ML20114F890
| ML20114F890 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Waterford |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1982 |
| From: | Johnston W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082170562 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-143 NUDOCS 8212070061 | |
| Download: ML20114F890 (5) | |
Text
__
.i DISTRIBui!0N
' Docket F ile EQB Rdg.
Docket No. 50-332 IEMORANDLM FOR: Thomas H. Novak Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing FROM:
Willian V. Johnston Assistant Director i
llaterials and Qualification Engineering Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
WATERFORD 3 INPUT FOR SUPPLEIENTAL SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT ON EQUIPPENT QUALIFICATI0fi Plant hone Waterford 3 Decket he.: 50-382 Licensing Stage:
E, Responsible Branch: Licensing Branch No. 3 Responsible PreJact Manager:
- 5. slack Roguested Cagistion Date: 10/15/82 i
Review Status: Continuing The Equipment Qualification Branch Input for the Supplanental Safety Evaluation Report for Waterford 3 is enclosed. This input covers seismic and $namic quellfication of safety-related equipment.
1 prigsmaisseeozA William V. Johnston Assistant Director i
Materials and Qualification Engineering Division of Engineering Enclosures te Stated i
a:
R. Vollmer M. Haughey
- r. Miraglia R. Wright S. Black J. Singh, INEL V. Neonan M. Reiche ett, em"":
?.Y. * -- NRR Est. 492 F0/A-si-143 tramotmp Bl*
5 est r.s
.m wncarrence
,a m
DE/E06...........
..pE/EQB
. AMT I
!e UCh.8."1?'9.*...
...i.*... l. VSNoonan*
WVJohnston u re, 10/15/82..........10/15/82......11/5/82.
.11/P/82 oe.u m.u as, w.cw e. n OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- e : _..o..
e Docket File E3 Rdg. File Doc t No'. 50-382 MEMORAND OR:
Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director i
for Licensing I
Division of Licensing FROM:
'lliam V. Johnston, Assistant Director Ma rials and Qualification Engineering Divi 'on of Engineering N
SU6 JECT:
WATERFORD 3 NPUT FOR SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY EVALUAi!Oh REPORT ON EQ NT QUALIFICATION 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:
10/15/82 Review Status: Continuing The Equipment Qualification Branch Input for the 5' lesental s a f e '.,
Evaluation Report for Waterford 3 is enclosed.
This 'nput covers seismicanddynamicqualificationofsafety-relatedcogipment
\\
William V. Johnston, Assistant Director Materials and Qualification Engineering s
Olvision of Engineering
\\
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
R. Vollmer A. Lee F. Miraglia R. Wright S. Black J. Jackson Z. Rosztoczy J. Singh, INEL G. bagchi M. Reich, 8NL M. Haughey i
Y. Chang CONTACT:
- 1. Y. Chang, NRR t
Ext. 49-28209
.A
'=t;ia/
DE:My TYCh
/ent G8a9eht ry wy,jo hn,. t o r 10/)
/82 10/ d/82 h/ f /82 10/
/ %.'
grc Equipment Qualification Branch Input for Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report No. 1 Waterford 3 Docket No. 50-382 3.10 Seismic and Dynamic Qualification of Seismic Category I Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Our evaluation of the adequacy of the applicant's program for quali-fication of safety-related electric and mechanical equipment for seismic and stynamic' leads consists of (1) a determination of the.
acceptability of the procedures used, standards followed, and the completeness of the program in general, and (2) an on-site audit of selected equipment items to develop the basis for the staff judgement en the completeness and adequacy of the laplementation of the entire seismic and stynamic qualification program.
The Seismic Qualification Revleu Team (SQRT) has reviewed the equip-ment stynamic qualification information contained in the pertinent Final Safety Analysis toport (FSAR) Sections 3.9.2 and 3.10 and made a site visit en September 15 through September 18, 1981 to determine the eatent to which the gus11fication of equipment as installed in Waterford 3, asets the current licensing criteria as described in IEEE M4-1975, Repuistory Guides 1.92 and 1.100, and the Standard Review plan Sect' en 3.10.
