4 & ( O '
co- ec- j CL O in w .e -OO- .-O e.-O se es3
.- .-O w
7
r
't . 3 TABLE 3.9.4A-2 (CONT'D1 SPECIFICATION AND REQ'D G'S QU AL' D G' S FREQ METHOD OF
[HZ) QUALiffCATf0N RESULTS EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION HQB VERT M98 YERT .
Single Axis, Single Operationa l and Structura l freq., Sine Beat Test Integrity of Operator on Operator, From 2 Ve ri f ied .
to 100 HZ .
79 Equivalent Static S Max =.27600 psi 88AD-6 2.00 1.70 4.24 3.00 S Allow = 28800 psi 18 in. - 300 lb Analysis on valve Yoke. Deft. Max = 0.003 in.
Angle Globe Valve Defl. Allow = 0.0469 in.
Single Axis Single Ope ra t iona l and Freq. Sine Beat Test St ruc tu ra l Integrity of on Operator From Operational verified.
2-100 HZ.
67 Equivalent Static S Max = 57000 psi 88AD-7 6.1 5.8 7.60 7.20 Analysis on valve S Allow = 137000 psi 20 in. - 150 lb Yoke. Defl. Max = 0.007 in.
Gate Valve Deft. Allow 0.047 in.
Single Axis Single Operational and Freq. Sine Beat Test St ructu ra l Integrity of on Operator From Operator Verified.
2-100 HZ.
5.60 3.80 4.90 3.80 (1) 146 Equivalent Static S Max = 17000 psi 88AD-8 Analysis on Valve S Allow = 35000 psi 20 in. - 900 lb Yoke. Defl. Max = 0.0014 in.
Gate Valves Defl. Allow = 0.0469 in.
Single Axis Single Operational and freq. Sine Beat Test St ructu ra l integrity of on Operator From Operator Verified.
2-100 HZ.
4.70 5.60 .4.30 5.60 (1) 113 Equivalent Static S Max = 17300 psi 88AD-9 Analysis on Valve S Allow = 35000 psi 24 x 22 x 24 in. -.900 lb Yoke. Deft. Max = 0.008 in.
. Gate Valves Deft. Allow = 0.0469 in.
Single Axis Single Ope ra t i ona l and Freq. Sine Beat Test St ructu ra l Integrity of on Operator From Operator Verified.
From 2-100 HZ.
3 of 28
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~
I
. . 1 l
. . . . -C . -- .
- CC ##-C meC . --WWCC WWCC i
. n a- . b aa = b an-C b na-- b aa--
O - @ O - 0 0 COMC OOON Con OOOO COMO
' COOT h COO 3 h COeN > OOND h OOND 6.-00
& & O c0 0 -a.
mbC O. O. . N ANC. O.
e- =. e ao . 0 We m N O. C. - . Mm NNCO -LV- ,-400 LV -NOC LV -NCO LV NNOC me me me me NOHM V@= HRRH Ve- NHHH Ve- MNnp Ve- N N It H Cwb Cub Cwb cwb eg C -
e C.
- =L e .C. L -L e .C-L -
3 - e 3 - e 3 - e e->
> -e-> e 3 O- e-> X-O e->
Ce X-O Ce X-0 Ce X-O
-X- Ce .
sp - OLL g-- OLL == OLL e- OLL g-W DE( =30 3E4 -3O DE4 -30 )E4 -3O DE(
> O M99 O 999 O MGM O M99 O X X= . . eOe X= ..
D J X g-ee 40e L3L X- e e e--.=
e0e b3L e * =* b3L eQe g-==- L3L e- =
m E(bb e6e E4bb e6e ' E4bb e6e E(bb ele E46b W -
e9 kMG ee GMs ee Gd& Ge G9G ee E WWOO OWO MMOO 000 MMOO Omo WWOO OWO MMOO 9 9 9 9 e a W W We se se ce Ue ~ r= US -> Ue -> Ue = h= Ue
=> m E -> m E -> m E -> m E ->
a- C90 a-. Cao a- C90 9= coo 9-se -ab ee -eb ee -46 eg g -eb ee E d> Me6 a> me6 w> Me6 w> ' We6 w>
0 M CD m 10 m 80 W (D 6
M C
- C # L C W L C # L C #
& 90 -90 90 -eO 90 -eO 90 -80 MO 64 C XCW e C XCM - C XC& . C XC&
- C 00- em (=eN eW (-eN a (-eN eW (-eN --eW
-- mbz -- ebz .e. - MLz -- mLZ 06 0- e se .
>h
--e e 9
=aC
-OFOC --e
- eW
>h*
e e
-=GO OFOC e#
>h.
--e e e
- *40 2U00 eW
>h.
--e
- .e G
meOO aC eW
>h.
--e a zJ 3 ag X O H( 3eX Ce e- - 3eX Ce e 3eX Ce e 3e4 Ce e 3
= WD FCO -LCe FCO -LCg gCO -LCe gCO -LCe gCO W EO W4> MbON W4> M60N W(> M6CN W4> W60e W4>
E O
O w
to N N e
4 b 2 Q- O O
- WN O Ez e e e 40 M #
- m. 6= EO A 40 m A ers W
.a e m
CO e=
'( w *=
w-H WW O O O O
= E e OW m. e. e. . m.
O-
> N M m N M
=
J O O O O
( m.
2 N.
e o - GO. .
O @ m D @ @
O F e O O O ME . N m= m m
- W N * =
- a O> N m' N M Q
= O O O O O Q @ e W . . m. N. - M. .-
E @ M e M m e
3 >
0 -
= 4 D e OA e e -
-Z- > De
- O> e
<E D- -n e. O-me Q =e -
O ->
Zw > O- - > e CW .O 00 Vs V e
-C 08- e e>
p
'ed me L ap OO
>- -mJb- e- X -
( 6- O O Le LC- e OE a- 8e CW OC - OU
-W ,C .O - *= 2 he 60 ES 62 = *= O S e
-E eC3- 0 C e .O ~ N = M =e Q O-- O-E eC
- eC
- 8 CL W 4- m. ( 0 >=S - eD
> = S.
>=e a.
& StC god e
- eD
- l
^
l
r:
a- e' TABLE 3.9.4A-2 fCONT'Ol SPECIFICATION AND REQ'D G'S QUAL'D G'S' ..FREQ : METHOD OF ,
EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION HQB VERT HQB YERT fHZ) CUALIFICATION RESULTS Single Axis, Single Operational and ,
freq. Sine Beat Test, St ructu ra l integ ri ty 1-100 HZ, Cpe ra to r. Ve ri fied. ..
'88V-4 6.80 3.60 6.40 3.60 (1) 58 Equivalent Static S Max = 22000 psl
= 26200 psi 4 in. Forged 8.8. Analysis on Valve S Allov Gate & Globe Valves- Deft. Max = 0.018 in.
Defl. Allov = 0.050 in.
Single Axis Single Operationa l and i Freq. Sine Beat Test Structural Integrity of 1 on Operator From Operator Verified.
1-100 HZ.
6.40 5.20 6.40 5.20 53 Equivalent Static ~ S Max = 16500 psi l 88V-5 Analysis on Valve S Allow = 29100 psi i 6 in. - 900 lb Forged B.B. Gate Valve Yoke and Operator Deft. Max = 0.021 in. !
Mounting. Defl. Allow = 0.050 in.
Single Axis Single . Ope ra t iona l and Freq. Sine Beat St ructu ra l Integrity of ,
Test.on Operator Operator Verified. i From 1 to 100 HZ.
88V-6 8.60 5.90 13.80 7.30 88 Equivalent Static S Max = 23600 psi 6 in. Forged 8.8. Analysis on Valve S Allow = 26200 psi Gate & Globe Valves Yoke. Deft. Max = 0.017 in.
Deft. Allow = 0.050 in.
Single Axis Single Ope ra tiona l and I F req . Sine Beat Test St ructu ra l Integrity of on Operator From Operator Verified.
From 1-100 HZ. '
88V-7 1.30 1.30 3.0 3.0 87 Equivalent Static S Max = 17400 psi Analysis on Valve S Allow = 26300 psi 6 in. Cast Steel
-B.B. Gate Valve Yoke. Defl. Max = 0.021 in.
Deft. Allow = 0.050 in.
Single Axis Single Operationa l and Freq. Sine Beat Test St ructu ra l Integrity of on Ope ra to r F rom Operator Verified.
2-100 HZ.
li 5 of 28 I
- 9 ii .. ii n ii . . ii ..
ii ssi n.
ssnn ssi. ssnn ssnn pp n ppii f pp n f ppii f ppii f o 4i o o o 6i 0040 006 0090 0030 001 0015 y 0002 y 0015 y 0015 y 0024 0200 t 5800 78 t 5200 76 t 4100 09 t
i.
8800 28 ?
96 ird .
- i. i.
1200 rd 1200 1200 rd 2200 rd 2200 ge ge ge ge
dei = === dei ==== dei = === dei
ntf ntf ntf ntf ani ani ani ani I r ir I r I r w l e w l e w l e w l e w o alV o alV o alV o alV o xl na xl na xl na xl na xl al orr al orr al orr al wMA ttt al iorr S uo wMA iuottt wMA iuo wMA iuottt wMA T
L U
xlo..
alfl aca rur xl allt o.. aca rur xlo..
alll ttt aca rur xl altt o.. aca rur xl alll o..
S MAff ere MAff ere ptp MAff ere MAff ere MAff ee E ee ptp ee ee ptp ee ptp SSDD R SSDD OSO SSDD OSO SSDD OSO SSDD OSO t t t t s s s s ee ee ee ce lee T ce lT ce lT g m icev lT g m ce iv g m iv g iv i v tl nto tl nt tl nto tl nto tl aa iar aa ia aa iar aa iar aa N tV SeF tV Se, tV Sef tV SeF tV O S B S B S B S B S I n s r n s r n s r n s r n to to FA T to n ieo.
xnt to n ieo.
xnt to n ieo.
xnt n es ieo.
xnt n es OC es AiaZ es AiaZ es AiaZ AiaZ I li SrH li SrH li SrH li SrH li 1
DF OI HL as ilvy. e le.e gqO0 p0 as ilvy. e le.e gqO0 p0 as ilvy. e l e.e gqO0 p0 as ilvy. e le.ep0 gqO0 as ilvy. e D TA uak ne 1 uak ne 1 uak inern- 1 uak ne 1 uak qno
' EU qno irn- qno irn- qno qno irn-T MQ EAY SFn2 EAY SFo2 EAY Sfo2 EAY SFo2 EAY N
O C
(
8 2 2 A f 4 Q) o EZ 9 RH 1 6 9 0 5 6 Ff 6 8 4 5 4 3
E L ) ) )
B 1 1 1 A ( ( (
T ST 0 0 0 0 0 R 2 0 6 1 0
'G E .
V 3 3 3 3 3 D
'L 0 0 0 0 0 AB 7 0 4 9 0 UQ QH 5 3 4 4 3 T 0 0 0 0 0 SR 5 3 1 3 8 E .
'G V 2 1 2 3 1 D
0 0 0 0 0
'Q H 0 5 5 4 4 EO RH 8 2 4 7 2 N
O I b b b T l l l DP e e NI 0b l s 0 0v AR 0o ee 5e 0l e C 9l ev 1 v 9a v NS G tl l V dl OE d Sa da d ea ID e&
g V eV g
et ge gV r
T t AT re se re rn oe CN ot - at ot on Ft IE Fa Ca Fa Fo a FM 0 .C 1
.B 2 .G IP CI 8 .C se n .v 9 n..C 1 n.
1 n.
1 n i.
EU ViB.l ViB. ViB. ViB. v PQ 8 a 8 8 8 80 B.
. SE 86BV 88B 88B 84B 81B r! .
a .
.. -_C ..
--##CC ##~ . -_##CC meCC 4 aa== b aa C b a (L= - 6 aa==
0 0 P- = 0 O coco 00@ codo c o r~ o A coNa h coms A coan h coma
-o. O mm w o.o.
a
. e- ED
@ eD o. o. -a. E~
O m o@N o. o. -a. mm NNoo e O. O.
LV NNoo -LV NNoo LV L NNoo bV me me me - me b 11 n H H Vc- 41 H n n
-Ve- NuHH Ve= ll N 18 H Ve-Cub Cub Cub m- Cab Ve eg C -
e .C. L . e .C -L - e .C as b -L
-e->. e .O > e->
-e 3 0
e->
e O-Je
)
0
-e-> e )
0 Ce X =. Ce X- C eg C X= Ce X-Obb eg - O6L e- ObL m4 eU - O6L eg -
M -30 )E4 -30 )E4 -30 C >E4 -30 >E4
>- ave. O aaa O oaa - Us O 999 O 4C eOe X- * .
J D
e 0 eg 63L X- *. e 0 e--
eg L3L X.-..-
g
. oOe L36 --
ea X.=*==.
e --
E4bb ebe 63L e .- - -
Z(bb e obe E4bb ele E(bb ebe
)= ce asa ee W ao a ee aoa mmoc omo ee ada
( n. mmoo omo mmoc E omo mmoc 000 9 a a 9 e e m a se se oe ee
->=
->= 0m ->= 0m ->= 0 Oe 0e m E -> m E -> m E - -> m E ->
CaO a= M*= C90 m a= Ca0 9-
-e6 es g .C
-e6 aO ee - en b so's -e6 es e m' me6 a> me6 a> me6 -h u>. mc6 a>
o CD M c0 m (D e m CD m
- # L C e L C e L C C e L C
>- =0O 90 -cO MO -eO ( MO =co 40 64 XC& . C XCa
- C XC& * . C XCa
- C
(~eN Oe (=eN (=eN VW c# < - e5 N em 00- (/) L I -- t/) L Z e.# - m6Z em -- m6Z -=
ee ea a
c6 0-
=J e
-.e 05700 40 ee.
>h
--e
-e.eno meoo e -- - e es e
>h. -eOno 0170 o D Ce
-W es e
>h.
--e
- ao I:n ec o
>h.
--e o t= 4 Ce e- 3 ag E Ce 3eX Ce e EV 3eX Ce e- 3mX WD -bcI FCC -6Ce gCO -LCe OC gCC -bCI UCO
=
>- EO e4ON W4> (46 ON W4> M6ON Oe W(> M6ON W(>
z o
O
~
eD
- PJ N a
< b
- Ua 0
- WN A N
. 3 @ EO Ch. M .Z 6 3 m I a m e.1 W -
J e CD == *=
( w w m >- o o o o
= E o.
cW #. . o. #.
> 2 m i e m
.o J o o o o
'( m. o. N. o.
o M O A M 8 #
> c o o o c-
.M W E . N. eD. m.
