ML20114F599
Text
. _.
n' O'
g-r
~
m D.-ka* File
{
ECB Rag. File MAY 1213o1 c,,.,
ps L Lt;,.l *l
- t Docket No.: 50-382 f.,/,r j,,.;.
PEMORANDUM FOR: Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director 5
crJ e &,,,
for Licensing
/
'I Division of Licensing
' z.
/
FPC'4:
William V. Johnston, Assistant Director for Materials and Qualifications Engineering Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
WATERFORD 3 INPUT FOR SAFETY EVAltlATION REPORT Plant Names Waterford 3 Docket No.: 50-382 Licensing Stage:
OL Responsible Branch: Licensing Branch No. 3 Responsible Pmject Manager:
S. Black Requested Completion Date: 5/8/81 Review Status: Continuing The enclosed Safety Evaluation Report (SER) was prepared by DE:f'0E, Equipment Qualification Branch. This SER input covers the following open itms:
1." ) Seismic and Dynamic Qualification of Seismic Category I t'echanical and Electrical Equipment.
2.) II.E.4.2 as.it relates to the operability of the purge system isolation valves.
_erJeed M4M"4 W1111me.V. Johnston, Assistant Director for Materials and Qualifications Engineering Division of Engineering Enclosures As stated cc:
R. Vollmer it. LaGrange W. Sutter A. Lee Z. Retzteczy M. Ste1renberg
- 5. Black R. Riggs M. Haughey T. Y. Chang Fo ro -S4-1%3 82 0519 cou )(f S/
cia /ni
,,,4s
- !06.:L'3 w
r
-'> MHaughn;f.g...DE:E g.
. DE :E,0a,...
.0E:M&QE l
/m...RL4
.zRRss'ftVC2y WJohnston.
'*" f 5/.2../81 5/
- 8.. / 81 s/,. <
/ 81 s/ is
/81
.o.c..c. w n
I m.
'g UNITED STATES 8'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
,{
wasmworow, o. c. rosas MAY I 2 IS81 Docket No.: 50-382 E MNtANDUM FOR: Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing FROM:
William V. Johnston, Assistant Director for Materials and Qualifications Engineering Division of Engineering SUSJECT:
WATERFORD 3 INPUT FOR SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT Plant Name: Waterford 3 Docket No.: 50-382 Licensing Stage:
OL Responsible Branch: Licensing Branch No. 3 Responsible Project Manager:
S. Black Requested Completion Date: 5/8/81 Review Status: Continuing The enclosed Safety Evaluation Report (SER) was prepared by DE:MQE, Equipment qualification Branch. This SER input covers the following open items:
..)
Seismic and Dynamic Qualification of Seismic Category I Mechanical and Electrical Equipment.
2.) II.E.4.2 as it relates to the operability of the purge system isolation valves.
%/4LG Y.$.LY William V. Jahriston, Assistant Director for Materials and Qualifications Engineering Division of Engineerino
-..clusure: As stated cc:
R. Vollmer R. LaGrange W. Butler A. Lee Z. Rosztoczy M. Stolzenberg S. Black R. Riggs M. Haughey T. Y. Chang
+ - -
,,7 w,,.__,.-4_
-,+w.-
e---w y
---m-,w,-
-g
)
HATERFORD 3 ItiPUT FOR SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT 3.10 Seismic and Dynamic Qualification of Seismic cateoory I Mechanical and Electrical Equipment On March 16, 1981, we issued a request for information to the applicant e ch
-ad for information concerning their equipment qualificatiun for seismic and hydrodynamic loads. The applicant has comitted to responding to this
)
request for information by July 30, 1981. After reviewing the July 30, 1931, submittal a subsequent request for additional information will be issued e cn will require response within one week (or at least two weeks before the site visit).
Based on these schedules, the Seismic Qualification Review Team (SORT) p1&ns to conduct a plant site review of the applicant's qualification documentation tentatively scheduled for early September, 1981. We will report on the results of our review in a supplement to this report.
- - - ~,,,,, - - - - - -, - -. -, - - -. - - - - - -. - - - -, - -.,, - - > - -,, - -,.
--,wr
-r WATERFORD 3 9
II.E.4.2 Containment Isolation Dependability (This evaluation addresses the issue of valve operability for the s
system isolation valves. The Centainment Systems Branch will address the remainder of this issue).
tequirement
- ntainment purge valves that do not satisfy.the operability crite-ia ; '
tn in Branch Technical Position CSB 6-4 or the Staff Interim Pos nion
'ctober 23, 1979 must be sealed closed as defined in SRP 6.2.4, item II.3.f during operational conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4 Furthermore, these valves must be in compliance with this position before they receive their operating license.
