ML20114G083

III Sqrt Visit Rept (Second Visit)

ML20114G083
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Waterford
Issue date:	08/31/1983
From:	Macek R, Russell M, Singh J EG&G, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML082170562	List: ML20114E908 ML20114F055 ML20114F119 ML20114F267 ML20114F517 ML20114F530 ML20114F546 ML20114F567 ML20114F571 ML20114F582 ML20114F586 ML20114F593 ML20114F596 ML20114F599 ML20114F602 ML20114F624 ML20114F629 ML20114F642 ML20114F663 ML20114F692 ML20114F695 ML20114F697 ML20114F725 ML20114F735 ML20114F743 ML20114F834 ML20114F847 ML20114F850 ML20114F859 ML20114F890 ML20114F892 ML20114F913 ML20114F932 ML20114F935 ML20114F981 ML20114G026 ML20114G070 ML20114G079 ML20114G083 ML20114G085 ML20114G089 ML20114G092 ML20114G094 ML20114G098 ML20115A032 ML20115A059 ML20115A081 ML20115A094 ML20115A109 ML20115A116 ... further results
References
FOIA-84-143 EGG-EA-6300, NUDOCS 8309300075
Download: ML20114G083 (40)

Text

. _

rcc.EA-6300 AUGU',i 1983 WATERFORD III SQRT VISIT REPORT (SECOND VISIT)

J. N. Singh

a. W. Nacek M. J. Russell I

idaho Na#onal Engineering Laboratory t

Opemoed my the UA Desertment of Energy i:y,

..t

b. [c j;p_

V

z e,ji j.S.

u

,an..

b*

~

' ^

+

1 YbN#, &g:

y,'?3,Y [$

^ ^

g. fry < g M ~ &,.

'u s

t.

l N$

A

~

je as m.

p

'a t y.

p-

,,~

Ytwo is an infomief'feport inhnded for use as a preliminary or working document Prepared for the U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76-!D01570 FIN No. A6415

<, 09_') J OO 7'i 0,_30920, sg D

E y

\\

EG3-U -6300 I

I' I

WATERFORD I!!

SQRT VISIT REPORT (Second Vistt)

J. N. Singh R. W. Macek M. J. Russell s.

~ ~~

9h;$[_._i V-August 1983 i

EG&G Idaho, Inc.

j Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 L

t Deecared for the

'J 5. %, 'eae Regulatory JuW ssion wasn ngtor. D.C 20555 Uncer DCE Cont *act No. DE-AC07-761001570 FIN No. A6415 i

!L :_ ___

1 i

ABSTRACT EG&G Idaho, Inc., has evaluated the Louisiana Power and Light Company's program for the dynamic qualification of safety related electrical and mechanical equipment for Waterford Nuclear Power Plant j

Unit 3.

In this program, the appiteants use test or analysis or a

[,.

combination of both to quaitfy equipment, such that its safety function y&

will be ensured during and after 'the dynamic event and provide

• ^

!{M.

docureska[ ton. '.The review indicate [that' an appropriate qualification has

...g 1;-

been defined ~and inttfateff for seismic category I electrical and mechanical

' Qf equipment.' When completed, this would provide reasonable assurance that such equipment _will function properly during and after the escitation due e:

r te vfbratory forces of the dynamic event.

i l

Y^

~

i.

L. -

T t

b 1

i 4

3 11

{!

i 1.'

((_j'.j' r

w p,,.

a I

SUMMARY

?

A seismic quellfication review team consisting of engineers from the

)

~

\\

Equipment Qualification Branch of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and

)

t Idaho National Engineering Laboratory made a site visit to the

{

a Waterford !!! nuclear power plant near Taft, Louisiana. They observed the

<p, field installation and reviewed the qualification reports for twenty five

-o selected pieces of seismic category I electrical and nochanical equipment i

s.

1 3.

and their supporting structures. The review indicated that the equipment was adequately qualified for the dynamic environment.

l t

j.

t i

a,

I

'N ?f;p;_);-; e.

l

... em;., i

• t.

(

g ff)C]q:l.J

t. I e

_. _ f ',:,

\\

'.j::p i

e it!

f

CONTENTS ABSTRACT 1'

SUMMARY

iti 1.

INTRCDUCTION...................................

1 3

2.

NU; LEAR STEAM SUPPLY SYSTEM (NS$5) EQUIPMENT......

4 j

i 1

2.1 Boric Acid Makeup Pump (NSSSal).....................

4 2.2 Boric Acid Tank Circulating Valve (NS$$-2)................

5 i

2.3 Boric Acid Pump Discharge Valve (NS$5-3)..................

6 t

}

2.4 Holdup Tank C (NSSS-4).....................................

7 t

3 i

2.5 Feedwa te r Con tro l Va l v e ( N S 5 !-5 )........................

7 2.6 Re s i stor I np ut Ca rd ( NS$$-6)...........................

8 2.7 Indicator (NSSS-7).......................................

10 2.8 Resi stance Temperature Detector (NS$5-8)...................

11 l

.;., t 1

2.9 RCP Signa l Proces sor (NSSS-9).......... m.................._ 12.

~

l 2.1C Reactor Trip Switchgear Cabinet (NSSS-10)..................

13 2.11 Recorder ( NS S S-11 ).........................................

14 2.12 CEDM Reed Switch Positten Transmittee (NSSS-12)...........

15 2.13 Pressure Transmitter (NSSS-13)..........

16 3.

BALANCE OF PLANT (8CP) EQUIPMENT................

8 3.1 20 KVA In ve rter ( 80P-1 ).................................

18 3.2 Diesel Generator Lube 011 Piping (80P-2)...................

20 3.3 Le v e l Sw i tc h ( 80P-3 )...................................

20 3.4 As i a l Fa n ( 808 -4 )..........................

2:

3.5 HVAC Wa ter pump ( 80P-5)...........

03 tv

_S e s._+-

e

,}

3.6 Gravi ty Dampe r (BOP-6).....................

24 3.7 Three Inch 150 lb Diaphram Valve (BOP-7)....

25 3.8 One Inch 2500 lb Relief Valve (BOP-8) 26 3.9 Half-Inch Globe Valve (BOP-9)...............

27 3.10 I nd i ca t o r ( 80P-10 ).......................................

28 g

3.11 Electric Relay (80P-11)....................................

28 i-

.. 3.12 Four Inch 300 lb Gate Valve (80P-12)...............

30 sc 4..

FINDING $ AND CONCLUSIONS........................................

32 l

5.

REFERENCES..........................................

33 t

TABLES t

1.

List of Attendees.............................................

3

+

t

'. Wl 's i 9

f t ',

(.

,'.'h i

,~

n g

1 o

I i

i v

i 4

e

---e.--w---

y,-

ew.-, - -,. -

-4 w

w 4- - -,-,

.yww

,w--

.w w--

--E

p w :.

1.

INTR 000CT!0h P

The Equipment Osalification Branch (EQ8) of the Nac!ea-Repator, Commission (NAC) has the lead responstnility in reviewing and evah. attn; the dynamic eualtfication of safety related mechantcal and electr*:a1

)

4 i

equipment ; ~ This, oeuipment may be subjected to vibration f*om eartreuaae f..m,

^

m.

a

^

loads' or Aarthquake loads 1n combinakien.with hy' rodynamic. loads.

a

... ~ ~ uwa

c,...

cg.d d

' Applicants are voeuired to use' test.? analysis.er:a casefeation af noth to; '.'y.