Q> N ** I M o o o o o
= - o e0 Og 80
.W m. n.
E P= N 8 @ N E
o D D
-- - D. .
. o c' a> . O to.
e o om o
o z- o C C Me me .
(E Se CD O > 0 > >
Em U- V to V- V=
OW ce # % es ce
-o m> me C p> m>
W L Le ces L L Oc (k 00' O> o&> 09 QE we 6- m-- 68 68
-W e e Os e e 61 md # .> c etD > @ .O P. .O
-a c= C e- C e- C *= C eC 0 e-. s-ed e-ve s- . e- .
W > iD >
Sog
> #M eoee eD o a
> in > CD eD o e
- 0. eD o .
mW G *= In eD e= 0 eDNOO 80 e- CD eD e CD
.e
==C * == .* == . ==C .
W#=C WeCC WWC . WW=C b &E = b aa-- 4 a n= C b aa += b O # 0 0 -
O e O CONO 0000 006 O O c0 0 h CONE h OOsc h OQme h OQwn h
& e- C O d a e0 0 0 W N eo 0 0 W
. Wc O. == . O co . AcoOOC. O. .&
= . N so - .
==LV e- N O O LV NNCO LV 2nOO LV NNOC LV me me me me me Ve= H ll 5N Vc= N H ll 11 HNNH V#= 11 H H H Ve-C9% C9% VC .e 6%- C9% C9%
eC- es C = mC=
-L e .C. =L m -C =. -L -L e ) -e-> e 3 - ;s 3 - e > -e-> e
-e->
Ce X-0 Ce X-0 e->
Ce X-0 es - >
Ce X-0 Ce OLL e- OLL e- OLL e- OLL eg - OLL M -30 )E( -30 3E4 -30 )E( -30 )E4 -30
& 999 O MGM O 999 O 494 O 999 X
J p
e O es L3L X-eg - - -
.. e0e 63L X . .-
es
. mOe L3L X
- e. .-.- e o 63L es e .. -
Eqbb ele
.. eOe L3L
(/) e6e E4kb e6e E(66 e6e E44k e6e W GGG ee Gd% ee G9G ee A9G ee G9&
E O (/) O W@CO O@O 1/)M O O ODO WWOO O (/) O @@OO O tt) O a a a 9 9 m- e e a W ce Oc ce ce se
-W De ->= 0e -> 0m -W GG O E -> m E -> m E -> m E -> m E CMO d- Cdo M- C&O p- CMC 4- CMO
-e6 ee =4L ee =4L 80 as =4L es e =m6
-E (/)4De 6' -
4> -Me6 M> (/) e 6 &> Me6 4> We6 O (/) a) W 10 m in (/) 10
- e L C W L C e L C e L C # L
> -90 30 -90 90 -80 90 -80 MO -90 64 XCe. C XC& . C XC& . C XCW . C XC&
- OO
( =t/)esL N = e#== (=eN en (=aN ew ( = su N ea ( = es N
-- Z MLZ == = tt) L Z -= (/) L Z _ == = (/) L Z [
e 06 O-ZJ e e
=0700 *aC es d
>h*
--e e e
- e m700 30 ee
>h.
--e e e
- eaC m700 --e ee.
>h e e
- *40 m700 ee.
>h
--e ee
- ao m700 f
i O >< Ce e 2eX CW e 344 Ce e DeX Cc e DeX Cm e
- WD -LCe FCO =LCe 7CO -LCe FCO -LCe UCO -LCe H
Z EO t/) 6 O N W(> M6ON W(> (/3 6 O N W(> (/> 6 O N W(> (/3 6 O N O
O
=
eO i N N i e
4 b Ce O
- n. WN E
A 3 e
- O 80 O. 6 .Z A - M e e e.1 W
.J a e CD e- e
( w w m rt O O O O O O. O. m. O.
n m N m
.O I O O O O 4
s O. O. n. O.
O M M m M
> O O O O
.tt) W E . c. m. ' e.
O> e N N 3 O
~ -O O O -O O W 4 4
-W . M.
EZ @ N m #
E O
OE E. a. - . m .
<E in e g to. > in.
Ew V dD V- ID OW e ee
-O 95 & -m> d W Le ae L ee
(> O>
W=
e> Om e>
QE O= 6o U-
-W e e g e-62 40 .> m> O *O e .>
-L ' eC *= C NC NC O I=e I-e t= . I=e W
E
> w > u > m > w
. e0 3 e eD a e ap e . - eo so e
(/) W G e- O E0 e. O en e- 83 eo e Q e
l l, 1
i . .
iis .
sspn iin.
ssin ii . .
ssnn ii ss pp iin.
ssi pp n pp i f pp i f ppii f 7 o 8 o o 5i 0070 0020 0080 00 005 0045 y 0025 y 0005 y 00 d d 0005 1800 t 2800 t 3200 t 80 e e 0003 58 78 61 i. 17 i i 92 ird . i .
2200 2200 rd 2400 rd 12 f f 2300 ge ge ge i i
=== dei = === dei = === dei == r r = ==
ntf ntf ntf e e ani ani ani V V I r I r I r vo l e w l e w l e y y w al V o alV o alV t t o xl na xl na xl na i i xl al orr al orr al orr w l l al wMA S wMA iuo wMA iuo wMA iuottt i i T
L U
xl o.. ttt aca rur xl o.. ttt aca rur xl o.. aca rur xl al o b a
r b
a r
xl o..
allt S
E alll MAff ere ee ptp allt MAff ee ptp ere MAfft alt ee ere pt p MA) 3 e
p e
p MAff ee R SSDD OSO SSDD OSO SSDD OSO SS( O O SSDD Z
H
. e S n0 t t t cR ei6 t s s s iR lS s s icev ee lT g m ce iv lT ee g m ce iv lT ee g m m
an no n.-
g i q1 ee lT g
ce ir s
tl nto tl nto tl nto y Se nt tt .
aa Dd rm a aSn N
aa tV iar SeF B S aa tv ia r SeF B
tV S
iar SeF B ys e
b yfo r
iSe.BZ t
Sri o
O S I n s r n s r n s r ba eF s H ot T to to to B sl i e tfc FA n ieo.
xnt n es ieo.
xnt n es ixnteo. d es tgt nns xn0 n e Ai6 OC es AiaZ AiaZ AiaZ SrH ii eie S-esl lif I li SrH i SrH li ase 1
DF OI HL as ilvy. e le.e ggO0 p0 las.e ilvy le.e gqO0 p0 as ilvy. e le.ep0 gqO0 i
fs lly nST e o
pst lgqm .1 ilvyD D TA uak ne 1 uak ne 1 uak ne 1 aa mia ineorr uad qnn EU qno irn- qno irn- qno irn- un oxe
'T MQ EAY SFo2 EAY Sfo2 EAY SFo2 QA CAB SFF EAa N
O C
I 8
2 2 A f 4 Q) o EZ 9 RH 5 6 7 5 8 9 Ff 9 4 7 1 4 3 3
E L )
B 1 A (
T ST 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 2 4 8
'C E V 3 3 3 0 0 D
'L 0 0 0 0 0 3 AB 0 0 0 3 5 5 UQ QH 3 3 3 0 0 T 0 0 0 0 2 2 SR 8 5 1 2 3 3 E .
'C V 0 0 1 0 0 D -
0 0 0 3 2 2
'Q R 8 9 9 4 4 4 EO RH 1 0 1 0 0 N
O I
b b' r
-T l l bl e DP t NI 0e 0e 0 i AR 0v 0v 5e c C - 9l 9l 1vl x NS a a Et IOE dV dV da e D e e eV &s &n s T ge ge g e a u AT rb rb re di rP dr CN oo oo ot ir o no IE Fl Fl Fa ko tl ot FM 2
.G 3 G 4 C Ss .aorr r a IP CI 2
n.
2 .
n.
2 .
- n. 1 .se 2et 3ce hr EU V V 8 i B. V 8 i B.
xc nn nn
- PQ 8 i B. 9uc 9eo 9ye SE 88B 88B 83B 8AA 8GC 8SG e
r
r.
TABLE 3.9.4A-2 (CONT'D)
SPECIFICATION AND REQ'D G'S QUAL'D C'S FREQ METHOD OF EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION HO_B VERT tiOE YERI fHZ) QUALIFICATION RESULTS .
89-4 ,
0.42 0.32 0.50 0.40 2 Single Axis. Single operability Verified Engine Control Freq. Sine Beat Test .
Panel From 1-60 HZ.
189-5 0.42 0.30 .30 .20 (1) 71 Response Spectrum S Max = 16300 psi Diesel Engine Dynamic Analysis S Allow = 73500 psi Single Axis Single Operability Verified F req . Sine Beat Test From 1-60 HZ.
89-6 0.42 0.32 0.50 0.40 4 Single Axis Single Structural & Operational Starting Ai r Freq. Sine Beat Test Integrity Verified.
Receiver From 1-60 HZ.
89-7 0.42 0.32 0.50 0.50 11 Single Axis Single St ruc tu ra l & Ope ra t iona l Starting Air Freq. Sine Beat Test integ ri ty Verified.
Comp resso r From 1-60 HZ.
95-1 0.50 0.35 1.50 1.50 5 Simultaneous Hor. & Structural & Operational 480 V Emergency Vert. Phase Coherent integrity Verified for SWGR Bus 111, 112, 113 Random Multi-Freq. Switchgear & Bus.
Test From 1-100 HZ for SWCR & Bus.
95-2 0.42 0.32 1.50 1.50 5 Simultaneous Hor. Structural & Operational 125 V DC & Vert. Phase Integrity Verified Swi tchgea r incoherent Random Mu l t i-F req . Test From
- 1. to 100 HZ.
102-1 0.70 1.00 1.20 1.00 51 Equivalent Static S Max = 21600 psi Reactor Building Analysis for Stress S Allow = 24000 psi Exh. Boost Fem and Deflection. Deft. Max = 0.0028 in.
Deft. Allow = 0.061 in.
102-2 0.91 0.47 1.20 0.80 27 Equivalent Static S Max = 20600 psi Control Room Analysis for Stress S Allow = 24000 psi Centrifugal Booster and Deflection. Defl. Max = 0.00539 in.
Fa n. Defl. Allow = 0.02010 in.
10 of 28
r-.
e- e.
TABLE 3.9.4A-2 (CONT'D1 SPECIFICATION AND REQ'D G'S QUAI.'D G'S FREQ METHOD OF IHZ) OUALIFICATION RESULTS .
EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION liQB VERT lioB VERT 17 Equivalent Static S Max = 18100 psi 105-1 0.72 0.39 0.96 0.39 S Allow . = 36000 psi Control Rm A/C Analysis for Filter .
Tra ins Deft. Max = 0.024 in.
Filter Trains Deft. Allow = 0.125 in. .
Single Freq. Single _ Operational & Structural Axis Sine Beat Test for Integrity Verified.
Components & Solenold, 1-60 HZ.
11 Equivalent Static- Max Load Factor = 0.75-105-2 0.85 0.73 0.85 0.73 Analysis for Filter Allow Load Factor = 1.00 Reactor Bldg = 0.113 in.
Stand by Vent System Tra ins Deft. Max Defl. Allow = 0.125 in.
Single Freq. Single Axis Operational & Structural Sine Beat Test for integ rity Verified.
Electrical Components
& Solenoid, 1-60 HZ.
0.50 0.20 1.1 0.74 9 Equivalent Static S Max = 23700 psi 106-1 Analysis for Chiller S Allow = 24000 psi Centrifugal Water Ass'y. Defl. Max = 0.00098 in.
Chillers Deft. Allow = 0.0075 in.
Mu l t i-F req . Operational and Structural MuttI-Axis Random Integrity Verifled.
Test for Machine Mounted Components, 1-100 HZ.
~0.60 0.27 2.30 1.60 13 Mu l t i-F requency, Ope ra t iona l & Structural 106-2 Multi-Axis Random Integrity Verified.
Standby Vent Test, 1-100 HZ.
System Control Pa ne l 111-1 Equivalent Static S Max = 17200 psi Ai r Ope ra ted 0.90 0.40 1.0 1.0 17 Analysis for Stress S Allow = 38000 psi Valves and Deflection on Negligible Deflection.
Valve and Actuator Single Axis, Single Operability Demonstrated Freq. Sine Dwell Test on Solenoid, 1-40 HZ.
11 of 28
- p. - -
, ~,
TABLE 3.9.4A-2 (CONT'D1 SPECIFICATION AII0 t REQ'D C'S QUAL' D G' S .FREQ METHOD OF-EQUIPMEllT DESCRIPTIOli M VERT M VERT (NZ) QUALI F I CATIOld RESULTS
-111-2 .
0.801 0.868 3.00 .3.00 22 Equivalent Static S Max = 24200 psi ..
12 in. Control Analysis for Stress S Allow = 27000 psi Room isolation and Deflection on Negligible Deflection. ,
Va lve - Valve and Actuator Single Axis, Single Ope rabi l i ty Demonst ra ted Freq. Sine Beat Test On Ope retor, 1-80 HZ.
5.15 13 Equivalent Static S Max = 29800 psi 111-3 0.70. 5.60 1.00 S Allow = 38000 psi Air Operated Analysis for Stress &
Valves Deflection on Valve Megligible Deflection stad Actuator.
I Single Axis, Single Operability Demonstrated Freq. Sine Dwell Test On Solenoid, 1-40 HZ.
114-1 0.30 0.20 0.91 0.47 44 Equivalent Static S Max = 15700 psi Analysis S Allow = 19200 psi Chilled Water Surge Tank 114-2 0.5 0.3 0.91 0.47 43 Static Analysis S Max = 15500.4si t
j' Chilled Water S Allow = 19300 vsi l' Surge Tank 114-3' 2.00 1.30 2.00 1.30 14 Equivalent Static S Max = 24000 p.,
Diesel Fuel Oil Analysis S Allow = 32800 psi Storage Tanks 114-4 .
Equivalent Static S Max = 10400 psi
! Oletel Fuel Oil 0.90 0.40 0.90 0.46 28 Dey Tank Analysis S Allow = 30200 psi l
115-1 0.52 0.62 1.6 1.1 4 Multi-Freq. Multi- Operational & Structura t
! 480 Volt Motor Axis, Randon Motion integrity Verified.
Control Center Test From 1-100 HZ.
l 115-2 0.52 0.40 1.20 0.85 20 Multi-Freq. Multi- Operational & Structura l l Axis, Random Motion Integrity Verified.
480 VAC Circuit. Test From 1-100 HZ.
Breaker Panelboards 116-1 01.0 -0.36 1.1 0.7 >40 Mul ti-Freq. Multi- Operational & Structura l 125 Volt Control Axis, Randon Motion integrity Verified.