Confermance with these criteria are required to satisfy the applicable portions of General Desip Criteria in 1, 2, 4,14, la and 30 of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 50, as well as Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100. A representative sample of safety-related electric and mechanical equipment, as well as instrumentation, included in both MESS and 30p scopes, were selected for the plant site review. The review consisted of fleid observations of the actual agulpment configuretten and its installation followed by the review of the corresponding test and/or analysis dan==nts.
Because of the unsatisfactory notare ef this first SQRT audit, a second SQRT andit, with a sample of safety-related mechanical and electric equipment different from the sample of first SQRT audit, was conducted en August 31 through September 3, 1982. Based on the second SQRT audit, the SQRT concluded that the applicant has spent a great deal of effort in improvino his seismic and stynamic gualification program since the first SQRf and t, as evidenced by the significant improvement observed during this audit. Ilest of the equipment specific concerns identified from the first and second audits were resolved during the second SQRT audit. How-ever, same concerns, both generic and egulpment specific remain, and are delineated in the trip report of SQRT site visit.
These concerns should he satisfacterfly resolved before the fuel loading date.
The generic concerns are more significant, in that they apply to all safety-related equipment and can potentially affect a large number of equipment itees lhe applicant must develop an acceptable approach and a plan to imple-ment the resolution of generic issues. A list of our generic conte m is summarized below:
i ;
j 1.
There are still equipment and component mostly in 80P instrumentation and control area not seismically and dynamically quf.ified at the time of the second SQRT audit.
The status and sche.ule of quali-i ficatien of these equipment were requested by the SQRT in the second audit. Subsequently a status report was received by the SQRT on September 2, 1982. This status report should be revised l
until completion of qualification of all safety-related equipment.
All safety related equipment should be qualified before fuel loading.
1 2.
An evaluation of Waterford 3's seismic qualification program 4
should be perfomed by the applicant using the applicable criteria from Standard Revieu Plan Section 3.10 to ensure l
that all safety-related equipment has adequate margin to perform their intended design functions during seismic 4
i events when considering the effects of possib e multi-mode maponse and simultaneous vertical and horizontal excitations en equipment operability.. The applicant has not yet provided arqr report indicating the results of such a revieu.
l The applicant provided draft justification during the second SQRT audit, which concluded thet the equipment qualified by 1
the IEEE 344-1971 Standard can still be demonstrated to be l
gualified, and therefore aperational, using current IIRC l
criteria. The justification is basically relying en the
{
felleming:
(1) all fleer response spectra have only one peak response, namely, they are all narrou band, (2) Peaks eccur at very leu frequency due to the dominent soft soil response around 1.6 lit for heriaental peak and 2.2 Hz for i
vertical peak, (3) The response spectra values decay rapidly and monotonically se that all' practical purposes the aere perled acceleration (IPA) is reached at 5.0 Hz, and j
this is auch louer then 33 Ils used for most plants (4) l The SSE 2pA values en all floors are equal te er less l
1 then e.sg horizentally and e.4e vertically.
l l
The staff revleund~the above justification and compared thee l
with contalm ost structure floor response spectra contained in Section A of CBI Stress toport for Waterford Station Unit 3 Steel Containment Wessel (prepared by CBI, December 6, 1977).
These justificattens apparently are ve11d for various contain-mont floor response spectra in the vertical direction, however, not all the justifications are applicable for containment floor response spectra in the horizontal directions. Generally, for herimental spectra in the containment, there are more than one peak responses; furthermore, the zero period acceleration is reached not at 5.0 Na, but closer ta 8.0 Hz.
Therefore, the
{
applicant should identify egulpment that are qualified by I
j single frequency and/or single direction test which are 4
- N N-me w e e W
r
-m+--m-
I
] '
not covered by the justification provided by the applicant as mentioned above. Additional justification should be provided by the applicant on the qualificat.on of these equipment.
3.
The effect of aging on the seismic capacity of equipment located in the elld environment should be addressed by the applicant.