N g ;).f.

. L. >.,, M.

.t ug y.... s ;~,.

9,

'n.i g,ua.alify,eguisseet essential,.te pla,nt safetyrsuch;,.-

R.

~

tha,t its function wt11'be it. 7 '.$d c

.v. ws w m. : w,:

e

.z..

3.

.These pieces of equip'eert and-...

D; ; _..' :easured during and af ter the slynasfe'.. event.

-l s

i

~

s,

.v..g

-. l..

[r~ + 1l rf,how ther.seet tne regoired criteria are described.by applicants in al Final'... '.. :.sd

,su....e o.

v

>j p L

SafetyAnalysis. Report ({5AR)u.

ye.xp m-

.Oncompletion. oft,he.fSAA*eview....Siy'.e 1 :s. _ ciQ c

, c q,~ n.n

:

n..

u..w

.s -. p{y..

~ evaluetten'and approval,~ the ' asp 1tcent',receWes'en Deerating;.e: Licenset(d.)..

s

,..e-i e,.

a

.r i

for. commercial plant operation.

,.]+;N'.c T, p-;

.x;;;

p,j w

y+f n

s n..

..a

}

.: A 5etsefc Qua11ficatten testew Team (50RT) consisting of eng+neers' < a, p.;;.

,.,n.'. 4.

v from the:EIN of:.NAC.and Idahe mattenal Eastneoff ag' t.aeorttery (INEL)basse.f@.

i

s, 4

R.. :

.u

...,w.

....w.,-

..i a site wisit.teDterford gett 3:st TeftM.,...

w.;; Aegust;30:

w',

eetstems from s..

5epte. ster.13.!15,...This' team.iectoded a sentfagnet efahr,ee fromn :.. "ast &

...ew

.::w... w m., e w., w,x o

.. ~. e e. iv. :,.

c... - :. a

-~

t.

'. m.w$.

, consultants,to K'.t9Weeviament.geibiffleetles methods, eno y

~~ :.

1 i

F

"[y.m/

c

.-. c.. -:s.

..s.me:.m. a m-

,. ~,

3

-Insta11atteestygotew N /

g-

. n,x..

?-

-i :

w,.

(including modeling'techstgue and adequacy), and escumented results fee a

, -, w!

r w

4 i

11st of selected setseic Categeey I secnontcal. amit electricat'essisseat a~d

i i

their' supporting structures.. Fof f swing tho' site vists, tne EE seef s

(

r were to adv1se. WC'with reseect.to the adessacy'sf saatiff:stion~of to*s eeutpoent ta' perform'its intenced functies.- A'e'e D aiasey resset*

f containing our findtags was issued. This resort fadicated weice o' tne itses were qualified and eeestred no aeditional escumentatten.- It also idontifled some eeuipment and certata general conceets fer w tch aostttoaa!

m infecoation was ' seeded in ordee for EGas te complete she restes

' hew i

were refereed to as wen itses. Tee aseltnnt invest'gatec *a-tae* aa-orovided addttional documentation sufftetect to reso!.e t$ese'1ssas t

the outstandtag issues were satisfactceily resolve =

i s

4 h.

,,. = - +

,--,3

---i__,----.%,c_

.w

.w,,,,,m.w.,,,,,,.,,_m,,

_,g.

-g

,_,--.w_g 9

--p.

,.y:--

_ m-i 6

Table 1 contains a list of personnel iAo attended the site v' sit-Susseguent sections of tM s report give a description of each selectec piece of equipment and its mounting follcwed by a brief overvtew of its 0

m easitftcation. Cocce ns raised ductag the review and their resolutions are 1

then discussed. Findings for each piece of equipeent are presented at the

d c.

.ead of each section. Overall fladings and coactustons for the plant are

.-. M..a

..3 v:.

4

.. -,ted at the end si the report.

lx. u

<. - ap l.) 3

-m.

a.

~

. sny m t < g. yp.

d

.. ar=a m.v. e.

m fy s

b

[

.Q :\\ 1 'f,'..'*.s'

.'*~<*,,,P't p 9 r':

G--.; E %.. a

.g

- ~M'

~-

'..h m[. : gi-k7h 1,,tp," * [-

2-

]

. [ %. [g

,C -

('

-g L a

,* ~

A I*

~

a,

..?m.w.

~

. v

' t r. :- ~, !;.,,'jU e

a p Mi,

(.,a

/. '.

l[."I

, g : ' A.3 -

' W: *) '

, ' g l'r l

,, Ts, <

. w;'

'h

{".7~ ~;?{ !, &

Q'

.. N

'~

[,t. +.2 -. L,

> ^ -

vi 3

M

+:

5. A

' >t y [Qr k

,, s. o 4

-o [.., *

g 4 L #' I 3

y

+

$. i; '-

t. ef(..* "- >

g

' a[

,.,S 'V}s-l~. A... $.f C., '*\\

l 4' 'l,y

':~_

, 0 :; -

w

~

[ ~*

'T,

~

t s

b y

(s$.

fy

~.t.

y.

., ;.,.1 T

<,.. ;f _ ',m e M y.

. ~, -. -

. ; c.

s ': ll

...g

' G j?b,

s s.

,.. < ;:);..,

• a :q,

s

(

• p.

.cp,,

4 6.

1,.

,\\

p

.r

-y.'

c...- ;

.e g.l

' g,, :).

55 % g;. + -g,f l.

..z..,._ $

. g:

.g.

a..

g 1..

z ha

.i.

,z; s.; %. t-c win.3 oa 1,

e wQ "f

.a n. 9 -

^

Y i ~ b l ~K4 e

... ;..;3

^ o

.1 21

,d

. 4.,

.f s

1 9

.x

,h 4

6 i

1

(

p

[.%.ayN

.e, 1

/

f{T. Wi e * + s !.

t f.,. - 3J M;4 m-

TABLE 1.

L:S~ OF ATTENCEES R. 5. Aleman:ru EEAS::

5. Bia:A NRC T

Y.. Chang

%RC W. Cetta EEASC3 F

J. DeBrutn Esa5:0 b

L. Constable NRC i

A. Deschance EBAS:0

,c A. DeWtto EBA5:0 yf R. J. Esnes.

EBA500 e,

F. Drummond' LF&L y.

/~4 T. E. Fitzstemons 0-E (DE)

?-

E. E. Gala LP&L J. Mart EBAS~3 A. Joses fBASCO J. Mealy EBASC3 E. Livesy EEA503

'n. 9eeper LPL.

i

4. W. Descet EG61. Ica c T. %cmetr C-E L. V. Nweta L84 '.

c E. 8H11er w CCD

.lf, g, gg,,,y

=.

ISASCO J' R'-

(

5. ~ hath.

EBa5 0 L

4. L. novgrad.

.PE. s/s E,

J. Pe*elle W 40

d. Deethot E!15~0 E 8eacos J6.

i W. Etttee a E0

m. J. 4.sse11

( 31. Ica c Z. T. Sat EE1500 E. Stege1

-E J. W. Sv E~E ::.aa:

E. 5:stino

-E

4. E. Stameley EEaSO

. V. Speseiat EEA50

'[

4. Toaara

-E i:E)

.. tak inw ;

4. v* sal E!25~0 m ; w.it tees

.: g, J !4aas

%.5 t

e t r..

w -

W m

ry

,e

a,.