Storage Batteries Test From 1.0-40 HZ.
'and Rocks.
l 12 of 28 l
i
(. ,_. -_
e e.
TABLE 3.9.4A-2 (CONT'D1 SPECIFICATION AND REQ'D C'S QUAL'D C'S FREQ METHOD OF
- yIST fHZ) QUALIFICATION RESULTS EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION !!98 VE3T M9!1 .
118A-1 0.30 0.19 0.33 0.20 8 Single Axis Single Ope ra t iona l & Structural
- freq. Sine Beat Test Integrity verified.
125 V Static From 1-40 HZ.
Battery Charges ,
.96 .39 15 ~ Equivalent Static S Ma x = 9056 psi 120-1 .55 .47 S Allow = 25000 psi BOP Main Analysis for Panel Control Boa rd Single Freq.. Ope ra t iona l & St ructu ra l Single Axis Sine Integrity Verified.
DweiI, 1-33 HZ.
Multi-Frequency Operational & Structural 124-1 'O.35 0.40 1.00 0.70 15 Multi-Axis, Randon Test integrity VerifieJ.
Breaker Distribution From 1-100 HZ.
Penel 0.30 0.20 0.31 0.41 21 Single Frequency Operationa l & Structural 124-2 Single Axis. Sine Integrity Verified.
AC & DC Distribution Beat . Test From 1-35 HZ.
Pa ne l Boa rd
.125-1 through 11 0.90 0.46 1.0 1.0 - Static Stress Analysis Awaiting Final Test Report of the panels. Single f rom Vendor. Pre l imi na ry Instrumentation Panels Frequency Biaxial Sine Report Demonstrates Struc-Dwell Testing of tural and Operational Instruments, 1-100 HZ. I n teg ri ty.
1.30 0.65 2.80 4.00 24 Single Frequency Operational & Structural 134-1 .
Single Axis Dwell Integrity Verified.
Reactor Conta inment Test From 0-100 HZ.
Electrical Penet ra t ions (CE) 159-1 3.2 2.5 7.0 7.0 >60 Single Frequency St ructu ra l and Functional Single Axis Test, Integrity Demonstrated.
Limit Switches 1-100 HZ, Sine Dwell (NSSS) 0.45 0.60 0.96 1.35 >100 Mul t i-F requency operational & Structural 168-1 Multi-Axis Random Integrity Verified.
125 V DC Motor Motion Test From Control Centers 1-100 HZ.
4.80 4.80 3.00 3.00 (2) 11 HZ Equivalent Static S Max = 26100 psi 172-1 Analysis for Stress S Allov = 27000 psi Air Operated Negligible Deflection.
Valves & Deflections on Yoke & Actuator.
13 of 28
U ~
_ 0 TABLE 3.9.4A-2 (CONT'D1
'SPEClFICATION AND- REQ'D O'S' QUAL'D C'S FREQ : METHOD OF EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTIOJ l!QB VIRT 0
!!_8. VERT' (HZ) QUALIFICATION RESULTS 1175-1 Dynamic" Ana l-Response Spectra . Response Spectra Awaiting Final Qualification
' Vacuum Breaker Test-Dynamic Analysis of Disc Dynamic Ana lysis - for Reports from Vendor. P re . ,
Valves-St re ss. Slam Test liminary Report Demonstrates fo r Ope rab i l i ty .
Structura l and operationa l following LOCA Impact. Integrity.
1.00 0.70 25 Equivalent Static S Max = 22700 psi 190-1 0.70 1.00 S Allow = 25700 psi Spent Fuel Pool. Analysis for Stress.
CooIing Weter Heat Exchanger 1.20 'O.70 1.20 0.70 12 Equivalent Static S Max = 16800 psi 190-2 Analysis for Stress. S Allow = 22000 psi Reactor Bulling Closed
' Loop Cooling Water Heat Exchanger 1.20 0.70 1.20 0.70 5 Equivalent Static S Max = 37600 psi 190-3 Analysis' for Stress. S Allow = 40000 psi Booster Heat l
Exchanger 6.90 3.10 6.90 3.00 (1) >60 Equivalent Static S Max = 10500 psi 191-1 Ana lysis for Stress. S Allow = 16000 psi Safety and Roller Valves U.98 0.76 3.00 3.00 >100 Equivalent Static S Max = 21700 psi l 197-1 .
Analysis for Stress S Allow = 30000 psi l 20 in. MOV Butterfly & Deflection on Deflection Vendor Yoke. Accepted.
Sing le Freq. Single Ope ra b i l i ty & St ruc tu ra l
! Axis Sine Beat Test Integrity Verified.
on Operator From 2-100 HZ.
l 197-2 1.0 0.7 3.00 3.00 >100 Equivalent Static S Max = 5580 psi Analysis for Stress S Allow = 9200 psi 16 in. MOV & Deflection on Deflection Vendor Butterfly Yoke. Accepted.
! Single Freq. Single Ope rab i l i ty & St ructu ra l l Axis Sine Beat Test Integrity Verifiod.
on Operator From j
2-100 HZ.
14 of 28
,( . .
., .a TABLE 3.9.4A-2 (CONT'DI SPECIFICATION AND REQ'D G'S QUAL'O G'S FREQ METHOD OF QUALIFICATION RESULTS EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION M VERT M LE,RJ R [HZ) ,
3.00 3.00 >100 Equivalent Static S Max = 8150 psi
-197-3 1.16 .2.10 Analysis for Stress S Allow .= 9200 psi 6 in. NOV
- Butterfly & Deflection on Deflection Vendor Yoke. Accepted. ,
Single Freq. Single Ope ra b i l i ty & St ruc tu ra l Axis Sine Beat Test integrity Verified, on Operator From 1-80 HZ.
>33 Equivalent Static S Max = 24800 psi 197-4 0.90 0.26 3.00 3.00 S Allov = 30000 psi Butterfly MOV Analysis for Stress a
and Deflection on Deflections Acceptable.
Valve.
Single Freq. Single Ope ra b i l i ty and St ructu ra l Axis Dwell From Integrity Verified.
5-60 HZ on Opera tor.
0.52 0.64 3.00 3.00 >100 Equivalent Static S Max = 9160 psi 197-5 Analysis for Stress S Allow = 9200 psi 10 in. NOV . and Deflection on Deflections Vendor Butterfly Yoke. Accepted.
Single Freq. single Operability and Structural Axis Sine Beat Test integrity Verified, on Operator From 1-80 HZ.
>100 Equivalent Static S Max- = 26900 psi 197-6 1.1 0.30 3.00 3.00 = 30000 psi Analysis for Stress S Allow 12 in. MOV. and Deflection on Deflections Vendor Butterfly. Accepted.
Yoke.
Single Freq. Single Operability and Structural Axis Sine Beat Test Integrity Verified.
i- on Operator. From 2-100 HZ.
>100 Equivalent Static S Max = 29800 psi 197-7 0.24 2.1 3.00 3.00 S Allow = 30000 psi Ana lysis for Stress 18 in. NOV and Deflection on Deflections Vendor Butterfly Accepted.
Yoke.
15 of 28 2
f' p
-- g -- e --C . e == .. e i em L em 6 me-C L WeCC L aa 3 aa 3 aa - 3 an-- 3 4 & P= W d OO U OO U OOND U O O *= O U
- h 00 -3 C0 3 0000 3 Coen 3 i & NO L * @N b L . # r= Q Q L
- 30L. MV NOL MV NO P= P=O. O. MV 3m.. MU I NNOO Me
-L NMO Meo *NCO Me a V M .e. V M .e. - -
V# NNC D4 MNC Ub HHRH Vb HHHH Vb C& G C= m C- C- C-sc- > e' e
> mL e e 'e mL e
h a h> a h> > -> > ->
O e 9= C & C & O e
-e . O . -h .O . -h X- Ch X- Ch
-LU -V -w -V -d e- e- OW th -3e )4e -- )ee -- DE( ==Od ML
)E(
. em eUb X-ea e Un X-ea em . . 4 06
.J 3 Lp6 e--e 6e e--e 6e e-== 6e X ..- 6e e-ew M ew Z(bo ga E(bo ea g(bb eo E(bb W ade eU QC eU GC ee aC ee GC E 0 4/) > thMQ4 O- MMQ4 0- thMQO O- t/) M Q Q 0-e -
9 On m C C C -
e ea e -o e t/) p e MM d -e eC On W m W W W UeC me omo Ce USC se USC me e -60 =L -HE -60 hw -60 hWE C ud -CHE O Man to o da U MM U O
- E e t/) C Md6 eMC ML eMC C# e th C CML z & eeE & eeb O .M CLO M
M L .O- .e6 UCD L e
M L .O OM
=
- e6
.e UCD L M L ==
oa O
39O eco L t/) 6.O O4
- 3e can L
- UW06 OW
& e == dbo e O dbo e O abo e 6 Mbo e O 6( 6XM . . C e 6ed . C e 6ep . C e Le . C e 6eM .
00- 6(WLN me- 6CeN ed- WCeN me-
==b 6CLN en-6CeN
~LZ eOz --6 -LZ --b -6z -OI 06 O --
9' 9 H e
-- eO ewe.
>hQ -e tt) G aC ede.
-->hQG
-eMe a0 ewe. -meLO
-->hO e OMM eO ewe.
>hQ
-e th aC O meOO e
- Z .J UimdLO -- e meOO > mWOO Q M4 CCeGe 3eVX C= *= 3eV- C- e= 3eVX C-ee 3eVX C- e
= WD == Oat UCCO -XCI UCCe ~XCI UCCO -X40 FCCO -XCI W ZO M th CD O N W4e> t/) 4 O N W4m> t/) 4 O e W4e> t/> ( O *= W(e> th ( o w z
O O
=
CD N N I
( b a Ow O O WN O so O O EZ w 2 Os @ @
6= A A A @ e
M W
.J co
-(
t/) > O O O O
=E O.
OW O. O. O.
O
> M M M M
~
J O O O O
( O. O. O. O.
D O M M M M ME @
r=. r=.
= W . n.
O> O *= O O
.O O O. M. M. M.
.W E O N N N z
9 -
r .
Oh U z- # #, Ue -
(E 9 OD &
O >U PC aL zM -# -- -O CW e&
W 00 >
-O
>= >6n .#d O e 0#>
(> =h Ee Ea Ce en Oz
-W bg
-a
.b-80 C e 6 so-6 wELe wNO9 M
N=9e Cd O- I-W I aO3 INC) a CA WJ P= - d MedC 2 r= C - XNCO AO 043 3 O-Oe *= 0e 0-
' t/) W *= N a NOEE N '= CD > - *= N.tD C Nr 0-(- _ _
/ ;
e
- TABLE 3.9.4A-2 (CONT'D1 SPECIFICATION AND- REQ'D G'S QUAL'D C'S FREQ METHOD OF EQUlPMENT DESCRIPTION HQB. Y[RT HQS VERT -(HZ) QUAllFICATION RESULTS .
214-3 0.60 0.50 3.0 3.0 55 Static Analysis, Yoke S Max = 28900 psi' 1" Bonnetless S Allow = 29100 psi .
Globe Valve Deft. Max = .016 in.
Deft. Allow = 0.50 in. .
Single Axis / Single Demonstrated Structural. and Freq. Sine Beat, Ope ra t iona l I nteg ri ty 1-100 HZ, Ope ra to r
'235-1 0.60 0.70 2.00 2.00 >60 Equivalent Static S Max = 24100 psi Core Spray Loop . Analysis for Stress S Allow = 25600 psi Level Pump and Deflection. Deft. Max = 0.006 in.
Defl. Allov = 0.032 in.
238-1 0.90 0.44 1.20 0.65 17 Mu l t i-F req uency, Structional & Operationa l Carbon Dioxide System Multi-Axis Random Integrity Verified.
Electric Control Motion Test From 1-40 HZ.
240-1 0.91 0.40 0.96 0.40 39 Equivalent Static S Max = 37300 psi Cooling Fan & Analysis for Stress S Allow = 41000 psi St ructura l Support & Deflection. Deft. Max = 0.0034 in.
Deft. Allov = 0.050 in.
248-1 0.45 0.60 1.90 0.64 9 Multi-Frequency, Ope ra t iona l & St ructu ra l Tra ns fo rme r - Multi-Axis, Random Integrity Verified.
Eme rgency 120 Vo l t Motion Test From Pa ne l s 82 & R2 1-250 HZ.
248-2 0.45 0.30 1.9 0.64 18 Mu l t i- F reque ncy, St ructu ra l and Operationa l
. T rans fo rme rs Blaxial Testing, integrity Demonstrated 75, 25, and 50 KVA 1-250 HZ 253-1 6.4 2.7 3.74 3.22 (2) 78 Equivalent Static S Max = 23411 psi Bonnetiess Vertical Analysis for Stress S Allow = 26200 psi Globe Valve & Deflection on Yoke. Deft. Max = 0.0043 in.
Defl. Allow = 0.005 in.
Single Axis Single Ope ra t iona l and Structura l Frequency Sine Beat integrity Verified.
Test From 1-100 HZ.
253-2 2.6 0.8 3.00 3.00 90 Equivalent Static S Max = 17200 psi 1 1/2 in. Fo rged Analysis for Stress S Allow = 26200 psi Bonnetless Globe & Deflection on Yoke. Deft. Max = 0.0027 in.
Valve Defl. Allow = 0.005 in.
17 of 28
r e- .
TABLE 3.9.4A-2 (CAMI M SPECIFICATION AND REQ'D G'S QUAL'D G' S FREQ METHOD OF EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION HQB VERT HQB VERT (HZ) QUALIFICATION RESilLTS
' - Single Axis Single Operationa l and Structura l ,
Frequency Sine Beat Integrity Verified.
Test From 1-100 HZ. .
74 Equivalent Static S Max = 28800 psi 253-3 2.3 8.0 5.90 2.70 (2) S Allow = 32400 psi 1 in. Fo rged Analysis for Stress
& Deflection on Yoke. Defl. Max = 0.0036 in.
Bonnetless Vertical Defl. Allow = 0.005 in.
Globe Valve Single Axis Single Ope ra t iona l and Structural Frequency Sine Beat integrity Verified.
Test From 1-100 HZ.
3.0 - 3.0 175 Static Analysis, Yoke S Max = 13100 psi 253-4 2.8 2.7
. S Allow = 26300 psi 1 1/2" Forged = .002 inclined Bonnetless Deft. Max Globe Valve Deft. Allow = .050 Single Axis / Single Structura l and Operationa l Frequency Testing, Integrity Demonstrated 1-100 HZ, Ope ra to r S Max = 2550 psi 270-1 0.90 0.46 0.95 0.43 (1) 27 Equivalent Static Analysis for Stress S Allow = 5710 psi Computer Room, Relay Defl. Max = 0.0045 in.
