ML20092J717
| ML20092J717 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1984 |
| From: | Woolever E DUQUESNE LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton, Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20092J718 | List: |
| References | |
| 2NRC-4-087, 2NRC-4-87, NUDOCS 8406270008 | |
| Download: ML20092J717 (5) | |
Text
}
Vg 2NRC-4-087 Telecopy 8
)
Nuclear Construction Division June 22, 1984 Robinson Plaza, Building 2, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15205 Mr. Harold R. Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION:
Mr. George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch 3 Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
Beaver Valley Power Station - Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-412 FSAR Separate Submittal for Environmental Qualification Program Gentlemen:
In accordance with the Duquesne Light Company (DLC) response pro-vided in FSAR Amendment 4 (2NRC-3-096, dated December 2, 1983), at tached are six (6) copies of the FSAR separate submittal containing information on environmental qualification of BVPS-2 equipment.
This separate submittal addresses NRC Equipment Qualification Branch concerns ident ified in FSAR Questions 270.2 and 270.3 and the draf t SER.
The FSAR separate submittal for the environmental qualification is divided into two parts:
- 1) mechani-cal safety-related equipment ( At t achment 1), and 2) electrical Class 1E safety-related equipment ( Attachment 2).
future update of this submittal to the NRC DLC plans to provide a
in support of environmental qualification audit act ivit ies.
If there are any questions in this regard, please contact Mr.
C.
L.
Hill, Regulatory Affairs Department, at (412) 787-5141, extension 145.
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY SUBSCRIBED AND SyOfyl TO BEFORE ME THIS ffdDAY OF xX kJw 1984.
/#
eM/
By
~LhA G. LESONDAK, NOTARY PUBLICNotary Public E.(/J. Woolever Vice President RGB!NSON TOWNSHIP, ALLEGHENY COUNTY gg I,SS!ON EXP1RES OCTOBER 20,1986 n.
Attachments 9
cc:
Ms. M. Ley, Project Manager (w/o attachments)
,,0 y
Mr. E. A. Licitra, Project Manager (w/o attachments)
Mr. G. Walton, NRC Resident Inspector (w/ attachments)
W gge, saa 1?u Mes 14 04 4: M ds
/
'l E
31 w+ U1 y
6,Nu i.g>
{Q gn,4.t.1k& ra ea)
- a. <
y T
United St&tss Nucis0r R:Iguictory Comnissicn
,s.---Mr. G:crga W. Knighten, Chief Page 2 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA )
)
SS:
COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY
)
On this f.f s d day of <h m j
, / [ [ [, before me, a Notary Public in and for d id Commonwealth and County, personally appeared E. J. Woolever, who being duly sworn, deposed and said that (1) he is Vice President of Duquesne Light, (2) he is duly authorized to execute and file the foregoing Submittal on behalf of said Company, and (3) the statements set forth in the Submittal are true and correct to the best of his knowledge.
/
. protary Public n
dVA G. LESONDAK, NOTARY PUBLIC ROBINSON TOWNSHIP, ALLEGHENY COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCTOBER 20,1986
ATTACHMENT 1 t
This summary presents the methodology used in the performance of the l
Mechanical Equipment Qualification (MEQ) Program, for BVPS Unit 2.
j Tha equipment within the scope of this program is active safety-
[
related mechanical equipment located in potentially harsh accident environments which could be required to mitigate either a Loss-Of-Coolant-Accident (LOCA), Main Steam Line Break (MSLB), or High Energy Line Break (HELB) outside containment.
i Active mechanical equipment is defined as equipment which must perfom a mechanical motion to accomplish its safety function.
The qualification process will define the non-metallic subcomponents of each item of equipment within the defined scope and evaluate their material capabilities.
Master List Development The identification of that equipment encompassed within the scope of the program is performed in 3 steps:
1.
Identification of the safety-related systems used in the electrical equipment qualification program.
2.
Identification of active safety-related mechanical equipment contained in safety-related systems which perfom an accident mitigating function and are located in a harsh environment.
3.
Completion of the Master List, which includes identification of manufacturer, model, plant location, and applicable environments for each piece of equipment. The environmental parameters developed for use in the electrical program will be used in this program.
Qualification Procedure The evaluation of the mechanical equipment within the scope of the g(irogram is documented in the Mechanical Equipment Qualificatio EQ) Files.
data and analyses utilized to demonstrate that the subject equipment is capable of withstanding pcstulated accident conditions.
These files also stipuiste any special limitations, such as scheduled maintenance or refurbishment, required to maintain environmental qualification.
The scope of each MEQ File is a group of equipment which has been detemined to be similar because they were procured under the same specification, made by the same manufacturer, and are of the same basic design and construction.
Page 2 Selection of Environmental Parameters Each MEQ File may address numerous pieces of equipment which can be located in different plant areas.
Therefore, in order to address this equipment as a group, all environmental profiles and radiation zones are evaluated and the most severe environment chosen.
Initially, each set of equipment is evaluated to the worst case environment independent of separate locations.
If the equipment is found to not be capable of withstanding these worst case conditions, then each piece of equipment is evaluated separately to its specific environmental conditions.
Equipment located in environments enveloped by the qualification values would be considered " Qualified."
Qualification Evaluation Each piece of equipment entered into the BVPS Unit 2 MEQ Program is then evaluated to detennine if it is capable of withstanding postulated accident conditions.
In order to perfonn this evaluation, the design specifications and non-metallic materials of construction for each piece of equipment is detennined from vendor drawings, instruction manuals, and direct communications with the manufacturer. Thi s data is analyzed to determine if the equipment met the specific acceptance criteria discussed below.
A.
Operability All equipment within the scope of this program will be coliservatively qualified for the postulated post-accident duration of 411.5 days.
B.
Temperature Qualification for accident temperature conditions is obtained by comparison of the peak postulated accident temperature with equipment design specifications and the thermal capabilities of non-metallic components.
C.
Pressure Qualification for accident pressure conditions is obtained by comparisons of the peak postulated accident pressure to the equipment design specifications, vendor drawings, or vendor test.
D.
Humidity Qualification for humidity conditions is evaluated by comparing postulated accident conditions to equipment design specifications. Equipment which carry fluid or air are assumed to be not sensitive to 100". relative humidity, as they are sealed assemblies by design.
t us.s >
Page 3 E.
Radiation Radiation qualification is obtained by comparing the 40-year-normal-plus-1-year accident dose to the radiation l
capabilities of all non-metallic components contained in l
the device.
F.
Chemical Spray
(
Qualification for chemical spray conditions is evaluated on a case-by-case basis dependent on the equipnent design, location and associated environments.
For any component part that is initially not qualified to the above criteria, any or all of the following methods may be used to demonstrate that equipment will perform its safety functions as required:
I o
Evaluation of time-dependent environmental profiles with respect to actual versus a 401.5 day operating time.
o Demonstrate 401.5 day accident operability for a life of less than 40 years.
If safety function is required for only one type of o
accident (i.e., HELB vs. LOCA), demonstrate operability qualification for the accident and show that equipment failure during remaining accident (s) has no adverse effects on plant operation.
[
o Demonstrate that the postulated failure of the subcomponent l
part will not effect the equipnent with respect to the e
performance of its required safety function.
l If a component part life expectancy is found to be less than 40 l
years plus the postulated accident operability time, then this l
information will be incorporated into the BVPS Unit No. 2 surveillance and maintenance program to ensure that the installed life of equipment or subcomponent parts is not exceeded.
l i
i
~sm-~------m,--,,-,-,,
_,_ _