{

I.

J 2

Ni" EAR STEAM So3LY SrSTES (%555) E A * ' W '. '

2.1 Be**: Ac's m ke.: Poe (%555- )

a I

The boric acid makeup cump, suppl'ec by C-a** @ **1 e't* Tecel no.-3065 A-50, is ocuntee with foue 5/8 in. ocits in the c e-::a m.~;

At FL. -f... volvie conteel systee at the etnus 35 f t elevation of tw cea: tar au'114 /

c.y r.

i;i;.j';Duilding. The reference document. fee its'sweltf tcetice is t%e McC9ea'd eth...

f @wk. Engiasseing+.Co. repect. 8E-359 Cert _tf ted Set sete Analyst s aesa-t of l

L - ~Wresee4 seine End section centeifve.at ekse # te m us5. s*:e asc.

Mas y:.

.t v - :...

h.rMp$eevistem'1..datesJanuary h

17.,1977. t; '

Fg y3

r..

yr y.

...n v.

v.

v

[,ga m..

..g; e

e

[NI$ [1he hues gual.tfledVa'si$tk toen a=41ysts-estes t%e ICEl-ShuCL i

,.. w v

+

A-

,~ c.omestee ende. ~ 2,5 g accele-at toas'=ere apeltes te bete he *::atat n

?, '

s. 31eettless-together atth 1.0 g acceVeretisa.te'the weet':al et-ecttca. '^

~

e

!&singitte same andel ds t%e static analytI..S,[all estere1 feesaecies were c

?

' found 24 he,1eeger,then 33 ltt; therefe*e. the statfC aaelys*s 9s 3-g; -

t m

..s.

~

?

{

j/? $, peesistibid.Y.p. The 'esetenst 6teest e(A94,299.)ps(t' cuss fen 1= tte frameMiSFA % Ud

~

k

c..

x 1-w.; m.,..e m ges f

y e--

V7 st

.r o the stags,y e.ree.sech*st.the ?%eet se'esalCE

1. f. -:t i. " ~ x.N ld 3,[- tei s.

2d..a~.....tyabgelstelysesefog;t..;

1 t

g-

s. v y.-

.w p. :.

.. a - -

np

. - lead 4Magenests,tegettiy sii46 eereellageretteg and dett e Taas.; IMs f-f T. 4. %ec.)

?~

l F ' his Mded sm/dMAhis sf.sz,ses psi.

pc

- r. - m..4

.e vm 14 sets,en}

? SOf j

E-the computed eastene geflecties of 9.hte, is less tMe t*e esehmus.

l aI1ametTo to asseet *ve..tiemal ese-se11ity (0.025 1..).

. ~

s F

Germs the revien of tme 4tetitestattatts* tt ans etee ta at t*e

\\

h actor pums sees 1 tag ses met testattet, hemove*,.t9ts c: cere.as I

h aseguateff reselsed luy se L86L fetter.1d1582-1252. deseea.g'1st31.'M2.

-l' e*'tCR 1M*casee a temslettse Gate of Octatee Za.1982 fer tse c 1

4 t *;

[

?-stat ist'am., Dw-tog tMe reefem of the amelf f f catise coper *.'t eas *ct e-E e.'seet t%t t%e eseticattea e' Land Cases a e-e 1 wa; ;acse esttse a?s:.

t

[

't mes met ev' Seat 14 tee Laed Cases used tt :aWa*e ttf tsat st*es tes t

i we-e coese wettee.

a sesesmet seemtstal ny tw assH:a't L*L lette.

nsPf3 *.25;. seted Jo waer 21.1M2) has :s**t-see t*at.se: ases 8 4N 5 e-: t + ~:4: : m u e: t: : m te t e ::'t ; u -.ss e +

u-..

.4:..

t 6-l s '

e. z.' s+

L

,a

.. lp w

-r m

. - -m

', T, '" ',

E

?

I Basec c9 our :tseewatton of the field installation, review of sie cwa!'f' cation eeport, and tne clarifications provided by the appif et.nt, it is concluced tnat tee cumo is ace.twately qualif ted for the peescribrd Icads.

i 2.2 Bor*C Aeto Tank Cteculatino Valve (NSS$-2)

,1 6

. ('

D,

.The beric acid tan cireviating valve, supplied.by Fisher Controls.

• j r

w, i

i:.q. p _w.ith drawleg ne. 50ASE28. mvisten.E, is.cwelded 'in the chen1 cal and volume.

'. ~+ F e.,4....,

,c-4 A2s '.w'.Eicsetrol: piitag system at the staus 35 ft'elevatten' of the(reactor'aust'11ary,,V ' - i;.;q,C

~.w

.n. :.. a

.a v

n... v Jp,% bet 1dlag~ ;s e;veference document fe.,. i<w,.,

l v.

rithe:ealve's ::ltftcattoe'is the

~

qua a

1h.

e

\\

g,M

, Fisher Controls report, Seismic Anafkst's for Oeder 1-46610. dated.Aprf1 3.,

o.

.u

~-

.w,w.

- m.

m

,. rr Ig7.5 _g L

3..nW,.

3r

.o -

1 lY'7QL.:.s.%.,.Q y 3

)

,.. n b.m lywfv%.: Q.4.) lV

~~ W.f.2, L::

v~

c'

' Q $.f?. K *e'f; ( "'& Rl

]G f f,$ f Y.*

-D

'*'ft'*

E

' N.

~ '

.?

The valve was qualtf ted by static analysis.using a Fisher "in-house"

'I t -

a

, computea esde based en Fisher's EngineertaglStaadard E5100 revisten B 3

ented M 11 8. 19552 This code basica11[ eses [ beaUassumptions in tnel c...

)

J/C )

e r~'

r.

' static:enshis and meteral' freousecy.,calculattens: The valve ~was analyzed n.L c

J,

.. - : -a s...

.... o..

~

n Wh,3.- l.for 3 3.x w.eret$ons-le ~easet4trettfee with the' resulting responses'h6,t w(p,. ~.UUJ steel ls a F 7 ? ' c. osttand 'tp M58 m..,, a.,

,,s.%.%.2.<eesettee.' C1he metadellrequency sa..g.iculetien tadtcated t,

i r

.~,. t

,y

,.~

a.m.~

m iatest the 294 frequency fo.. x:N.~ p '

x,... n s..

e.g.u m iM femessenta 'frege.s ssp er 28 it thfah v.

.s

o.

3 r;the, s

d

. ~ k. g 3,v u

w

!(,y hate-fore ofte 4 A. 4-J the staticion,es.;; q,.alystslts peretss'ttle..:^^The m 2

e

?

g;g.; f a

s p..

m, -...

analys't.s toescoted a, esstems stress of 21;919 est to the yoke legs;'this

• e.3 ~ %,.

y wa1ue t's lesa them the ASE cade alleuable ef 36.330 est. Deflectiens were aise comes.ted; hemover._as allemetle salue mes e1oes.