Room, & Emergency & Deflection on Fan Swi tchgea r Room and Motor. Defl. Allow = 0.0189 in.
]
. Return Fans
>37 Equivalent Static S Max = 31100 psi 270-2 0.37 0.20 0.70 0.43 Analysis for Stress S Allow = 32000 psi Control Room & Deflection on Fan Deft. Max = 0.011 in.
i Chiller Equipment Room Deft. Allov = 0.062 in.
Exhaust Fans and Motor.
>105 Equivalent Static S Max = 14100 psi 270-3 0.30 0.19 0.70 0.43 Analysis for Stress S Allow = 24000 psi Battery Room Deft. Max = 0.00189 in.
Ventilation Fans & Deflection on Fan and Motor. Defl. Allow = 0.047 in.
20 Equivalent Static S Max = 20500 psi 270-4 0.90 0.46 0.95 0.46 Analysis for Stress S Allow = 32000 psi Diesel Generator Deft. Max = 0.0081 in, Room Supply Fans & Deflection on Fan and Motor. Deft. Allow = 0.0578 in.
18 of 28
TABLE 3.9.4A-2 (CONT'D)
SPECIFICATION AND REQ'D C'S ..' QUAL' D G' S FREQ METHOD OF VERT (HZ). QUALIFICATION RESULTS EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION li_B.
O Q VERT 110 8 15 Equivalent Static S Max = 23800 psi
- 270-5 0.90- 0.90 0.90 0.90-Analysis for Stress S Allow = 24000 psi Reactor Building = 0.0153 in.
Exhaust Fan & Deflection on Fan Deft. Max and Motor. Ders. Allow '= 0.0848 in.
270-6 1.10 0.50' O.95 0.43 (1) 27 Equiva lent Static ~ S Max = 16100 psi Analysis for Stress S Allow = 32000 psi Screenwel l Pump = 0.00f5 in, House Supply Fans- & Deflection on Fan Defl. Max 4 and Motor. Deft. Allow = 0.0189 in.
5 Equivalent Static Min. Factor of Safety 276-1 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Analysis for Stress = 1.026 Reactor Building Standby Vent System Cooling Coil Bank 5 Equivalent Static S Max = 15900 psi 276-2 . 1.20 0.70 1.20 0.70 S Allow = 16100 psi Reactor Building Analysis for Stress
& Deflection. Deft. Max = .00067 Standby Vent. System Deft. Allow = 0.28100 Unit Cooler 1.70 1.00 1.20 1.00 (1) 5 Equivalent Static Minumum Factor of i 276-3 Analysis for Stress Safety; Stress = 1.00 l Reactor Building Standby Vent System & Deflection Unit Cooler 0.90 0.90 1.20 0.90 5 Equivalent Static Minumum Factor of 276-4 Analysis for Stress Safety; Stress = 1.10 Reactor Building Motor Control Center & Deflection Room Unit Cooler 1.00 1.20 1.00 5 Equivalent Static Minumum Factor of '
276-5 .
0.90 Analysis for Stress Safety; Stress = 1.26 Reactor Building Standby Vent System & Deflection Un i t Coo l e r 1.30 0.80- 1.30 0.80 5 Equivalent Static Minumum Factor of 276-6 Ana lysis for Stress Safety; Stress = 1.07 Reactor Building Standby Vent System & Deflection Unit Cooler 1.30 0.80 1.30 1.00 5 Equivalent Static S Max = 1450 psi 276-7 Analysis for Stress S Allow = 10000 psi )
Unit Cooler & Deflection Deft. Max = 0.0010 in.
Defl. Allow = 0.0036 in.
19 of 28
e o' le; 1ABLE 3.9.4A-2 (CONT'D)
' SPECIFICATION AND REQ'D C'S QUAL'D C'S FREQ- METHOD OF EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION H98 VERT HQB VERT (NZ) QUALIFICATION REStlLTS Equivalent Static S Max = 29900 psi 281-1' 1.2 11.3 3.00 3.00 39 Analysis for Stress & S Allow = 70000 psi 10 in. 150 lb Bronze Butterfly Deflection on Yoke. Deft. Max = 0.0364 in.
Valves Deft. Allow = >>.0364 in. -
Single Frequency, Ope ra t iona l a nd St ructura l Single Axis Sine Best Integrity Verified.
Test f rom 1-80 HZ on Ope ra tor 289-1. 0.45 0.60 1.30 3.50 14 Multi Frequency Multi Ope ra t iona l k St ructu ra l Hydrogen Recombiner Axis Random Plus integrity Verified.
Power Panel Sine Beat Test From .
1.25-100 HZ 289-2 0.45 0.60 4.00 3.40 14 Multi Frequency Multi ope ra t iona l & St ructu ra l Hydrogen Recombiner Axis Randon Plus Integrity Verified.
Units Sine Beat Test From 1-100 HZ 0.52 0.32 2.50 1.70 6 Multi Frequency Multi Operational & Structural 289-3 Axis Randon Plus Integrity Verified.
Hydrogen Recombiner Cont rol Panel Sine Best Test From 1-100 HZ 3.00 3.00 25 Equivalent Static S Max = 7990 psi 310-1 .
2.3 0.7 Analysis for Stress S Allow = 10500 psi Electric Motor Operated Control on Valve Yoke. (3)
Valves Single Frequency, Operationa l and Structura l Single Axis Sine Dwell integrity Verified Test, Operator, 2-60 HZ 310-2 ~ 2. 3 1.0 3.00 3.60 25 Equivalent Static S Max = 7922 psi Analysis for Stress S Allow =10500 psi Electric Motor Operated Control on Valve Yoke.
. Valves Single Frequency, Operational and Structural Single Axis Sine Dwell Integrity Verified.
Test for operability and Actuator, 2-60 HZ 20 of 28
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ __ ~
-g - .,
TABLE 3.9.4A-2 (CONT'D)
' SPECIFICATION AND REQ'D G'S QUAL' D G' S FREQ METHOD OF (HZ) QUALIFICATION RESULTS.
EQUI PMENT DESCRI PTION HQB VERT M98 VERT 40 Equivalent Static S Max = 4000 psi 310-3 1.5 0.8 3.00 3.00 S Allow = 18900 psi Electric Motor Analysis for Stress
- Ope ra ted Cont ro l on Valve Yoke '
. Valves Yoke
- Single Frequency Operational and Structura l Single Axis Sine Integrity Verified.
Dwell Test, Ope ra to r, 2-60 HZ.
>60 Static Analysis for S Max = 11400 psi 318-1 6.9 3.0 6.90 3.00 = 21200 psi Ai r Operated Stress and Deflection S Allow on Yoke. Deft. Max = 0.0047 Valve Defl. Allov = 0.151 Single Frequency, Structural and Operational Single Axis Test From Integrity Verified.
3-100 HZ on Solenoid Valve.
1.9 3.00 3.00 33 Static Analysis for S man = 20400 psi 318-2 2.6 Stress & Deflection S Aliow = 26200 psi Pressure Control on Yoke. Deft. Max = 0.028 in.
Valve Defl. Allow = 0.111 in.
S i ng i ., .' requency, Structural and Operationa l Single Axis Test From Integrity Verified.
3-100 HZ on Solenoid Valve.
51 Static Analysis for S Max = 14900 psi 318-3 2.50 1.50 3.00 3.00 S Allov = 26200 psi 6 in. Class 150 Stress and Deflection on Valve Yoke. Deft. Max = 0.0228 in.
Ai r Operated Va lve Defl. Allow = 0.111 in.
Single Frequency, St ructu ra l and Operationa l Single Axis Test From Integrity Verified.
1-133 HZ on Solenoid Valve.
21 of 28
3
. l . l . l l iin. a iin. a iin. a a ssin r ssin r ssin r r pp i u pp i u pp i u 1 u 5 t 5 t 1 t 0 t 0011 c 0011 c 0021 c c 0021 7501 57 u.
r td 0021 4201 06 .
u.
r td 0003 6501 67 .
u r.
td 1
=
u.
r td 1100 Se 2200 Se 2300 Se Se i i i y i
==== df ni
= === df ni
= === df ni t
e df ni a r ar are f ar e e a e w lV v lV vo alV S lV o any o any ny f a
ny xl xl xl al ot al ot al iiot o ot S wMA wMA ii wMA ii o..
ii T tr tr tr r tr L xl ag xlo.. ag xlo.. ag o ag U allt re alll re altt re t re S MAffeeet MAff et MAff et c et pn E pn ee pn ee pn a R SSDD OI SSDD Oi SSDD Oi F OI e m e e . m o
v o v v e sl rd sl sl sk rd sa Fi sa sa so Fi ceV o ceV ,
ceV ceY o ir ytn ir yt ir yt ir ytn ttn cse ttn csn. ttn csn. ttn cse nel aSo nel aSo neoe aSo neoe aSo N t eTo t eT v t eT v t eTo O Srn u S Srn u Zl Srn u Zl Srn u S I
oo qs oo qsHa oo qsHa oo qs T tfi ein tfi ei V tfi ei V tfi ein FA n t rxo n t rx0 n t rx0 n t rxo OC esc FA esc FA4d esc FA4d esc FA I li e Z li e - i li e i lie Z DF n ilvyf leeH e.
asl eeH . asl ee1 o asl ee1o asl Ol vyf . ll e vyf . ll n vyf ll l 1
Hl il ee gg0v il ee ggme il e ggme e gg0v D TA uaDk nn4l uaDk nnol uaD qn nnol uaD nn4l ro qn EU qn o ii a qn o iiro ii ii a
'T MQ EA&Y SS1V EA&Y SSFS EA& SSFS EA& SS1V N
O C
(
8 2 2 A f 4 Q) 0 o EZ 0 9 RH 3 5 1 3 2 Ff 5 3 > 5 2 3
E L ) )
B 1 ' 1 A ( (
T ST 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0
'G E V 3 3 3 3 D
'L 0 0 0 0 AB 2 2 2 2 UO QH 4 4 4 4 T 0 0 SR 0 7 0 7 E
'G V 2 1 3 3 D
0 0
'Q EO E 2 3 0 8 RH 5 2 3 6 N
.O
. I T
DP NI AR .
C s s NS e e e e OE dv dv dv dv ID el el el el T ta ta ta ta AT aV r aV r aV aV CN r r IE el el el el FM po po po po IP 4Or 5Or 6Or 7Or CI - t - t - t - t EU 8rn 8rn 8rn 8rn
- PQ 1i o 1io 1io 1i o SE 3Ac 3Ac 3AC 3Ac C
g
O -7 0: '. e '
TABLE 3.9.4A-2'fCONT'D1 SPECIFICATION AND REQ'D G'S ' QUAL' D G' S FREQ METHOD OF VERT . (HZ)' QUALIFICATION' RESULTS EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION 119 8 -VERT HQB
.319-1 0.80 0.60 0.75 0.51 (1) 27 Equivalent Static Stress Factor of
- Vo l ume ~ Cont ro l -- Analysis for Stress k Safety 3.2
. Dampers Deflection on Damper. Defl. Max = 0.059 in.
Deft. Allow . =0.111 in.
Multi F requency Ope ra t iona l a nd St ructu ra l Multi Axis Random Integrity Verified.
Motion Test from 1-250 HZ on Actuator.
1.50 2.00 1.50 21 Equivalent Static Stress Factor of 319-2 . _ . 2.00 Analysis for Stress & Safety >3.9 Volume Control Derf ection on Damper.
Dampers Mutti Frequency Ope ra t iona i and St ructu ra i Multi Axis Random Integrity Verified.
Motion Test From 1-250 HZ on Actuator.
0.50 0.34 5.0 7.0 24 Instruments by Multi- Ope ra t iona l and structura l 319-3 Frequency Multi Axis integrity Verified.
, Control Panels Random Motion Test from 1-250-HZ.
Static Stress Analysis S Max = 8465 psi of Panel with S Allow = 32,400 psi Frequencies Verified by Test.
0.52 0.32 0.75 0.51 33 Dampers by Equivalent Stress Factor of 319-4 Static Analysis for Safety > 2.8 Volume Control Stress & Deflection. Defl. Max. = 0.073 in.
Dampe rs k ' = 0.100 in.
Instruments Defl. Allow Instruments by Multi Ope ra t i ona l and Structural Frequency Multi Axis integrity Verified.
Random Motion Test From 1-250 HZ.
23 of 28
..- 3 g Mo TABLE 3.9.4A-2 (CONT'D1 SPECIFICATION AND REQ'D C'S QUAL'D C'S FREQ METHOD OF QUALIFICATION RESULTS EQU I PMEIIT DESCR I PT ION M- VERT M y1RT (HZ1 ,.
O.67 0.78 0.75 0.51-(1) 24 Dampers by Equivalent Stress Factor of 319-5' Static Analysis for Safety >3.3
' Volume Control -'
Dampers & Stress & Deflection. Defl. Max = 0.059 in.
Defl. Allow ' = 0.111-in. ,
Instruments instruments by Multi ope ra tiona l and St.ructura l Frequency Multi Axis intt grity Verified.
t)
Randon Motion Test From 1-250 HZ.
0.60 0.40 1.40 1.00- 6 Multi-Frequency Ope ra t iona l & St ruc tu ra l 332 MuttI-Axis Random Integrity Verified.
A ControI PaneI Motion Test From
& Four Digital Radiation Monitors 1-100 HZ.
0.40 10.0- 10.0 18 Mul t i-Frequency Opera tiona l & St ructura l 344-1 .
'1.00 Multi-Axis Random Integrity Verified.
Drywell Gas Monitor.
Motion Test From 1-40 HZ on Instru-monts and 1-100 HZ on Panel.
29 Equivalent Static S Max = 11100 psi 344 .82 0.41 0.90 0.90 Analysis for Stress on S Allow = 22000 psi Primary Containment Panei.
Gas Ana1yzer Remoto
. Control Panel Multi Frequency, Ope ra t iona l and Structural Blaxial Test From Integrity Verified.
1-40 HZ on Instruments.
2.20 1.00 3.00 3.00 50 Single Frequency, Operational & Structural 348-1 Single Axis Sine integrity Verified.
Pressure Temperature Switch Dwell Test From 1-32 HZ.
,348-2 1.95 1.95 3.00 3.00 >50 Single Frequency Ope ra t iona l & St ructu ra l Single Axis Sine Integrity Verified.
Pressure Temperature Dwell Test From Switch 1-32 HZ.
>35 Single Frequency Operationa l & Structura l
'406-1 1.95 1.95 6.00 6.00 Single Axis Sine Integrity Veri fied.
Resistance Temperature Detecto rs Sweep From 1-35 HZ.