Discussion and Conclusion 1e 1pplicant has not yet submitted a reply to this item, an operability af the containment purge valves is not possible at this time.
If the
- 4ant intends to use these valves during operating modes 1, 2, 3, or 4 the
.rslicant must first satisfactorily demonstrate that these valves satisfy the operability criteria set forth in BTP CSB 6-4 and our Guidelines for Demonstration of Operability of Purge and Vent Valves (Appendix A). Upon receipt of a comploto operability assessment of these valves, we will complete our evaluation and report the results in a supplement to this report.
1 l
P)0R OR GINE ATTACHMENT A GUIDELINES FOR DEMONSTRATION OF OPERABILITY OF PURGE AND VENT VALVES OPERABILITY In order to establish operability it must be shown that the valve actuator's torque capability has sufficient margin to overcome or resist the torques and/cr forces (i.e., fluid-dynamic, bearing, seating, friction) that resist closure when stroking from the initial open position to full seated (bubble tight) in the time limit specified. This should be predicted on the pressure (s) established in the containment following.a design basis LOCA.
Considerations
{
which should be addressed in assuring valve design adequacy include:
1 Valve closure rate versus time - i.e., constant rate or other.
2.
Flow direction through valve; AP across valve.
2.
Single valve closure (insice containment or outside ccr.tainment valve) or simultaneous closure. Establish worst case.
c.
Containment back pressure effect on closing torque margins of air operated valve which vent pilot air inside containment.
j Adequacy of accumulator (when used) sizing and initial charge for valve i
clesure requirements.
j f.
For valve operators using torque limiting devices - are the settings of g
the devices compatible with the to*aues required to operate the valve during the design basis conditicn.
y 7.
The effect of the piping systec (tarns, brar:hes) upstream and downstreat a
cf all valve installations.
1 1.
The effect of butterfly valve disc and shaft orientation to the fluid rixture egressing from the containment.
DE C STRATION Carmstration of the various asp [tets cf operability of purge and vent valves l
g say be by analysis, bench testing, insitu testing or a combination of these u
means.
,p i
Purge and vent valve structural elenents (valve / actuator assembly) must be
{
avalvated to have sufficient stress nargins to withstand loads imposed while val s closes during a design basis a::ident. Torsional s5 ear, shear, bencir.g, 4
ter.sion and cc:npression loads / stresses shculd be consicerec.
Seismic leading
~
q sh:u*d be adcressed.
h%
- r.ce valve closure and structural irte;rity are assurec cy a*.alysis, tes;fr.g h
- r a s.,itable co-3.iratice., a :eter. ira-4:*. cf the seali*; i*.te;-ity af ter p
- lesure and long term expos.re to the cer.tain.ent envir:r. ee.t snould be 9 21 tvaluated. Erchasis shcule te directe: at the effect c' ra:iation and of Q
Me cor.tainrent spray che-t:al scluti:.s on seal material. C:r.er aspects ssch
'4
.s the effect on sealing frc cutsice 19ciert ter:eratures and oebris shoulc
- a ccr.sidered.
-'; q 4
~
?00R 3GL
~
The following considerations apply when testing is chosen as a mean, demonstrating valve operability:
Eench Testing A.
Bench testing can be used to demonstrate suitability of the in-service valve by reason of its tracibility in design to a test valve.
The tollo..:
factors should be considered when qualifying valves through bench testing.
1.
Whether a val've was qualified by testing of an identical valve asse., :y or by extrapolation of data from a similarly designed valve.
2.
Whether measures were taken to assure that pi ing upstream and cown-stream and valve orientation are simulated.
3.
Whether the' following load and environmental f actors were consicerec a.
Simulation of LOCA b.
Seismic loading c.
Tenperature soak d.
Faciati.on exposure e.
Chemical exposure d.
Cebris Eer.ch testing of installed valves to demonstrate the suitability of the s:e:ific valve to perform its recuired function during the postulatec cis'gn basis accident is acce:tatle.
1.
The factors listed in ite s A.2 and A.3 shculc be censicered wher taking tnis approach.
?
.~ i -. Testing
. testing of purge and vent valves n.ay be performed to confirm the
- a:i*.ity cf the valve under actual conditions. When performing such tests.
.ne c:ncitions (loading, environment) to which the valve (s) will be subjectec during the test should simulate the design basis accident.
f4*TI:
cs: test valve examination should be performed to establish struct.cri
'ntegrity of the key valve / actuator components.
f N