'l il l

~

1 L

..~

P g

Osr1at the'tespecttan af tme field.1estallatten 1t wes noted teat tMe

[

iest ilme sospoets' had met been installed.1 ~ This es"Acern was adewately l

i

• esetved Dy en Ebesce lettee. It111s to DeScuta, dated Septeseee 1. 1982 3

.eica 'seicated completten nr September 3.1982. for the f estallatton.

Mag the eview er tw easitftcasten essert et was metee t%et no aIIsmeste' walue for 190 Comewted deflectfens bad Deen give9.

In addit'O*.

L 4

r t= wee =es as fadicattoa that 8t shee's "in-aeuse" compute cece. usec in tne a*aly s's. had Dee9 weet**ed.

These C09C9P9s we'e 'esolved by an LD&L

'estee. *:te-o:a te ste ' ;at ea. *: e3883-G429. :stec rec a, s. W 3 I-6

_. p41

--..q

---

.-------w-w

---

w.

~

i stated that the E5100 program has a vertftcation coct. ment en file with CE.

It also proviced assurance that the calculated seismic ceflecitons wou u not cause failure of the valve to operate.

[

Based on our observation of the field installation, review of the qualification report, and the clartf tcations provided by the applicant, it g

~1s concluded at the valve is. adequately qualifted for the prescribed 42a r. m., ads..

l lo ca..

. ~ "

9 ;r y;p. i;

• yg W^y@; u&gWl? 5mya.3 Soric Acid pues 01s

. - H,; e t n

~

,L A.?

Qi,-Q*$.

72 cheroe Valve (NSSS-3)'

W.

c.

.A 4

.y.

. /. Q~..

,n. 'b -EV ?

'M $;m.

3

..,i,

+..

3,

_9 gg<m. p,>:.1.yThe beric seid pump df scharge, valve ~(draw 1ng' no; 039963, revis1on H),

r c

x

?su3.pplIed by,the Iti1)ias Powe11LCompany 01s welded in the chesIcal and,i.

x,.

.~.

/msr...,.

W W ue.. ns m. w ; y

,,.c.~

.c

.g 3 c; t

leme controlytpfag at the minus;35 ftlelevation of she'reacter.amuillary t

, -. s

.g

.. <. u.7.....

63'- - buildtag. S, he,

reference document for.its'.qualtfication is the W1111as..

~

..v.u-g

[s-Powell Company repo.rt entitled Resort on Analysts of. Valve for setssic p'

~

i Coaditions;datedJune1,Ig72.,3

A.,';i.; '..,. P r f

L

.g, m

~.

t fa h, l'.'

. ) '/ vi*

l s f,

,. +k ~ 0 selsatc;1eed app Sed perpendicula. x n. g...,.%.,' J Wes1G Q1tfgod d,' static hEd beeianalbis"w1th li.1"g"I MM;bg

g.,y 73, f M. 'f

@g a. n. y

t

.r u m--

n-

~

.x.

<... n..~ k e

~

r te:the weakest. heading' ants.?,.llemel 4 4% wgdt gS Coperattag god,th.msst leads ~were also,n.. w...

.~;

e

- c.>::w w

~c appiled,

s

a. :c..:~ un., A single lumped mas:s. natural.i :s s, $..v gy w. w, ;,, w

.x n. c n.. v. a c.r -

.n y

c.? ^ 4; frequency 1eeled,etten;tedicated that.the J. ewest frequency'was 51 Mz ands

~

~

cc f.

thus's...w.. static...~.enelysis was $stifted. Under the applied loads the maximum-

[

stress of 14.360 psi was found in the body to bonnet botting. This value

+

L,,

is less 'then the.A$8E code allowable of 32.000 psi.- 1Cosputed deflections y

... ' ' '(0,006 in.) were also within man'ufacturing[ tolerances, a.

t

6....

2

[

During the fteld inspection of the valve it was noted that class 1E h

heat tractag wire had been routed through pipe supports and that l

(p tastallatten of the heater cable to the valve was not complete.

The concern that the heat tracing wire may be clipped in the pipe support e_

p.,

4 a seismic event was adeeuately resolved by issuance of a design p

et I

change notice (no. 426, 45), which specified that the wtre be routed remote from Steuctural elements in pioe succoets. he coacern that the Feate-e 6

.-M.

$" p; b &

.v

i cable was not installed was also adequately resolved by an LP&L Letter.

1 W3582-1262, dated August 31, 1982. This letter specified a completion date of October 24, 1982 for the heater cable installation.

{

Based on our observation of the field installation, review of the qualification report, and the clarifications provided by the applicant, it IL 15 concluded that the valve is adequ,ately qualified for the prescribed

.[.

s p...:

i~

loads,.,

9}

m c.: ;[. Rf. ?.

1 1

m 7.m.

e;9%.s

.?'

AL'

. M_ "y eS 4, z. -

,,. W

!.(: h. - %+ xftp pt m ' N} 1 2.4 :Noldus Tank C (N355-4)'

t 8

s j,,

C[(

4

, p

..,,.a._

,p e n

, n..

.. ~...

a;,

p;nf The holdup tank was reviewed during1the first audit.

A major-

.h

- D'

..g f

.c.

t

.g r.v 1 9. D discrepancy,.ues found between. the support confjguration analyzed and that w

@Pgm.e.. ~ s v. - m.

-s s v. r.

Wn

....w a u,

m ~,..

.. z r-vg w

finstalled in the ffolder It wes'chosee~:for,the'second audtt to allow a 4

~w f

. +.. '

W

. a ::,c.v.,

."f'"-thoroughfollow-up'ofthecorrectiveaction..The correction plan was-found3

• Bl

....m., s

. ? ' to be acceptable, although modtfications have not 'yet been'made in'the 4 9.1

~

m.

1 on

.n

~w

.w

l. r'

-field.

. Verificat. ion of the fie.ld modification is a conf,irmatory action tofM

+-

s..

a.- w.

?

be performed;by MC resident inspectors.JThe w11fication dotatis for. ' $

. 3 4-

@f/. < -this 1tes arelIicussed in the7fNstIaNiki 2

N'l

.' #p7yHf;gg( A V y;ggQW7j~g.gjhjf.j-f{n$ jgt{fg.3 4.:

t

1. ,' M.+ '4 'q &..r..".gt: %.,,

.9

. ?-v 7..

x.

up, r emih ; f...

s.~ ; ;

m:

e. 7.4., l.s W.~l t-

c..iMM.' p:: M. : 3

.s.

Contre)-Valvel utSS-5) F S,

."f h _. sk m@% )f..

' :n[ [j# h*.hM \\ e

• M < [ d{

k,1. O. N.: -

w a ~.v

/ jg:.r' a

e

• k

Y."

The feeduster control valve (model'ao. 51A4372. revision G) was p -

r,:

2, My

' L 41Y, L

susoited by Fisher Controls. - The italve, is welded into feedwater piping at

~

c

.1

_ r.j the 44 ft elevatten.ef the reactor aus111ary building. The qualification wi.e:

(

reporti Setssic Corsification for Greer 1-51004-serial no. 5900961, dated

,~

c

'1" I

May 4.'1976, was supplied by Fisher Controls..

~

~

9,.

P

[

Qualification was with an egutvalent statte analysts based on a

~

[

computercodetaelemenstagthecalculastonsinFisherEngineering5tandare p

E3100.