24 of 28
(-
.o o-
-1ABLE 3.9.4A-2 (CONT'D1 SPECIFICATION AND REQ'D G'S QUAL'D G' S FREQ METHOD OF EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION VERT HQB VERT (NZ) QUAllFICATION RESULTS ILO3 ..
406-2 1.95 1.95 17.00 17.00 N.A. Multi Frequency operationa l & Structura l Electronic Multi Axis Random integrity Verified.
Transmi tters Motion Test from .
1-250 Hz. .
20 Multi Frequency Operational & Structural 406-3 1.95 1.95 8.50 8.50 Pressure Multi Axis Random Integrity Verified.
T ransmi tte r Motion Test From 1-250 Hz, 406-4 1.2 0.60 2.8 2.5 N.A. Multi F requency Ope ra t iona l & St ruc tu ra l Blaxial Testing, Integrity Demonstrated Resistance Temperature Detector 1-100 Hz 60 Single Frequency, St ructu ra l and Operationa l 406-5 1.5 .6 15. 15.
Integrity Demonstrated.
Trip Calibration Single Axis Test, Units (NSSS) 5-33 HZ.
9.40 7.50 >100 Multi Axis Operational & Structural 406-6 0.5 0.5 Multi Frequency Integrity Demonstrated Pressure T ransmi tte rs Random Motion Test (MSSS)
From 1-60 HZ.
0.60 3.0 3.0 60 Multi Frequency Operational & Structural 406A-1 1.0 Blaxial Testing, Integrity Demonstrated Resistance Temperature Detectors 1-100 Hz 407-1 0.51 0.41 2.80 1.10 17 Multi Frequency Ope ra t i ona l & Structura l Gauge Type Level Multi Axis Random integrity Verified.
Switch Motion Test From 1-250 Hz.
407-2 Multi F requency operationa l & Structura l 1.00 0.45 2.80 1.10 17 Gauge Type Level Multi Axis Random Integrity Verified.
Switch Motion Test From 1-40 Hz.
1.10 0.50 6.50 1.05 13 Equivalent Static S Max = 7550 psi 420-1 Analysis for Stress S Allow = 15000 psi Diesel Fuel Oil Deft. Max = 0.00186 in.
Transfer Pumps & Deflection Defl. Allow = 0.015 in.
.75 .60 6.0 6.0 38 Multi Frequency Biaxia l Operability and Structural 421-1 Testing, 1-100 HZ. Integrity Demonstrated.
Power Supply (NSSS) 25 of 28
.o ;u TABLE 3.9.4A-2 (CONT'D)
SPECIFICATION AND REQ' D C' S QUAL'D G'S FREQ METHOD OF .
VERT (NZ) QUALIFICATION RESULTS EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION 110 8 VERT !!OH ,
23 Equivalent Static S Max = 56300 psi 423-1 0.8 0.7 3.00 3.00 S Allow = 82800 ps!
Reactor Sullding Analysis for Stress +
Standby Vent System. & Deflections on Deflections Vendor Valve. App roved. .
& Control Room A.C.
Chilled Water & Service Single Frequency Ope ra t iona l & Structura l Water Air Operated integrity Verified.
Single Axis Valves Sine Dwell Test From 1-33 HZ on Solenoid.
22 Equivalent Static S Max = 81900 psi 423-2 1.8 1.1 3.00 3.00 S Allow = 82800 psi Temperature Control Analysis for Stress
& Deflections on Deflections Vendor Valves Valve. App roved .
Single Frequency Operational and Structural Single Axis Sine Dwell Integrity Verified.
Test From 1-33 HZ on Solenoid.
21 Equivalent Static S Max = 84400 psi 423-3 1.9 2.3 3.00 3.00 Analysis for Stress S Allow =~85000 psi Temperature Control Deflections Vendor Valves & Deflections on Valve. App roved.
Single Frequency Ope ra t iona l and Structura l Single Axis Sine Dwell Integrity Verified.
Test From 1-33 HZ on Solenold.
Loads by Dynamic Analysis Equivalent Static S Max = 97200 psi 427-1 With Time History. 0.5 g's Analysis for Stress S Allow = 106500 psi Spent Fuel and Control Rod Storage Used for Vertical Seismic.
Racks 1.30 13 Multi Frequency Operational & Structural 438-1 0.50 0.80 1.30
. Automatic Transfer Multi Axis Random Integrity Verified Switch Motion Test From 1-90 HZ.
1.20 0.90 1.20 1.00 27 Equivalent Static S Max = 5990 psi 439-1 Analysis for Stress S Allow = 10000 psi 480 V. Motor & Deflection. Defl. Max = 0.009 in.
Generator Sets De fl . Al low = 0.047 in.
26 of 28
O' ~.O TABLE 3.9.4A-2 (CONT'D)
' SPECIFICATION AND REQ'D G'S QUAL' D G' S FREQ METHOD OF .
EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTIOW VERT liQB VERT fHZ1 QUALIFICATION RESULTS ,
119 8 447-1 Loads From S&W = 23000 psi Main Steam Specification SH1-447 N.A. Static Analysis S Max
- for Stress S Allow = 23400 psi Roller Valve Quencher ,
1.30 .65 10. 13. 26 Multi Frequency Structural and Operational 456-1 .
Blaxial Testing, Integrity Verified.
Electrical Penetrations (Conax) 1-200 HZ.
0.24 0.40 7.5 7.2 14 Multi-Frequency Biaxial Structural and operational 473-1 Testing, 1-200 Hz Integrity Demonstrated Level Transmitters and Receivers 0.60 0.60 4.00 4.00 4 Multi Frequency Operational & Structural 475-1 Single Axis Random Integrity Verified Digital Radiation Plus Sine Beat Test Mon i to ri ng from 1-100 HZ.
Equipment 0.60 0.60 6.00 6.00 19 Multi Frequency operational & Structural 475-2 Single Axis Random integrity Verified Microcomputer Panel Motion Test From 1-100 HZ.
0.70 10.0 9.0 >100 Multi-Frequency Blaxial Structural and Operational 475-3 2.3 Testing, 1-200 Hz Integrity Verified High Range Area Detector Test Awaiting Test Report 475-4 - - - - - from Vendor Radiation Monitor-Inst rumenta t ion .
2.5 2.5 10.0 10.0 >100 Single Axis, Single Operationa l & Structura l 492-1 Frequency Sine Dwell integrity Demonstrated Pressure Reducing Valve Testing, 1-100 Hz.
3.5 3.5 7.5 >100 Single Axis, Single Operational & Structural 493-1 7.5 Frequency Sine Dwell integrity Demonstrated Floor Controller Testing, 1-100 Hz.
600-1 1.50 1.30 3.00 3.00 >105 Equivalent Static S Max = 25400 psi Analysis for Stress S Allow = 30000 psi Solenoid & Deflection. Derlections Acceptable ope ra ted Valves 27 of 28
(;;- - - - -
n Q =O' TABLE.3.9'.4AE2 (CONT'D) r
~ SPECIFICATION AND REQ'D G'S QUAL'D G'S FREQ METHOD OF EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION M Y1BI M VERT (HZ) QUALIFICATION RESULTS 4
5 I
8 totes (1) Stress and greater deflection than qualifiedmar G' gin s, adequate to account for required G's (2) Needs resolution (3) Deflections are calculated only if they affect operability. ,
i 28 of 28 i
j 9
N
~
L:.:.. .,.rM58 g C49'M 19182)
VIRGINIA ELecTnic Axn Powen COMPANY .~~
Rzen>toxn,T,tuoixtA 23261
, ' Ox J. J , ~
.;jr
.V
'/
y%
- w. L. srzwar C'
y scE"..S",'al'Eo . June 27, 1983 ]* yy 3 g gg ;.,my m
n ::^ u :te
& t- e v t.ss.
V- va. r. '
Qi 1 9 \ , 7 Secretary of the Commission
- Serial No. 374 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission N0/JHL/HSM:acm Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D. C. 20555 Gentlemen:
COMMENTS TO PROPOSED REGULATION 10 CFR PART 53 The Virginia Electric and Power Company is pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the proposed rules for the Criteria and Procedures for Determining the Adequacy of Available Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Capacity (10 CFR Part 53) as described in the Federal Register of April 29, 1983 (48FR19382).
Attachment 1 provides Vepco's comments to the proposed regulation 10 CFR Part
- 53. -
Very truly yours, l V W. L. Stewart [
Attachment mO 35 /6 ggg d).Q'. duwt.c?u ll86 SS 8307050117 830630 /I PDR PR 53 48FR19382 PDR ED'" I" - - - -I. .
..........n>3
v
. Attachment 1
- 1. Section 53.11; we take exception to the proposed requirement that a utlity wait until two (2) years prior to the date it anticipates losing full core reserve before filing a request for determination.
If a utility determines that it will lose full core discharge in more than two (2) years and can demonstrate that there are no reasonable alternatives available, there is no reason not to file a request for determination. The two (2) year time frame appears to be arbitrary and is not conducive to proper utility or DOE (should the NRC make an affirmative determination) planning for the storage of spent nuclear fuel.
- 2. Section 53.13(a); Section 53.13(a) requests information on " technical, economic, regulatory or public health and safety constraints that would prevent the use of any of the alternatives set forth in para-graph (c) of the section." We suggest the word " prevent" be removed and substitute " render unreasonable or impracticable" as some things such as high costs or radiative exposure would not prevent the use of an alternative but would render it an unreasonable or impracticable choice.
- 3. Section 53.13(c)(5); We would like to suggest that you chcage
" approved" to " licensed".
- 4. Section 53.15; We do not agree with the restrictive conditions re-garding the withdrawal of a request for determination. We suggest that the utility should be able to unilaterially withdraw its request at any time.
- 5. Section 53.30(a)(7); We suggest the following revision: Legal impediments to the implementation of an alternative, such as state and local laws, actions of state.and local administrative or regulatory bodies, or pre-existing contractural agreements, that cannot be alleviated in a timely manner.
- 6. Section 53.30(d); We suggest deleting the word " timely" and sub-substituting " good faith" to describe the " efforts to initiate activities reasonably calculated to implement licensed alternatives to Federal interim storage." While a utility should be required to demonstrate diligent and good faith efforts, such efforts may simply be untimely through no fault of the utility.
- 7. Section 53.30(d)(1) and (3); We suggest that " approved" alternatives be deleted and substitute " licensed" alternatives.
e
4 4
- 8. Section 53.27; We suggest that the determination of eligibility for federal interim storage include the concept that a utility may be diligently pursuing licensed alternatives to federal interim storage which have uncertainties on the schedule for implementation.
For example, licensing actions by the NRC, court decisions, or other approvals beyond the control of the utility may be required prior to implementation of an alternative to federal interim storage.
The Commission should be able to find that a utility is eligible for federal interim storage until another alternative becomes available.
The utility would then have access to federal interim storage until an alternative can be implemented, as long as the utility continues to make diligent, good faith efforts to implement the alternative.
4 9
em O
O
-50
/q
/gs"O GWL /9322)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COM PANY
/eff4C4!/a%rbol
. . 175 EAST OLD COU NTRY HOAD H IC K SVI L L E. NEW YORK 11801 j SilRC-906 MILLARD S. POLLOCR vict **tsetNT- NucLean June 17, 1963 -
i' &s c
p .i ' L/.y.z\
Secretary of the Commission if ~
U. S. tiuclear Regulatory Commission 3 y ' 3 g.33 ~.' --
Washington, D.C. 20555 g '
en:e d :h %
m 1
Attention: Docketing and Services Branch c. ev & Sir.
Docket tio. 50-322 p 9 g'm,p"
Dear Sir:
On April 29, 1983, the Commission published proposed rules on
" Criteria and Procedures for Determining the Adequacy of Available Spent tiuclear Fuel Storage Capacity." The Long Island Lighting Company has re-viewed these proposed rules and offers the following comments for your consideration.
s53.11(b) requires that a person submitting a request for Commission determination, file no sooner than two years prior to an-ticipated loss of full core reserve and no later than June 30, 1989.
These time limitations create a situation whereby anyone losing full core reserve after June 30, 1991 is precluded from entering into a contract with DOE regardless of whether or not a demonstration of need can be made.
Although the lluclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established timing limitations on the interim storage of spent fuel by DOE (DOE can enter into contracts no later than January 1, 1990, and all fuel must be removed no later than three years after startup of a disposal facility), there is no indication that Congress intended to preclude all reactors that lose full core discharge capability after June 30, 1991 from entering into a storage contract with DOE.
Circumstances could exist whereby a valid demonstration of need could be made with more than two years lead time. It is inappropriate to rule out the opportunity to make such a demonstration for those utilities that lose full core discharge after June 30, 1991. Therefore, the require-
^ ment of filing no earlier than two years prior to loss of full core reserve l should be removed from the rule. l
_ b- l b [( db ' l
-)i (smw, I130.53 l NO 4/kf3 n;)
LONG ICLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Secretary of the Commission June 17, 1983 l Page Two 1 Thank you for the opportunity of making our views known on this matter.
Sincerely yours,
/)
fr,' . ) ', < . /'.<.:n M. S. Pollock Vice President-fluclear cc: 3. Higgins All parties listed in Attachment 1 4
O s
?
)
~
1 ATTACHMENT 1 1
( Lawrence Brenner, Esq. Herbert H. Brown,. Esq. i Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.,
Board Panel Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Christopher & Phillips Washington, D.C. 20555 8th Floor 1900 M Street, N.W. '
Washington, D.C. 20036 Dr. Peter A. Morris Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Marc W. Goldsmith Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Energy Research Group Washington, D.C. 20555 4001 Totten Pond Road Waltham, Massachusetts 02154
~
Dr. James H. Carpenter Administrative Judge MHB Technical Associates Atomic Safety and Licensin9 1723 Hamilton Avenue -
Board Panel Suite K San Jose, California 95125 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
('. -
Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Daniel F. Brown, Esq. Twomey, Latham & Shea Attorney 33 West Second Street Atomic Safety and Licensing P.O. Box 398 Board Panel Riverhead, New York 11901 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.
Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. 9 East 40th Street David A. Repka, Esq.
New York, New York 10016 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.
James Dougherty State of New York 3045 Porter Street Department.of Public Service
. Washington, D.C. 20008 Three Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 l
l l
]
e ..
4
... I DOCKET (P.':.*02k CR0 POSED F.ULE consumen Power (4fAE/MD) o.u ., v. .-.
Nuclear Licensing Administrator i
General Offices: 1945 West Pernall Road, Jackson, MI 49201 * (517) 788-1636 g-ecc.rd .
1 June 28, 1983 4 W 's I- . g 3 jut 1301983 >
g- %
C:!tte et the S*C. I pmerce & $8f.