The applicant indicated that as a part of the inservice testing and inspection am, all safety-related equipment located in slid environment 11 he subjected to surveillance and preventive maintenance in order to assure operability during and after postulated seismic events. Both electric and mechanical equipt at will be covered by this program. The applicant is required to notify the staff in writing when the program is fully defined and in place.
4.
Seismic qualification of complex electric equipment by analysis alenetoessereaperabilityishiplyguestionable,andIEEE 344-1975 cautions assinet this.
Tne failure made of such equip-mont any not he adagnetely addressed by purely analytical method.
For esemple, it is a cosmon practice te qualify same large electric esters seismically my analytical seens; heuever, the i
j leestation of wiring in the ester any haceme brittle after a l
certale durstlen of soreles due to the ing of the insulation.
1 i
Thus, la reality the ester may mt he ab e to perfere its designed safety functies during 4sd after earthemete. The applicant should perfere a rev'e. of all electrical egulpment there aperability guellfication ses perfereed by analysis, and l
proeide addittemel justification for the onlidity of the quali-fication proelding sepperting test information en similar items er specific ressens idy opershility can he assured on l
the hosts of analyses alene.
In esaclesian, based en the W audit findings as well as the j
sabeittels free the applicant, with the emception of the concerns sentioned aheve and in the trip report, the staff concludes that i
i en appropriata seismic and $ nsmic gualification program has been defiend and seestantially laplemented, which will provide adeguate i
l, assurance that such egeipment will function properly during and-i after the entitation from vihrstory forces leposed by the safe ehutdeun earthquehe.
,.l i
j hooeletten of the specific and generic items as they progress
(
i will be reported in a future supplement to the Safety Evaluation i
- Report, I l l
t l
l i
' I
.,. r e,,' 'c,
..T.7 STATES
[ ,.7
'y,;
NUCL E AR T..C'.'L ATORY CO*.*.* *lSSION 5.....,' y; o c utz y.,
7 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Palladino Comissioner Gilinsky Comissioner Ahearne Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Asselstine FROM:
Darrell G. Eisenhut. Director Division of Licensing. ONRR
SUBJECT:
INFORMATION ITEM - APPARENT DEFICIENCIES IN MIDLAND-ROSS "SUPERSTRUT" MATERIAL USED FOR CLASS IE CABLE TRAY AND CONDUIT SUPPORT (Board Notification No. 83-02 )
In accordance with present NRC procedures for Board Notifications, the enclosed information is being provided for your information.
This infor-mation may be applicable to all nuclear power plants.
The enclosed ne crandua discusses the lack of adequate cuality assurance on "superstrut" material used in cable tray, condait, and instrument suctorts.
Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2. Palo Verde Nits 1, 2 and 3 and I.'ashington Nuclear Project. Units I and 4 have t'een identified as having -
used this e.aterial.
The staff is reviewing the safety implications of this matter and will promptly notify you of any significant developments.
At this time the applicability of this issue cannot be limited to these three facilities.
Therefore, all Boards are being notified according to NRR procedures.
When we have evaluated the individual or the generic implications of these findings, we intend to notify all appropriate parties.
M Darrell G. Eisenhut. Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Pegulation
Enclosure:
As Stated cc: See Nest Pace
Contact:
Carrell G. CisWut Fo t A 1A b x27672 A IL / A d, oS B
' KA6"
'o3 "b $
c OfMO,,g an'jU 3 6 A T [/37 g
-m
, B4-d3-02 cc: OGC OPE SECY O!
The Atomic Safety & Licensing Boards for:
Callaway Plant. Unit 1 Clinton Power Station. Units 1/2 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. Units 1/2 Diablo Canyon Midland Plant. Units 1/2 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. Units 1/2/3 Shoreham Nuclear Power Station South Texas Project 1/2 Waterford Steam Electric Station. Unit 3 William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station. Unit 1. and The Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Boards for:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. Units 1/2 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Units 1/2 Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant. Unit 2 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Units 2/3 Virgil C. Summer Station. Unit 1 Waterford Steam Electric Station. Unit 3 t:1111am H. Zim er Nuclear Power Station. Unit I r ;p 18 0
1