The static analysts was Justified by a fundamental natural. -

~

\\

frequency caleviated to be 22.5 Hz.' This t's well above the 5 Hz zero r

period acceleration frequency of the mounting location. Setssic stresses were calculated as an SR$5 combination of the stresses for a 3 g teac t

l 7

. e,.

4 h%

4 t

.y..,.,

e....

- - ~ -. -..

appt'ed in each orthogonal cirection independently.

The e.a,*999 stress '

29,400 asi c: curred in the yoke leg;. This is less tnan the allo acte o*

36.000 psi.

Review of the qual 1fication report showed that the coaiputer program was not verified. This was discussed in the review of the boric acid tan 6 y

.ctrculating valve's qualtftcation GSSS-2). The review also showed snat a j

positioner mounted on the valve in the field wa' s not includec in. the

.c....-

.a J &;,;.y[ analysis. Further investigation showed that'the positioner ha'c no safety n. ~...

.Efg g,.

fun:cties.. L,p i *.

cr-g m.

e,

. ?. e.%

e x

p yyy Mi? ;'-

During the fie.ld inspection, the sister valve to this valve was

,.y

=

4..- L observed.to have an electrical cable attachment which could be tensioned J ~m. c.under thermal.motten,in the appropriate directten. The thermal analysis en...

.~.

5.

~.

...c w

a j._

for tho' associated.piptng predicted thermal mot 1on that would not place the I

cable in tension, se that lack of. slack in the cable is acceptacle.

s During:t -the field inspection,the air lines ~to the valve appeared to be. 4.,

h_r&-inadegustely supported.

..s x_.-

m m m..

Supports,for the. air lines had been designed;turt. Xygg. jm. ]

y...

.4 u.

,,s.,m

..e, v '-

'not installed. lInsta11stion'is guerenteed tly field change reouest

' f.

.,f

(,

-no.FCR-IC-P-456dThese:atr:11aesM$re[Osadekachedfromthevalve. This -

l.

m.

e s, _. t ~

n,;

U l.

.had been done se D at the valve could be tselated free a pneumatic system

.v.-

~1ntegrity check.~ The precedure for~the check.' Mercury pecceou e M123-72A.

[

reoutres that the air lines De re-attached after the check c

I:

~

Based on owe observation of the fleid installation, review of the

')

qualtftcation document and clarifications provided by the applicant, the f

feedwater control valve is quaitfied for seismic loads.

t t

). -

1:

7 2.6 Resistoe fnputCardNS$5-6)

The resister input card, supplied by Westteghouse, with mocel c

~

no. 2437A86601, is mountec wtth standard carc sounttng haecware ia tre peccess testeunent raca at tne a6 ft elevattoa e' tae -ea:te as

4*>

Dw?ICirg.

The ee#9rence CoCument for th* Carc QwaI*ffCatdoe 5 t*e k,

$OS_.)

m,

'hr,

~

W u.3 s:-Qt)y_-c,

^

v

~

{

i 6

bestinghouse report, Seismic Operability Demonstration Testing cf tec j

westinchoose !$0 7300 Series process Instrumentation Bf stacles, h0AP-ss 5, dated December 1976.

t 9

.The resistor input card was qualified by multtfrequency sine beat and

[",

m,. '

multtant,s testing. Mult1 frequency escitation was achieved by superposition M.N W".

of'varfeus:stne beats and multiants response was 6btained by four rotaticas 4

3-n p'/ @..

.wt sf.the' equi

~:...

W e n. m s~pment'inicach te9%..f.The' device,was qualiftho to an in-cabinet

. 1 E' -

'O::n' resposee ? spectra;that was developed fees a generic floor respon.

m, r

m m.

e se spectra'.

d ik:kThi m.,w(fNee :speckra eM. t.epoE t b terfe k site spe. fic spe' tea for N

c W.... rW W the<eoustieg lo. cation. We natural' frequencies were determined for this j

e $.m.

n:

O m.y~.

~

p: > f.W- ~,:p; ' device.7 Five NE and four SSE, tests.me,re pairformed with the caen a

v. r w s.

k..f? st. N.,. y 1#)the $.N%.fe,ase, uhten'.eas4ttachedM.a;'rtgidtf1sture en the '

wa L.

n.

..i

-.4 s

.s y +l(- %, table, functional. eserabt11ty was clateed.to' be,. demonstrated ductag the.

f,.~.,"...

qualffication repert..

f, l

, y. {

qj

+

v

~

test;.henever.~ there was,nc ' data to support this conclusien fa the) r f,(:

L-n; i

.d

.? ;

4 t ;,5,

.y

'V wy; Ml- ' - :, Ourtas..v.he vestew 'ef the,ffeld festa11ation -it was n

{.

u..

G:

m t

. s

, t

u. w _

.. 4 <;

e

e. t

. :.. -m...

uL

.e..

C: s.R ~ rather le.eg sab.,les (3 f.tPhad est toe.s

~.,,

a...

s

.. pp This concere un'sM;' '@a.T(*

. escured.

w

J.t. *c.3,2 1 -

. ; :., ;3.;.c.

...o a if p

7, f

h$

f. adequately addressed $ review'ef the testallatten procedures and the #Al $N d

isseench ef M E$asco N tai N. 11sfti D,eSiven',1 eted'septeneer 2. }ser'..'.iM d

n(,.9, up ::This letter leficated that taoistre bundles wilt be securee my October 30

. - m w..

~

y

~-e

'4 p

~ 198" As previews 1y eetec. ducieg'the revte= c' tme cualt fication renet

~

tne*= =as' ao evidence supporting t%e' ceactusion t at f acettenal operat*1 ty Ei was verified. IThecefore, t*e apolicaet'was resuestec te neovise data te l

}

suesort this conclusten. This was mone'in an Lett lettee. =4veta te5:vaa.

j no. W3PS3-0251, dated January 21, 1983..

t.

p Basse en our noservation of the fle.1d installation. -eview of toe w

F[

auai,fication ree.,t, aae t*e cia.iricat4 s oro.ioee., t% ao.nca t.

t l

is e cluded snas t*e resister i.eut ca e is aeec atei, :er ee < - t e erescrkbedleads.

Iy 9

a.

. i u:

~f M C. ;c..

y

-.--e.

- - +

i i

1 I

}

2.7 ledicator (hsss-7) t The indicator ( nods 1 no.1151. serial no. 0200. tag no. DI-1C;B) wa s swolled by 51gsa. Purchase order specifications are containec in CENP3

(

specification no. 9270-ICE-0005.~ revision 01, which also refers to Enataeertne Specification for Instrusent and control Ecutpaent.

DO (/ spec. ification no. 00000-ICE-0005. There'are a total.of 26 indtcators.

Qa.* y

]

.a.3

..p

.. 7 The ties

.c 4/h$yfachesasures6.05a,.2.28a5.8w.in.'.andweletsabout25oz.

..w w e m m ' fie'id was~asseted'on.Paeo1 CP7. which ones located in sne,

.e u

the w in L 1

,3 w

19.; he,,austilary. hotMiss;atthe;46 ft' elevation.

o.

I

'O yy

,c.,y y,.;;: n ; " n.

.v t

The

.y-

,y... e...

nm

..: w -

.~ ew

~.

'eswettag es-the panel conststed'ef.Jstandeed.aounting' hardware. Seismic

.y xy:". y y i m,..n s

.~..u..,,,.