Secretary of the Commission c; Cra84 Att: Docketing and Service Branch E U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4 G Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Proposed Rule - Criteria and Procedures for Determining the Adequacy of Available Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Capacity (10CFR53)
Consumers Power Company appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above proposed rule. Our comments are discussed below:
~
First, we are concerned with the lack of specificity of proposed criteria for a co= mission determination regarding the adequacy of storage capacity to ensure continued orderly operation of a facility. Specifically, the terms and phrases, as noted in the following subparagraphs of Section 53.30(a) should be better defined:
Subparagraph (1) Suitability of the site (2) Licensee's diligent and good faith efforts (3) Timely manner (h) Excessive reduction in code design (5) Extraordinary costs (6) Licensee's diligent and good faith efforts (7) Timely manner (8) Clearly unreasonable Second, the second sentence of Section 53.ll(b) should be deleted or revised.
As it presently reads, it limits the submission for a determination to no sooner than two years prior to loss of full core reserve. This limitation, combined with the June 30, 1989 deadline for such a submission, prevents a
, utility from obtaining interim storage if full core reserve is lost after July 1, 1991. In addition, the two-year limitation may prevent a utility from obtaining interim storage in the event of an emergency such as a need to drain the spent fuel pool to repair a leak.
David d a/A _
andeWalle Nuclear Licensing Administrator
.DJV 83-67 !
(Ldd; -). i 0W"Ld1' J l/30 M , Glr.pfp3..
/^
P Groundwater Alliance Pox 4090
~'
, g Ketchud, Idaho 83340 9WeM3rg. .
/ 'v; x~ N .-
Secretary of the Commission; C ..' -U .r,g , -
jllt, .-
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission b ~.i
,\ ,se /
Washington D.C. 20555 {Wi ~5h. -
Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Comments on proposed 10 CFR Part 53, Criteria and Procedures for Determining the Adequacy of Available Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Capacity Section 53 30(d) which requires the utility to demonstrate thai; it has made" diligent and good faith efforts" to provide alternatives to federal AFR storage is inadequate. There is a need for specific criteria to be laid out which must then be met by the utility as proof that they are making diligent efforts. As the rule now reads the Commission has total descretion is deciding whether a utility has made a diligent effort or not. There is no way to insure consistency in the decision making in regards to allowing a utility the use of federal AFR storage. There is also no way for the public to eva'luate {
the utility's need for federal AFR storage or their efforts to provide alternativec We support the criteria proposed by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Section 53 30(a)(3) should be eliminated.
1 Section- 53 13 needs to be revised. It sounds as if the
_,. Commission is limiting a utility's alternatives for storage to the four statutory categories and any other technologies approved by the Commission.
The utility must be required to pursue all reasonable promising and feasible alternatives to federal AFR storage whether,the, Commission has ever heard of them or not. M ' I 3. - s Of special concern to us here in Idaho is the total lack of public participation in the decision making process. We have a right for our opinions to be heard when a utility requests a determination on federal AFR storage. We will be greatly affected by the Commission's decisions becaus'e the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory will be the likely site for a federal AFR storage facility. There will be a large k \ b - 4.h 0 MW.hG , l l Bd SS fhpp-_
ln i,1= :L:-
l' ..
' Groundwater Alliance
.page 2 .
increase in the' amount of nuclear materials transported into Idaho, and there will be an ever increasing threat to our environment, .
especially the Snake River Plain Aquifer which flows beneath INEL.
The Commission should allow public comment on all utility requests
'for federal ~AFR storage and provide the public with all of the available information.
Section-135(b) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 1982 is intended to allow for federal AFR storage as.a last resort. The proposed rules do not set up adeg. ate criteria to insure that the intention of the Act is carried out. The Commission must do all it can to insure that there will never be a need for federal AFR storage.
. Additionally, the Groundwater Alliance is opposed to any civilian-nuclear power. plant spent fuel being stored at the Idaho
- National Engineering Laboratory.
Elizabeth Paul for The Groundwater Alliance 90 t .
I O
9 l
1.. ;
- - - - _ __ -_ . _ . _ - _ - - - ___ = - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ - _ . . . . -
-a l
V n. * .
v0CK[T in).r.*3itt j
- RC?O::iD ,m ~~hh jf l uw omces or DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN inoo sevrwtcrwvw stater. w.w 8 wAs wiwovoN. D. C. R oo36 ge < TctrPuont (aoa) est-esoo
.G'. s.
-l I/ 20 June 28, 1983
[e', g, . ' 7, f c.;fn. r.. **
MQQC.y p/
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk al -
Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Res Proposed 10 C.F.R. Part 53; Adequacy of Spent Fuel Storage Capacity; 48 Fed. Reg. 19832 (April 29, 1983).
Dear Mr. Chilk:
On April 29, 1983, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission pub-lished in the Federal Register proposed rules to establish criteria and procedures for determining the eligibility of a person owning and operating a licensed nuclear power plant to contract with the Department of Energy for use of "last resort" federal government spent nuclear fuel storage pursuant-to Section 135 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Essentially, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act provides for limited federal government storage capacity for those licensees who, despite their best e f fo rts , are unable to expand their own storage capacity in a timely manner so as to permit continued orderly operation. On behalf of Arkansas Power and Light Co., Texas Utilities Gener-ating Company, and Washington Public Power Supply System, we submit the following comments on these proposed rules.
In summary, the proposed rules reflect the Commission's generic finding that full core reserve capacity, while not essential for safety purposes and not a regulatory requirement, is necessary for continued orderly reactor operation from an economic and operational standpoint. Generally, for multi-unit sites, full core reserve for one unit would he assumed to suffice unless the licensee establishes otherwise. The regulations would provide that a licensee which anticipates that its own storage capacity will not be' adequate (including full core reserve) for its' own needs pending the selection and development of geologic repositories must, before July 1, 1990 (but not sooner than two years before anticipated loss of full core reserve or the effec-tive date of the rule, whichever is earlier), file a request with NRC for a determination of inadequacy under the proposed Part 53.
As to procedural matters, proposed Part 53 determinations of in-adequacy would not be considered subject to the hearing require-ments of Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
13 5 /d fuld ; d. V 61nuw, Il 36 SS A:..
,............./[0
. _. . _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ __...- _ _ ___ - .- ~ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
I The Commission will determines (1) whether the licensee cannot reasonably provide adequate i spent fuel storage capacity on-site,or at another site within its utility system-({50.27(a)(1)) through des-cribed methods (in $53.27(a)(2)), consider whether fu l core reserve will be maintained ($50.30(b)) and whether ,
economic, technological, regulatory, and possible >
health and safety factors would make any alternative j to Federal interim storage impractical ({50.30(d));
(2) whether the licensee is " diligently pursuing licensed
- alternatives to the use of federal storage capacity" j (((50.27(a)(2) and 50.30(d));
. _ As to the second consideration, proposed $53.13(c) would 1 : provide for the licensee to submit information on its pursuit of, i and the constraints on its timely use of, (1) expansion of stor-
[ age capacity including high density racks and fuel rod compac-j tioni (2) construction of additional spent fuel capacity, (3) j acquisition of modular or mobile spent nuclear fuel storage equipment,.for use at the site or any of its other sitest (4) transshipment to any.of its other sites, or (5) "[a3ny other technologies that have been approved by the Commission". This wording tracks Subsection 135(g) of the Waste Policy Act re-garding criteria for the eligibility determination if considered in isolation. The provision governing determinations specifies
.the first four of these { {50.27(a)(2)), thus paralleling the provisions of the Waste Policy Act on determinations, subsection 135(b)(1)(B).
We believe that Subsections 135(b) and 135(g) must be read together to harmonize the regulations with the legis-1ative intent. We are concerned that the " catch all" reference l' in.{50.13(c)(5) to "[a]ny other technologies that have been-4 approved by the Commission", fails to give effect to the concept of_" licensed alternatives" contained in Subsection 135(b)(1)(B).
. If _ there emerges some other new technology which licensees must j consider for this purpose, it should be one actually licensed by
- i. the_ Commission some reasonable period of time prior to the application for an eligibility determination. That is, if a
- utility, to be eligible for AFR storage, is to be held account-able at the . time aof the determination for. exploration or attempted exploitation of some presently unspecified technology, '
then the licensing of that technology for at least one previous-application should predate the filing-under Part 53 by a suitable interval -- at least three, years.- otherwise, the utility will (not be;able to plan its' actions and evaluate alternatives in an orderly;wayLnor predict'whether it will be able to satisfy the
_ eligibility' criteria.--Thus, if the " catch all" provision is to be retained, Tit shouldLbe-revised as we_have proposed.
4
)
1 4
l Similarly, as to whether the licensee is diligently pursuing licensed alternatives, the proposed rule indicates, in II53.13(c) and 50.27(a)(2)(iii) that such alternatives may include acqui-sition of modular or mobile spent nuclear fuel storage equipment, or casks. The same reasoning applies here as to the " catch-all" provision. In this regard, we believe that the Commission should promulgate at an appropriate place in its regulations, perhaps in Part 50 or Part 72, reasonable criteria for the approval of mobile or modular storage devices to supplement existing criteria for shipping casks or ISFSI's. Once such modular or mobile storage devices have been licensed, then subsequent applications would, after a three-year period, have to reflect consideration of this previously-licensed alternative.
~
As to the maintenance of full core discharge capability, we, of course, agree that the maintenance of such capability is not a safety essential and should not be a regulatory requirement, but also agree that for economic and operational reasons full core discharge capability is desirable. The Commission's determin-ation in this regard is consistent with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and its legislative history. However, 50.12(c)(5)(ii) appears to be inconsistent with this determination and should be deleted as should the words "under the following conditions" in 50.12(c)(5); the present text of $50.12(c)(5)(i) should be added to Subsection (c)(5).
With certain improvements, we would be generally satisfied with the specification of the contents of applications and the related illustrative considerations specified in .the proposed rule which would be recognized as tending to make the exploi-tation of measures to increase a licensee's storage capacity impractical, viz: (1) site suitability, (2) inability to meet NRC regulatory requirements due to factors beyond the licensee's control despite diligent and good faith efforts by the licensee, (3) inability to obtain storage or shipping equipment in a timely manner, (4) modifications that would result in excessive reduc-tion of design margins, (5) extraordinary costs of implemen-tation, (6) unforeseen or unavoidable delays, (7) legal impedi-ments such as state and local laws, and (8) occupational or offsite doses or on-site construction hazards.
Our first group of comments relate to proposed $50.30(a)
(setting forth criteria for determinations) or $50.13 (pertaining to the contents of a request) or both. Subsection 50.13(a) calls for information on factors that would " prevent" exploitation of alternatives. The legislative intent was to provide "last resort" storage where licensed alternatives are clearly unrea-sonable, and that concept should be substituted for the concept of prevention or preclusion. Subsection 50.13(a) refers to
" extraordinary costs to consumers." Subsection 50.30(a)(5) states that the Commission will consider
" Extraordinary _ costs of implementation that are clearly unreasonable in view of the amount of additional storage capacity needed or the time for which additional storage capacity is needed."
At the outset, the word " extraordinary" should be deleted in both places. The legislative intent would be satisfied if the
" clearly unreasonable" standard were retained in {50.30(a)(5) and substituted in $50.13(a). Moreover, $50.35(a) implies that the Commission will require information on: the amount of additional capacity needed and the unit costs of providing such capacity; the time for Which the capacity is needed and the period for recovery of such costs; and perhaps comparative information on what'would be. reasonable under the circumstances, though the cost of government storage would presumably be the standard. However, proposed $50.13 does not specifically call for information on any of these factors. The language of $50.30(a)(5) also implies.that the reasonableness of cost is relevant only When relatively small increments of capacity are needed or capacity is needed for a limited time, or both, When there may good reason to provide lower cost' storage for substantial quantities for longer periods.
We suggest-that $50.30(a)(5) be revised to read as follows:
(5) Costs of implementation Which have been persuasively shown by the licensee to be unreasonable because of the unit costs of adding capacity or the period for which storage is required compared with the costs of interim storage over the same period for the same capacity pursuant to Subtitle B of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
Consequently, proposed $50.13 should be amended to invite licensees to include any information in addition to that speci-fied which is relevant to any of the criteria in $50.30(a) or the determination to be made under $50.27. This would have the effect of harmonizing these sections in at least one other respect. Subsection 50.30(a)(1) refers to site suitability, in-cluding structural integrity, While 50.13 refers only to "struc-tural limitations." Alternatively, the Commission may wish to synthesize and conform the contents of {$50.13 and 50.30(a).
Next, we believe that the reference to " legal impediments such as state and local laws . . . that cannot be alleviated in a timely manner" should be clarified so as not to encourage or endorse the enactment or enforcement of state and local laws involving matters committed exclusively to the NRC, DOT, or other agencies of the' federal government. We would suggest that the reference to state and-local laws be clarified and amplified as follows:
l l
. l (7) Legal impediments to the implementation of an alter- :
native, such as state and local laws pertaining to !
matters within the jurisdiction of those levels of ;
government, which are valid and enforceable or though !
not valid, cannot reasonably be invalidated or en-forcement enjoined in a timely manner.
Turning to the procedures which would be provided by Proposed Part 53, we note that requests for determination of inadequacy must be filed no later than June 30, 1989 (Section 53.11(b)), but that requests must be filed no earlier than two years'before the licensee anticipates loss of full core reserve or the effective date of Part 53, whichever is later.
First, we believe that the June 30, 1989 deadline for applications under Part 53 should be explained by a note in the rule or at least in the accompanying information. We surmise that the June'30, 1989 cutoff is based on the January 1, 1990 expiration of the DOE Secretary's authority to enter into interim storage contracts and the six month maximum period for NRC determinations. (Subsections '136(a) and 135(b)(3) of the Nucleer Waste Policy Act, respectively). There is no limitation in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act on the interval between either the determination of eligibility or the signing of the contract and the anticipated loss of full core reserve. That clarification is important because of our second and more substantial concern, which is the proposed restriction of applications.under Part 53 to instances where full core reserve will be lost no more than two years following the applications.