,.h

1. l$e.n.: mcw.y.+.zdone throughf test's' perfe; reed by Enytronmental Testing r' m ".'4<gualfficat.

uns f

a.

...c.;: ~

~...c e

.4

?y s:v. rett.

.antd,pcu,mentes;te Jeport. yne.;13906~. -

rpo titled Reeert of, Test La. -

M

.g w;. +

~ v. g. ~.. m.

.s

.a,,

$ M !"#Eevt medleteete Oualificatten of.,...w.a..Verteus'itmos: fee Co=6estive-m ;

4 m i.., :.

, A 'Eastseertan' ender'pErchese Creer me., 9875 12 h.,.

4-y,

,+

R3p.k u > p. : <. W 'y. -

,W,

.g.,n +s.;.._ vp ~ :m,

... e

~.

N

. 3

,..a

_.. c w.gr.

t.. :

.m 1

o

.f W iffe enemic tests.nere perfere,ed,with,a mounting which simulatedLthe w e E j.)e.. t,

_v e

. 3..

e,c.p.gtaservtee 2- -s 9t g lapute W m.:ha.. s,;ieteue durettes ef # nThese use

,c,~3

.s

.s r.

u casettlan u. t ys.

w.

n.y

, d m

Esp 1,... w.>. m ~

>.n.

seceedsf. Each test was repeated 2@A Y'.W@A 3.bq[8,Ie tuef.peth.

y.

s,, me. a p,

%K. M. w %, a.4 ; y w m.. --

M hefe Wereia.%etaIT.*h E s m.,

m.. m c..:2,

'['

Meet *ef$...,:9e }Impets.'.,

.. x. ~.: e.

.q,

m.

2 c:. wag,

u M k,p f1We-IoGI.

s y ~

.s., u v.

-..v..,

.s.

S.MeI ted 5.a.y$%p,IeWel ' test.t. A,. test fesponse ('/1 efr M;

.x

.w, : m s,w

- c. a - m

. n

w. '

R.n.$

+ m. -

c...w

. w;.

SW' '(spectrue 085)v. ; g.w. genereted le each case,/ These. tests:were performed:te -

4 a.c u.

,e

. o.

?j-q4

!geaeric spectes. and in every caseithe' eeufseent R45 was envetooec by the its generat.ed.a :

s

,7

. y yo v

o,..: n s

l 7N,2 The testis'pebersee are adeewate.

M' uevee.' 1ihe avechase orcee o

~

'gspecificatten veewires the fe11emlagi m

R a.,.

3

~

.1.

Scale range 15 to 25 (n100) (psta) 11aear Y:, y

~1 2.

acc.cacy c.ss 9.r.. e. - -

3.

Screw teestaals 4

mess -es pressuet:er p esss e, r

i I

py u. c 0

$h!ti 44 h _ hh5

'L

~

s<

t m.,.

3-.,.-w w..

- - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - ' - - - - ' - '

aed :;ualificatten wa claimed in spite of test performance witn an a::aracy of :5%.

This concern was addru sed in ai LP&L letter, % urin to Novak, no. W3P83-0367, dated February 1,1983. The 5% seismic uncertainty was included in an uncertainty analysis. The results showed that the plant

(

design is sufficiently conservative to accommodate the combined effects of i

the instrument channel uncertainties, including the 5% uncertainty due to a f

seismic event, and ensure' safe operation of the plant.

6 s,,

s.-

9 y

U V. j

. _ f h.y

. +. :c,,... ;3

..u -

K.

.~

24 t@yFgss,ilf,4 sed on. euriobservatten of the field 1nsta11ation, review of.

. icett'q(.....

,,.+.

s.m <..es escu. ent, and the app 1tcant'. s. response to our questions lT the

'o m

(,.

-.. r s

p y-m rn ~.. indicator is adequately qualfied for. seiseic loads.

'}

j L.Y:( M.;W:: qq: 1 3

m.Q.M.y f.g..

. > = y::y> ;

9.

.~. g 9 4 m h. y /.2.4 Aesistance Tenierature Detector 0 555-4) 5 V;g;p

• 1.

i yp: A r, -

~

y.,y

.y, gTl?ly_

+y

.9 7,e y

y z.

i;

'The reststance temperature detector (RTD), model no. IC4AFC-1, was

~

~

2 suppited tv,'Resseeunt. 'It,f s' ~ welded tel primary coolant pump talet pfp%.e,

)

.g at' the~15 ft elevation of. the:costatnment hvilding.' The qualiffcattenh QF,

.N k

a--

E, w A

reecrt. Seiseic' Vtbeetien tesoet en a Teaserature Seaser for C+stios

/

.Q gP,., q, g;,.;.

h t ' W h h ; i

' Ennineeetne"Co., an.? 273204. Jested Ju1E22.,1975.- wes supplied by., 4 Y M

<tesessung.31Mpd}ia,J";1m[u$flG;N&y.D Mk..... k C h.UfJ f.h a x j yl$ l.,f

.fk?hhk h

?'

(

,.L s

3:R :

- A'sectes"ef..stagle frequency,,settt'guelifled the afi'f '. x..Y;

1. ' ' Y f;f; p??

<;e. w y

^f kS N

.l

. ? Fundamental.

natu*al frequencies of 20 Mt in both treesweese directions justifled tne

'~i @;1.

r en -

.n

~

single. frequency test since the 2ero seriod acceleration frequency il tnrougsout the' plant is 8 Hz er less. Itie resonance survey was conductec fee the antel ' direction en the 870.,_.This is acceptable because of sne a cn

[

greatee stiffness in this directlen'.i The' test mounting accurately ti reflected field mounting conditions. Sine dwell tests of 2 g in each j

transeerse directlen were performed sti the fundamental and at 25, 33, one l

e i

[

44 Mr.

This is well eeyond the requirement of 0.3 y in see transve-se eteection..

t.

b

~

r Based en our observation of the field insta11ation, review c' ine i

T.ai*hcation document anc the acollcaat's eesconse to asest cas

• e est stance temperat re oetector is acetate for sei smic * : acing.

l 11

'. y,

d %.W*yw

~

l'

l 29 RCP Signal processor IN555-9)

The RCP signal processor, supplied by Bentley Nevada, with m:ce; no. 18740-01, is mounted with two 10-32 and four 1/4 in. bolts ?n the plart protection system cabinet at the 46 ft elevation of the reactor auniliary building. The eference document for its qualtf tcation is the Wy e Lab report, Setssic Simulation Qualif teation Test Report on a RCP SSSs t.

t.

r

. 'Stenal Processor. Model 18740-01, dated June 15, 1978, with report

$4:sfine. 43044-l'.1?f,.

I

> e n.-

.o us>,

. ::;c c u

s-

[ ',k Gi '

^

m E

1The device ~was qualif ted by randoe multtf. ve.,cy (with superimposed

?go. r :

~e....

[?M:

y' bolts.tn' the,ve,atory testing.. Sine, sweep resonac e s sineboats){sultiantstesting. The device was mainted with six 10-32

~

labor

.m a:w.c w o

... ry

~

D Weatural-frequencies"of 18 Ma in'the~ side-teMde',18 Hz in the +

k front-to-back. 'and 28 Hz in the vertical direction. The processor was-

' qualif ted to a generic spectra which envelopes the Water *ord site specific spectra at' the 'eaunting locatten.: In,additten.. the test response spectra n.-

u S'

. enveloped the reestred response spectra at all frequencies. Some m mm ms e

v.

y#'.en,1renmeetal' qualification:mes' done,ta sequ,ence.with the seisate testing., a1x :-

,. :n v

.. - s..: e

.n

.,,.,..r

.a m.., _

.n

+ y.