Please. consider the circumstances of a licensee which has no practical alternative for increasing its own storage capacity, but' anticipates. losing full core reserve in the mid-1990's or somewhat later. The proposed rule would bar any application by such a licensee. It is not a sufficient answer that there is some, even a substantial possibility, that one or more of the following circumstances may be present in 1989: the Secretary's authority is about to expire; all presently authorized federal storage; capacity may have been committed by.that timer.the first geologic repository should open "soon" thereafter; or monitored
! retrievable storage may be available "soon". 'As to the first, the Secretary can contract to serve future needs subject to the limitations of the Act. 'As to the second, further capacity may be~provided or, though committed, some capacity may not have been used, or though such capacity was used for a time, some or all of I the spent fuel in storage may have been shipped to the receiving
( . facility'at the repository. As to the third, the Appendix to the-
-Commission's proposed decision in the Waste Confidence rulemaking reveals that there may:be a " backlog" at the opening of the first
- and ~ even the second repositories and that spent fuel will still be. generated during. initial implacements, so that it may take w = + - t g-=+ ep -y,,. 9 er y 9 zeaq
P Ii .
twenty to thirty } ears implacement rate.
to reach " equilibrium" at the assumed As to the third point, MRS is presently only at the assessment of need/ feasibility study stage (subsection 141(b) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act). Of course, federal storage capacity may beEfully committed and used, the Secretary's
' authority may have expired and not been renewed or extended, and
-authorized federal storage capacity may not have been increased.
.The-Commission can guard against these eventualities by providing in Part 53 that it may then have to suspend processing of appli-cations or even suspend filing. But we can see no reason Why the i NRC should establish criteria in such a way as to deprive licensees of access to storage based merely on expectations of commitments of storage capacity when the statute does not require
~
it. - To the contrary, given that DOE's schedule calls for the opening of a geologic repository in the late 1990's at the earliest, and given that the Commission has noted that it expects
- a " backlog" awaiting implacement, it would be more consistent
- with What Congress must be taken to have intended and with the
- Commission's osm subsequent findings to use no cutoff or at least
- no shorter period than ten years, while assigning priority in
-eligibility to those applications with the most urgent need and providing for suspension of determinations.
We note that the proposed rule would delegate to NRC's Executive Director for Operations ("EDO") or his designee i responsibility for making an initial determination of: (1) 4 whether adequate storage capacity to ensure continued orderly reactor operations cannot reasonably be provided by the Licensee,
'and (2) Whether the Licensee is diligently pursuing licensed alternatives to assure the availability of adequate capacity as
- soon as possible. ($53.27) This initial determination will constitute'NRC's final determination unless, within 30 days of its issuance, the Commission itself decides to review ( 53.28).
Upon issuance of the final determination or at the expiration of the period for review of the initial determination, the Commission will notify DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste i Management'and will. publish a notice of issuance in the Federal 1 Register.-($53.29).
The Supplementary Information Which accompanies the proposed rule reflects that the Commission has decided that the making of
, a determination pursuant to Section 135 of the Waste Act, to be l ' implemented by-the rules, is not a proceeding for the granting, !
suspending, revoking _or amending of a license under Section 189 of~the Atomic Energy Act and that, 4
I 1 We understand that the~implacement rate assumed by DOE is i more a function ~of logistics-between-the reactor or other storage site.than it11s of physical or operational constraints on either implacement itself-or at-repository receiving _ capacity.
4
?
"[A]ccordingly, there is no opportunity for a hearing in
- connection with a request for a Commission deterr ination.
Similarly, there is no right to petition the Comnission for review of the Executive Director for Operations'
' initial determination . . . ".
The elig'ibility determination is essentially a step in a contractual. process. Accordingly, we would not think it neces-
.sary or appropriate to provide an opportunity for persons other
' than the one seeking the determination to petition the Commission Efor review. However, one can foresee a situation Where a Licensee'is convinced that it has no feasible options for further increase in its storage capacity,.but the EDO makes an initial determination to the contrary based on What, in the Staff's view, the Licensee could have.done some years earlier. The Licensee could. have1 grounds for showing clear error,=yet would face shutting the reactor down unless the Commission took review sua sponte and invited briefing or unless the licensee successfully petitioned the courts for review. We are inclined to believe it would be. preferable for such review to be conducted by the Com-
~
mission, in the first instance, rather than by the courts. The Commission'should want to hear from the person best able to call
~
error 1to its attention and should have an opportunity to correct that error before it has to defend the error in court.
There seem toLbe at least two situations not covered by the proposed _ regulations but Which should be provided for in order to carry;out the legislative intent. The first is one in Which, at the time of the application, spent fuel is in storage.at a licensed AFR storage facility, but for some reason it must be removed to
.another location. Such fuel, if returned, may preclude main-tenance of full core reserve, and if so should be eligible for last resort storage. Appropriate amendments to $ 53.l(a), 53.12
.and 53.13 or both, and perhaps 50.30 should be made to provide
- for.such situatio~ns. Second, temporary storage needs of an exi-gent nature (such as to permit repair or expansion of existing pools) should be eligible for special treatment which would give recognition to.the temporary nature of the need both in the criteria for eligibility and as well in the procedures and
. schedules for ' processing- ~ determination requests. This could be easily; accommodated-by;providing for waivers or exceptions in such. cases.:
Finally, we note that Commissioner Asselstine-has requested
~
comm'nts e "on Whether a short public comment period would be appropriate after.the Commission publishes a noticeaof a' deter--
mination request in the Federal' Register as required in Section 53.ll(c)"; AsEnotediabove, wel consider the eligibility deter--
mination a' step in a contractual process. As such,.we think'it not i inappropriate that a Notice of Receipt of a request be pub-lish'ed , but we'see.no' reason to: solicit comments.- The solici-tation.~~of . comments ~ seems to :us - to imply that some formal x
disposition will be made of comments which question or oppose an eligibility determination, which in turn may give rise to replies to comments and so on. Leaving the matter at notice without solicitation of comments, on the other hand, implies no specific disposition will be made of any unsolicited comments which may be submitted, and is likely to reduce unnecessary paperwork both for the Commission and licensees.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments.
cerely,
(
Jose h B. Knott , Jr.
1 i
l L_-.
Tzlephone (617) 872-8100 to At TWX 710 380 7619
. iANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY 2.C.2.1 j .
FYC 83-8 1671 Worcester Road, Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 KEE June 28, 1983 . o) %-
v &s-00CHET NU:nER ,/
3 OROPOSED EULE .
. 3 DE*H \\
Secretary of the Commission
{$5&[ j,O United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5 JtJN
> b Washington, D. C. 20555 cmcedg
' h "$Tll.y & ser. /
Attention: Docketing and Service Branch \Q rT $
Subject:
Comments Pertaining to Criteria and Procedures for % te'\' rm ing the Adequacy of Available Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Capacity; Proposed Rule (48FR19382, 29 April 1983)
Dear Sir:
Yankee Atomic Electric Company appreciates the opportunity to comment on the subject document. Yankee Atomic owns and operates a nuclear power plant in Rowe, Massachusetts. The Nuclear Services Division also provides engineering and licensing services for other nuclear power plants in the Northeast including Vermont Yankee, Maine Ypnkee, and Seabrook 1 and 2.
We wish to adopt the comments filed on this subject by the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (UhvMG), who represents forty-three member utilities. The proposed rules are pursuant to statutory requirements in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. In sum, we affirm the UNWMG endorsement of the proposed rule, which would establish that interim Federal storage space for high level radioactive wastes could be made available by the DOE, if the Commission makes a determination, consistent with Section 135(g) of the Act, that:
(1) full core reserve storage capacity for spent fuel is necessary for
" continued orderly operation", and (2) the owner and operator of the reactor is " diligently pursuing licensed alternatives to the use of Federal Storage Capacity".
In addition, in response to Commissioner Asselstine's query, we believe that determinations made by the Commission should not be subject to a mandatory "short public comment period."
These determinations are not a " proceeding...for the granting, suspending, revoking, or amending of any license or construction permit...."
under Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act. Thus, there is no statutory
- opportunity to request a hearing in Connection with the Commission's determination. Yankee Atomic does not believe that public comment regarding certain agency actions is per say objectionable. We do believe, however, that b3 lb -
ML: A ( OnuhY
//[6.$$
~
"~
-C L -/ card. ,
jQ -
...........n
r . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
r
\8 L ,
!. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission June 28, 1983 8
Attention: Secretary of the Commission 'Page 2 r
purely ministerial functions required of the Commission need not be the subject of public debate. The Commission's determination is incident to the
' intentions of Congress, who has specifically provided for Federal interim storage of ' spent nuclear fuel. In this context, however, the Congress did not choose simultaneously to amend the Atomic Energy Act to expand the scope of opportunities to which the right to public hearing attaches. Thus, the Congress has not delegated to the Commission the authority to require a "short public comment period", after the Commission has published its determination.
Very truly yours, YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY
[
R. E. Helfrich Generic Licensing Activities REH/ds I
x Commonws-Ith Edison
[ ,j[ C
/#
g C ) One First Naten',1 Plata, Chicago, tilinois
] Addr:ss RIply tx Post Offica Box 767 s j Chicago. Illinois 60690 o) aPT,090iED u = iwl.E ~ a.g .253 g3 W4 Ogjed l
Y-9 UUN 30 tgg k[
D?iceof the$ec, I
June 27, 1983 Cs *&lQwsn.
l 4 . 9 !
JI / i Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch
Subject:
NRC Proposed Rule " Criteria and Procedures for Determining the Adequacy of Available Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Capacity - 10 CFR Part 53",
(48 FR 19382, April 29, 1983)
Dear Sir:
Commonwealth Edison has reviewed the subject proposal and offers the attached comments. We appreciate having been given the opportunity to comment.
Resp fully, m %
D. L. Farrar Director of Nuclear Licensing Attachment 6845N l [f l6 ggg ,p.g daaain, il5MS ll1
- =:. = :: c: m =a . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..a
.? -
S ,. 4 ' l
.n -
~
Commonwealth Edison Company Comments on
. " Proposed Criteria and Procedures for Determining the Adequacy of Available Spent Nuclear Fuel ' Storage Capacity" (48 FR 19382, April 29, 1983)
.l.
We strongly support and endorse the Commission's I
... genericorderly continued, finding operation...".
that full core reserve is necessary for '
- 2. ;
All references to a federal storage site.should be written }
4 the ultimate storage facility.as an interim federal storage site toj
- 3.
Except for utilities which encounter storage difficulties soon, a request for Commission determination must be filed no earlier core reservethan 2 years prior (Paragraph to anticipated loss of full 53.ll(b)).
The Executive for Operations must issue a final determination on Director the request no more than six (6) months after the received (Paragraph 53.28(c)). This allows only 1-1/2 request is =
utility's request is denied. years to develop an alternate stragtegy isN' in increased to 4-5 years. The interval should be 69 4.
Accurate planning for interim or temporary spent fuel k storage capacity at a reactor is dependent upon the yL
' expected availability of a permanent disposal site, particularly beyond 2005. a life of plant plan for reactors licensed $z Therefore Subpart B, Section 53.12(c)(1) d[
should read "The type an,d capacity of existing and planned @$
spent nuclear fuel storage facilities at the reactor site gg for the next ten years and for the license term assuming a ta en reasonable date for federal ultimate disposal availability". j$
15 EE ib 3
?.?
- E Es
- ag
- 6845N 5
- t 5.55
- ~ EiF;
!' m.w EE gg Elf fliik EH
??2 V:"#9 iiiiiiii Y.la Mi b
5
~
lEI
.. u: ,-
MrMeIca[i SERIAL: LAP- 3-264 Carolina Power & Light Company June 28, 1983 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk [N b';
Secretary of the Commission I g3 0GNs Attention: Docketing and Service Branch 3 ,
jq1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission A e.. :' t lrl R 1 Washington, DC 20555 ?,Q H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-261
%t(sh# LICENSE NO. DPR-23 AND SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-400 AND 50-401 AND BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-325 AND 50-324 LICENSE NOS. DPR-71 AND DPR-62 COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE - 10 CFR PART 53
Dear Mr. Chilk:
Carolina Power & Light Company appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule, 10 CFR Part 53, " Criteria and Procedures for Determining the Adequacy of Available Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Capacity." Our comments are provided in the attachment to this letter. Should you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact me. Yours very truly,
. W. J. Hurfor Manager ,
Technical Services WJH/ psp (7160 MSG) Attachment h l[
- d. f. 0bnLLnG , / /.30 53
/ll
~
~
~ .G. e.s(1.f3..
411 Fayetteville Street
- P. O. Box 1551
- Raleigh. N. C. 27602 l
W: e ATTACHMENT CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPAln* COMMENTS ON PROPOSED 10CFR, PART 53
" CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING THE ADEQUACY OF AVAII ABLE SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL STORAGE CAPACITY" Comment Number 1 Carolina Power & Light Company fully agrees with the NRC's determination
' chat full-core reserve is necessary for the continued -orderly operation of a nuclear _ power plant. .
Comment Number 2 We believe that the 50- to 90-day reactor shutdown time may be (if full-core reserve was needed-but not available) too brief to locate and move fuel to an alternative storage location. Comment Number 3 The proposed requirement that a utility wait two years before the anticipated loss of full-core reserve before submitting a request for federal storage is overly restrictive. A utility should have the option of submitting a request as soon as it is determined that it will lose full-core reserve and
- s. . can demonstrate that there are no reasonable alternatives available.
~
Comment Number-4 Some provisions should be included in the rule for emergency storage of fuel should repair be required on a storage pool and other reasonable storage alternatives are unavailable. Comment Number 5 Some utilities may have fuel stored at nonsystem locations. If a situation unexpectedly arises when this fuel must be removed from the nonsystem facility, it may be advantageous to ship the fuel to a federal storage facility versus a reactor site, particularly if relocation to a reactor site would'eause the loss of full-core reserve. Comment lumber 6 9 CP&L believes that because any determination - on a ' request for interim federal storage should be based on only technical' findings, the opportunity for public comment on any request would be inappropriate and time consuming. Comment Number 7
. All references to the phrase "a person owning and operating a civilian
__nuclearfpower reactor" should be. changed to "a person owning or operating a civilian nuclear power reactor." There are'some cases where the owner of the spent nuclear fuel may not be the operator of~the reactor. l
y Comment Number 8 In Section 53.12 (c) (3), the word " location" should be deleted. The exact location of each assembly in a spent fuel pool is not necessary for any determination by the NRC. Comment Number 9 In Section 53.13 (a), the phrase "that would prevent the use of any of the alternatives . . ." should-be-replaced with "which would render unreasonable or impractical the use of any of the alternatives . . ." There may a situation or l alternative such.that cost or radiation exposure considerations might not i actually prevent the use of an alternative, but may make its choice
; unreasonable or impractical.
Comment Number 10 Also in' Section 53.13 (a), state and local regulatory actions should be added to the list of factors outside the control of the licensee. Such regulatory actions can be just as effective in delaying or preventing utility action as state and local laws. Comment Number 11. In Section 53.13 (b), the phrase "each of the alternatives set , -forth . . ." should be. changed to "each of the previously licensed alternatives set forth . . ." 'A utility should be required to pursue only licensed storage alternatives. They should not be required to pursue any alternative that is not.yet licensed by the Commission. Comment Number 12 In Section 53.15, the utility shou.ld have the right to withdraw without prejudice its request at any time up to the final determination if it determines that it no longer requires federal storage, as long as there has been no adverse consequence resulting from a detrimental reliance upon the filing of the request. Comment Number 13
~
L Section 53.27 - (a) (2) (ii) and Section 53.27 (a) (2) (iii) should be clarified'to indicate that these options being " diligently" pursued are options
- which ha've been licdnsed by~the Commission.