[j, S 142 08Eland:elght 35E tests. were performed and functionol'eperabtitty was

.; N.. :n,&.

4

?.

...e.

g,,,. s,Tannitered to.eech;

test,

^

2

,.,s-f g GiQ ;L' f, 'jhgj Q$y.v~ %,,f,n,.%Q::

s p

(" j,p f MQW*,

.}.

Ourieg*f:l$6p.4 8 %

PU i;

%... '

• i the tespection of the field installation it we noted that loose cables in the cabinet had nos noen secured. Thts concere. was odeoustely resolved by the review of the installation procedares anc the l~

_ ssuance of an'Ebasco letter.N11s to DeScuin; dated September 2.1982 i

[

'which' indicated' the wire bundles will be secured by October 30, !!42.

~

During the review of the qualification report. it was noted that teere was o

(

an egutonent anomaly during the hun dity and temeerature environmental testing. This enemely was later shamn te to inconsequential. After F>

E

, seveesi of the qualification tests, a cracked electrical connector was e

. ' discovered. This concern was adequately resolved by noting the e

conservatism in the generic spectra and by the indication that this crach*C connecto did not af'ect the eautooent's aceration ir swesecuent ISE te m i

i 1

\\

?

O e.

n.

. : d,dhR:.

J~

$Q

~

4 Based on our cbservation of the field installation. review of tre gi.alification report, and the clarifications provice by the applicant, it is concluced that tne RCP signal processor is adequately :;ualified for tne y

prescribed loads.

z 2.10 Reactor Trip $witchcear Cabinet (NS$$-10)

T.

L.

4Y

~

s:

. ;?.L.C w

't. GG f,^w..

'b4 The reactor trip switchgear cabinet'(no model' number) was supplied by 40..

,M r.

y

,..,.4

.s

.iw.e

.,,.,s o

W b L.7. UnJt Electric Centrols

,y<k. m... a al m.

.;Inc.,;It isl1ecatedlat;the'21 ft elevattee cf.the 1 M..,z..r:s 3

Idtag.n.m~.2 m s.

, ~m : - -

.m 2 m.

s..m n$ p::.

y.: q.qt p. aunt i T

A he guay report. Seienic'Steulatles #. g m yhm Qf.afTest du e n,.

s n.m. n %:r; m w7.esl;453l-tireviaf~on-A,. dated f Q E y W h m wq,m3

. c.....

er Tris

=

rear 3

e.

; y r

%. f.; ;.s: M ? x M n.: [x s Mn MM%N'.M@.N.,M;m YkJanuary:13.4 1978 pu4;:n g&.; q%q..g,'

k% qm

g. s.

I-

-.7

.. pl

. e., # m%,ugg;.4f; s..w-o#:

@m.;pt. m.o y J; -

gyJ :y.m,p n ;: w - w,; w@m.~ie,g, m.c.,4,:py Mv p ;..4;r. w %.z y

~

n

.y

.'amittentfhes set s.. e n@wu :pe11 fled;the c lw~ u/ih res a:4

.w inesonance teettag hoved fundamental netsreffrequen:cies~ef'14 5A!

. w. e.v..,

S. "

w P:'6:

d:n.f.

.. a e m

.i,

.c9 b -%;.. side ~ te. u. de.y r;..

n..

...g w w.s4. -

Y

+.

w.

m and182.5.'in the vertical; wis,e;x w ~.dt p fesp a11 abo..v si

$.M,,y.d.

W h

,f, f

.pe Mengi

.g r m.+

$ $ ;M i' ti N d j' M M M M h d M N@. m k, y a

.faccelerettes f

.fer the movettog etten 'of 4.'4' 48 Y m

g c

% m wq *.

u pgwwpqgpw.

e. m.,s 4 i

$7.hW M

~ y~ ?

Wmp

74 Moveyuhese.doesyt tatsw 2;4.3th;Jtitsce l

Vydp w :r'zThe %

mm cma M ' ikw w w.*4

~

ww s.w?:

p DeterRI. nwe e A g /Ehe~ c8eeses.

~

EMh5NM11..a YM

[

N asase%e[

sp e:.s +

x www w

e;/:m$~;could

.

.les c:

A,+

w 1

stested ithea G

.gc.a:m a % s 3>

p aw w.t;

[y %

+s.w s.,te M.s u..e % w.m 4"' M I D &a ~

$1se0~the.p 1085: art'desfgeod,to:

h $ $ cabf#epn; m.s (sk

~

g raw.

m m.n v ?. ~. x m: w A. v

... A y

~

~.

n.eperate very

reptity;te prevent. 'v,c1.sg demoge,;thetc. individua.l components %x?

ar py:P

, x.

.c.. m s e w~

m...

. s.v ~

m

.' +

are very compact j<ed)'streeg.g ~In addittesTthe breat p a.-scheatssjtsleaded?

e W

.;.. - o. w

.c,

v

- w. em e s

m; d i.f.w.,l..hy a strong.

. te,the, mereel _eperettsg 'po.sttfon; w.hien; mould provost

.9 n

y m:.<;. x.. n.w 4. m.

n m..

n

. ~,.,.,

1ew frequ.-;.,, k.assectated with jeleerseces in the mechantsa y - Q,' N. <;

ency',as

~...... -..

..n

~., ~...,

t-Therefore it' is"u..nithely.that the brechers;would ha,ve a....,?fr.equency

~ ~Mr natural

^m,-

w.

~

., a

• 'i under l'4 98x.

.W.

20.-

.&Al~.

,y ;,

y

?

~

p;w(..j :Miy y ; Q ;, Q l [y.

%r' s

,.S 4.:Q

(' ?.4 <

}.:

.}.

. ?.. - '-

3L a

l Durtag the testtag,;ene.ef thelctogult.brechers, failed te.close.,This

c. s

..s

+...

w retsed a concern about using the circutt'broeter in'an application. where it

~

m must close. to perfere a csafety function.' The fallare of the circuit s,

beeaaer to reclose occurred in er.e of the n-, brenners tested.

Esamination of the sucject breaker showee it :s ce Fective =1th misaligned linkages. Since this anoscly.es otec in the first attew t to 13 i,.' ' '

5 6 g

R..,,.

, n.a

. x

.i,

' - s;. e.

i

~ 7%? Q~ &Q3M;.%@c. <&MMWQQ,QQ N' _ y. _

1

.-4.

ee:lo w tne D*eaker. It i', jucged that ini s was. raccom '41,,re attributable to manufacturing. All of the otner i qnt crea.ers fun::n ee (including reclosure) witnout incident.

The test installation used high strength bolting. This raised a Y g.

concern, since the field bolttag was not citarly high strength. The

@r y.r.

K s

4 %p:'y:. concern.was addressed by noting that the testing was performed at levels

.n.. v.. m...