.-Comment Number'14 In Section 15.28 (d), a utility should have the right to petition the Commission for a review ofLan initial determination; and the Commission should review any petition which is filed.
Comment Number 15 In~ Section ; 53.30 - (a), the requirements should be based ~ on Section 53.27 (a)^(1) and.Section 53.27.(a) (2).
- m ,.
(f_ I Comment Number 16 The word " extraordinary" should be deleted from Section 53.30 (a) (5) since costs are already described as " clearly unreasonable" in that sentence. Comment Number 17 Section 53.30 (a) (7) should include state and local regulatory actions to the list of legal impediments. Ccement Number 18 The word " timely" in Section 53.30 (d) should be changed to " good faith" in describing the efforts of a utility.. A utility may be making every effort to find alternatives; but through no fault of its own, some efforts may simply be untimely. The alternatives again should be described as " licensed alternatives." This change should also be made for Section 53.30 (d) (1) and Section 53.30 (d) (3) to clarify that alternatives need be licensed ones. Comment Number 19 In Section 53 30 (d) (1), the term '"as early as possible so as to provide sufficient time" should be deleted as well as the words " timely" and " prompt development" in Section 53.30 (i) (3). Comment Number 20 A new Section 53.31 should be added to provide for expedited review and determination in the event of an unanticipated storage emergency. Such an event could require Commission attention to assure the public health and safety or to avoid a lengthy forced outage at the reactor site. Comment Number 21 . CP&L urges the Commission to continue to work with the Department of Energy and the utilities to insure the licensability of on-site alternatives and the transshipment of spent nuclear fuel.
.a 119 .m.
< 's 00CKET P.'Jr.'SEH E;10EOSED RULE
)
~
o'e
'N h.N;- (_8M (93&2) iQ f
- Coalition for Nuclear Power Postponeme . Joy -
M 2612 East Robino Drive, Wilmington, DE.19808 3 NAh j Telephone (302) 999-7380 g o [
"M ;
~~
June 28,,1983 4 g 9
, ; Comments on Proposed Rules Changes To 10 CFR 50; Criteria o and Procedures for Determining Adequacy of Available Spent l Fuel.Stocage Capacity T 'Please forgive me'for being lato with my comments on this partic-ulcr issue. I hope that you will consider my letter nentheless.
4" "An~~otin~ c e' of prevention is worth a pound of cure"- or in the case cf. spent fuel management ,by utilities , alittle dilligence will prevent a
}vory large boondoggle, and that is exactly how I feel about your proposed rules. .
C A ~little sincere dilligence by utilities will anticipate need for etcrage alternatives well in advance of critical situation s arising. Utilities can. forecast growth projectims ~so well when they want to force n' ~new nuclear plant down our throats- so why can't they plan for their wastes -with the same tenacity? Present them with a gilt-edged taxpayer-paid alteius[tive ,with no strings and plenty of loopholes as you do now, c:d all incentive goes out the window. ff Once you adopt criteria that realistically lays groundwork for
~
- hardship ~ cases, then you should adopt regulations stipulating ample oppor-tunity foi' both public comment, and full Commission review, approval and ro j e c tion .' ~ ~ Because we. are dealing with utilities such as Delmarva Power & Light and Public Service Electric & Gas, both of whom have been cited in recent years for fraudulent practices with regard to purchases of fuel stocks, ^ failure to report incidents at the Salem Reactors in a timely manner, fail-ure to adhere to mandated malntenance procedures at Salem I, resulting in the February 1983" accidents", failure to produce workable Evacuation Plans in accordance with specified timetables,etc. ,etc. ,it can be seen tha t to hand rules like the se to utilities will nurture non-compliance . Furthermore , I despise having to pay daily for the mistakes of only these two utilities, but to add spent fuel disposition of all of the nation's reactors to my
~
tax burden (above all of the programs I now subsidize for the nuclear industry') with no chance for public comment ,is a deplorable action en your part.
~
In conclusion, I submit that increased dilligence on your part to exact compliance with operating practices and anticipatory calcuTations by
.nll of the nation's nuclear utilities be your sole purpose and geal, and lin regard to your proposed rules cited above, af ter having reviewed the ccaments submitted by the Union of Concerned Scientists in April, 1983s I say that they be incorporated forthwith as sum and substance of your regulatory notion., in lieu of your proposals in the Federal Register.
h6 /d "#8 g ; d f. 0 U/22 A M // d 5,5 Dsnald C. Frisco, Chairman AO.r.c cic', c:: t y a rj , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,_.
,f+ 0"
\
' 7%
78 Elmwood Avenue Buffalo, New York 14201 (716)884 1000 ,
' River Road, Columbia, NJ 07832 (201)841-9529 '
,y ,,
- _ ..[ i' Secretary of the Commission
' " ~ ~
dO// ? I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
~
bO3 > d Washington, D.C. 20555 Cf% : , / Attention: Docketing and Service Branch EdF /
Dear Mr . Chilk :
'QD.% g.'4 ,
A_ h m-Enclosed are the comments of the Sierra Club cn Proposed Rule 10 CFR Part 53, Criteria and Procedures for Determining the Adequacy of Available Spent Ntr-
. ear Fuel Storage Capacity.
cc : J. Riley G. Hull Sincerely yours,
- 3. Yaeger D. Berick E. Winchester L. Finaldi F. Millar W. Jordan
[ . G. Coan ' rvin Resnikoff River Road Columbia, NJ 07832 b g (Z;J. 'f. %ureL ID ll2465 ' ll1 ? l sierra club radioactive waste campaign g
.)
78 Elmwood Avenue Buffalo, New York 14201 (716) 884-1000 River Road, Columbia, NJ 07832 (201) 841-9529 ; l June 28, 1983 Comments of the Sierra Club on Proposed Regulations, 10 CFR Par t 53 Criteria and Procedures for Determining the Adequacy of Available Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Capacity INTRODUCTION Congress intended that federal temporary storage facilities, authorized und-er Subtitle B of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) be "last resort" facilities. All parties to this highly contentious debate are in agreement on this point. Only utilities who could not reasonably provide 'their own storage space would be eligible to use this "last resort" temporary storage facility. Und- Section 135 (g) of the NKPA, the Commission must develop criteria on wheth-er a utility is able to provide its own capacity. Those that cannot are eligible to use the federal away from reactor facility (AFR) . The draft criteria for determining the adequacy of available fuel storage capacity, proposed 10 CFR Part 53, ignore this Congressional intent and there-fore open the federal AFR cn a first come, first serve basis, until the 1900 metric _ tonnes (!C) capacity is exhausted. Thereaf ter, in the not too distant
~
future, we expect the next logical step, legislation to increase the naximum capacity of the federal AFR. Our worst fears will then be realized and ' the Cong-ressional intent, so carefully crafted as a political corpromise by differing interests, vill then have been completely scuttled. Contrary to the intent of Congress, under the proposed criteria utilitiies need only wait until storage space is nearly exhausted before producing a study, in order to show " diligence" in pursuing licensed alternatives. The Cornission has provided no guidance on what constitutes " diligent pursuit" of storage alt-ernatives. -None of the "last. resort" language is embodied in the NRC criteria. Rather than timely action, the Commission would accept a utility study. The Commission would allow no public input into this decision on AFR eligibility, not even the opportunity for public comment. It would strictly be a Staff dec-ision. Minimizing transportation risk, language also present in Subtitle B, does not rake its way into the NRC criteria. These criteria must be redrawn to em-body the nature of the conpromises made in formulating the NWPA. The Sierra Club has been opposed to the use of AFR facilities for several years because we believed that the program would become yet another federal bail-out for the riuclear power industry, would become a defacto federal repository, and would lessen the incentives for developing and employing a federal permanent repository. Our concerns also stem from the unnecessary transportation risk. Citizens along transportation routes would be subjected to twice the risk since fuel w>uld eventually have to be moved from the temporary storage facility to a perranent repository. We are particularly concerned that the proposed criter-ia do not attempt to minimize the transportation risks. l
. sierra club radioactive waste campaign
~ , .
- 7 Propos1d 10 CFR 53 Sierra Club Prgs two.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS Criteria for Diligent Pursuit of Alternatives hithout " diligent pursuit" of alternatives, a utility could sit on its hands until , space ran out, then cry for federal help. The criteria for diligent pur-s.uit, 10 CFR 53. 30 (d), a -utility must have
" demonstrated diligent and timely efforts to initiate activities reasonably calculated to implement alternatives to Federal interim storage of spent fuel on a schedule commensurate with the need to support the continued orderly operation of the reactor".
The criteria for determining " diligent efforts" are extremely weak. According to 53.30 (d) (3), a " plan that evaluates the feasibility of alternatives to Federal , storage" is sufficient. That is, a utility need only produce a piece of paper which would be evaluated by staff before becoming eligible for federal AER stor-age. At the least, the utility nust demonstrate " action" rather than a" plan". This section of Section 53.30(d) must be stricken. It should be replaced with criteria for determining " diligent pursuit recommended by the Union of Concerned Scientists :
- 1. Within 60 days of the effective date of this rule, and-every 12 months thereafter, each utility that does not have on-site storage capacity sufficient to accomodate all spent fuel to be generated during the term of the operating license must file a report on the following:
(a) The date on which the utility expects to lose full-core storage capacity. (b) The actions that the utility has taken to date to avoid the n'eed for f ederal AFR storage, including. (i) the identity and description of.all
. studies done by or for the utility on alternatives to federal AFR storage, (ii) the reasons that any alternatives have been rejected or are not being pursued, if that is the case, (iii) the amount of time that the utility estimates would be required to develop, obtain approval for, and implement any alternatives that are under consideration.
(c) The actions that 'the utility plans to take in the -future to- avoid the need for ~ f ederal AFR
. storage, including a-specific-timetable and a ..
detailed description of the .various studies and other -actions that the utility intends. to take.
Proposed:10 CFR 53'. Sierra Club 7- ^Pige thras
- 2. Once -a utility has determined that it will lose full core. storage capacity before the expiration of its operating license, it must file an application for expanded storage or some other alternative to federal AFR storage within six months. In lieu of such an application, the utility may file a justification for
-its decision not to file an application, accompanied by its plan, with a specific timetable, for developing
'and implementing such an application.
E'
- 3. A utility will not be considered to have met the diligence standard unless it has filed an application for approval offan alternative to federal AFR storage within one year af ter determining that it will lose full core storage capacity before the expiration of its operating license, unless the utility demonstrates that all alternatives to federal AFR storage are physically impossible;or economically impracticable.
These suggested criteria provide Comission Staff with a historical basis for determining whether the utility had diligently pursued alternatives. l
' opportunity for Public Comment 7 , Acceeding' to Section 53.11(a), "the Comission will publish notice of rec- ; eipt'.'. of a utility. request for adequacy of storage in the Federal Register. No
- provision is made for public coment. It is up to the Staff to judge whether i
the utility is " diligently pursuing" alternatives. We are confident the com-ission would benefit from public input on a utility -application. For example,'
~ we may be able to show, with information not made available by the utility to
- . the Commission, that the utility was "diligiently pursuing" alternatives. We therefore strongly support Commissioner Asseltine's view that a short coment e period would be appropriate and in the public interest. without public input 2
, , , the Commission would _be relying exclusively on Staff:infermation. We read that 1Section 53.ll(c) read:
"Upon. receip,t of a request for a determination, the Commission will publish-notice of . receipt of the request in the Federal Register and allow a- 60 day time period for public comment. The Comission will nake. . . . site."
Definition of Spent Nuclear Fuel- Storage Alternatives Contrary to the specific legislative language, Section 53.13 (c) (5) limits the storage alternatives to. those "that have been approved by the Commission." 5
-- + = , _ . . , , .-,~ .# .,M,, --,-~y-----My. ,- ,-. . , '+ , . , , , .m. . - , . . . . u. , , . . , , , , . - - v
p Propossd 10 CFR 53 Sierra Club Pag 2 four l The language of the NWPA, Section 135 (g) , states "such other technologies as may be approved by the Commission." The proposed criteria must be altered to conf-orm to the legislative language. Utilities should be studying any feasible alt-ernative to AFR storage and not just those previously licensed by the Commission. Necess'ity of Full Core Reserve Contrary to the NWPA, the Commission has determined that "naintenance of full core reserve is necessary for the continued orderly operation of a reactor." This finding is prenature, without proper public notice and input, and should be deferred and more carefully considered. The reason is the following: Each nuclear reactor has additional fuel pool space in .the shipping cask loadout area, depending on the reactor. In general, this space is equivalent to a full core. In the event that the entire fuel pool has been compacted and capacity is exhausted, full core reserve is still available in the cask loadout area in case the core must be removed from the reactor so that the reactor can be inspected. A temporary storage rack could fit into this space. After the reactor is inspected and repaired, fuel could be reinserted in the reactor and the temporary storage rack removed. Maine Yankee Atomic Power Corporation has proposed using such a rack at the Maine Yankee reactor. This storage scheme al . lows utilities an additional three years grace period to develop additional stor-age methods. Since reactors will not begin to exhaust storage space until 1986, this buys utilities an additional three years, until 1989, to develop alternat-ive storage methods. It is inconceivable that utilities could not develop alt-ernative storage methods in the next six years and longer time period. The Commission should therefore withhold judgment on the wisdom of full core reserve there has been a full and open discussion of this issue. until Transportation Risk According to Section 135 (a) (3), in selecting methods of providing storage capacity, the Secretary of DOE must " seek to minimize the transportation of spent nuclear fuel". Any means of minimizing transportation risks through storage alt-ernatives available to the Secretary are likewise available to the utilities. In particula r, the Secretary nay acquire dry storage casks for utility use at the reactor site in order to minimize transportation. The Commission, however, is under no similar compunction, to minimize transportation risks. This infortun-
~
ate omission is the result of legislating in the final hours of a legislat-ive session. We urge the Commission, in its deliberations, to likewise minimize the transportation risks. On-site storage methods should be given Commission preference over transh'ipments. Transhipments should be given preference over AFR's. We s'uggest that 10 CFR Part 53.13 (c) be amended to read:
" (c) Spent nuclear fuel storage alternatives, in order of preference- "
gimilarly, Part 5 3.27 (a) (2) , should read, ;
". . .through the alternatives, in order of preference, including- "
1 l I _ _ - .}}