'e.yfjefficient.ly'.above those required to ensure that any reasonable bolting

.c

.c s

~

q w.

z. n pQw a[alitsevNte ~ adequate fo,r. the.f told installationy The:ratto of paster mun,.....

v r m.a e l at tho' fundamental'natur'l '

V p iled lev.x y,..c.

requiredacceleretten%etris25.?,Applyingthisfactorto e

a f.f=r,m n

~nx and f-0) of; m cw.:..,e' cab n

. w y.-a.

t s.

~

.[:q,s.p equencyj,. M.

th i

s p.~m e

- x.

,m..g

,' @w % ylejd at "of the...te.st. bolt,ing~ meterial:.gtees[a field bolting required

~

G.

pAww

@ Q y:teld stren..agtitof 6.6 kst. 'I Any(re:asonable bolting material would meet this

, m.;.

.npy...

p J

n %g &g. m - w w

.g..b 3...N..mekppe ow&,7,,,% n< k J;o>% ;.n (s

+-4

. p. ). ;

' y~

rege

,W

.: q d -

u a

.y..

c

).?Alu.mlW:ff V.M i '

~ r G O W. v.3?, t

.x n

s.

n e c v-

.~

. f :IL M

W O

%,f.p *w. eW Saeed on%our obsereation of(the, field installation, review of..the/

r,

, n:.

i, O

w Mgn.F wm is.

. ya.v.:wa <,

a

%y : 47.44uellf fCati 9, We T:my;. won! document,' and the applicant's responses to questions / the,+,.

i q

m.

.. a m. :,

u., m.,n

~-

-n v

y reacter tvip switchgear cabinet.11 adequate for seismic loads. ' !O.V k

% 4 h v w w ei, w$mMaygdgg.k)g:'

k h

>* Q fy 4

?y bAsig yyw.ryg[g..;.hI@$3[dM;,e,.1,t.;.or; w:,.,,g[s m

q A Q@[' b b d h h. M R4 08 6 M k

f p.'t o. p11ed' M. m.n.I II,h hlehouse.lefth1medeliM. R.%g,-@1. :

'. ~ h-t.

s.,.g d:. 4. P es..' '.,~

.D-

'OM

? c mm n,

,m.a w

.u 12.?,1s'asustedL$e?the nu,c p.. clear. instrument panel with 3

%a spy t,.

a

-?

y. W.,

yt p...w m.- q.The' panel is located at the y

~

N. ;,gh ry O.4 % m ard eeusting harsheare 'and a rear bracket.

t stand

n.. :,

mu

.w.

h 446f't'.eleveti ykg4w e..

es of the reacter'amailiarylbutiding.. The. reference document' s

p MferlthEI'deoteks;eu.elification' 1E s. : ~,,v..Westingheiuse Advanced. Energy Systems a

is ~ :.,+ n, s..~ c. -

. - t

~

i qf+ e%.;. -wr e z w..,.. A : - wz-...

j ivislea7eep #(. 5etamic Test of Wesinehouse'CID panel Mounted Pescess '

Mi D,3 1 os

?

t b[./ y: yM;Instru'mentattee.' dated February '1'gtidrith' repo n :+p w <,q

,~

a

. 3,5 M;:.m,

,, /.fr h

.y Q ' ~. ^ ^

i i mv

,.r.2 y.::s., *.

.v

',2~ l'he"vecorder was sus 11fted tw canden multtfrequency. multtants

' &s#'r.,

.u.

.Dtesting a/, Shelttantal testing mes;actieeed by four rotattons,of the specimen i

3 e 8.ym. -M., in'ench test' 22 The equipaget meesting' during1 he tests was identical to the m

e.

n-w...

.8 M

g w ~ _. o.

s t

M@%, M P Tfte1d mount 6?m.

'Resonancia sea ~ che's reveaf d"no natura1' frequencies less e

r a

.f?

than 50 H free the 12 accelerometers uses. Aging of the equipment at 50*C

,.7

,b.

' 'g._

i n

%l ',

?

m gg

.n

'W T X.L

~

2

%>F

.h h

'eb, $f.

f Yi Li R n.

l.

YiS~;kh{E id$$r$d.jik$0Yh...,.? $. S &

L 1

for 500 days was done prior to seismic testing. Five CBE and four SSE tests were performed with functional operability montto-ec during tre testing. A shift of less than 2% in the pen readings was observed.

During the inspection of the field installation several questionable

{, -

field construct 1en practices were observed.

~

First it was noted that the p.

rear beschet -relied on friction (bolt preload) to maintain the vertical

, L (w. nx v.

w

.s. M support.of_the recorder. This concers was'adeguately resolved by a design

&jh.

k!.. hw.eMNich NIC-303 R2 which'modifled the beacket des 1gn.

In add 1tten,

~

gE.this particular mounting appeared to belan isolated: instance necessitated

.c,r.Minsta11ation space limitations.

$J.

Another 1 tem noted was that some cat,le

["Ettedewes'weremountedtopatatedsurfaces'withadhesiveglue. A concern about the life of the glue was adeoustely addressed by a field change b

request FCRE-1900, which specified that these tiedowns also be' secured with screws er bolts. Oveing the field Iaspectien it wes noted that toose j

cables had not been secured. As with other cabinets, this concern was resolved by inspecties of two insta11atten precedures and the Ebasco letter, W111s to Detruin, dated September F 1982.

a i

L Sased on ser observation of the field insta11st.en, review of the qualtftcation report, and the clarification provided by the appiteant, it is concluded that the recorder 1s adegua}ely qualif1ed for the preseribed loads.

2.12 CE!P Reed Switch positten Transmitter (N$$3-12)

The CED4 reed switch position transettter (150 in. type) was si.ppi tec by Combustion Engineering. It is sounted in a CE9e which is mounted on the reactor wessel head. The cual1ffcatien resort, Seisaic Qualificat1on Testino. 150 In. Reed Setteh po:ttton Transattter and Bendir Electrical Connector, no. TR-E5E-la9,-dated Feb'uary 2,1977, was susoitec by combustion Engineering.

A etastal, multt f ecouea:> test was perf -* c to c.a:**y : e transmitter. However. tee tearsatttee was testec in only are ces+ t wr se tut the test results are ret conciustre. Coe6wstien Eng'neering ea:-

15

~ ~

~

___---L--

7-fMb l

caugr.t this oversight in qualifying the transmitter for other plants, anc performed testing to correct the deficiency. A report of the testing was forwarded to be reviewed for qualification of the transmitter,15C" iieed Switch Position Transmitter and Litton Electrical Connector, CE report no. TR-ESE-442, dated October 9, 1981). The reed switch position transmitter (RSPT) was qualifted by a series of biaxial, multifrequency (random) tests. Two production RSPTs were mounted in a production control rod drive mechanism. Both the RSPTs and'the drive mechantss were subjected f

to temperature and radiation aging before seisate testing. The drive l

mechanism was mounted on a. fixture staulating the longest nozzle to which it could be attached. The entire assembly was then mounted on a untaxial test table which had a drive cylinder oriented 45* from the horizontal.

Testing was done in four positions. The second test position was obtained by enchanging the posit' ions of the two RSPTs in the delve mechantsas. This resulted in a 180* horizontal rotation of both RSPT between the first and second position. The third and fourth test positions were obtained by.

rotating the entire assembly g0* horizontally cn the test table from the orientation of.the first two posittens. The RSPT positions in-the drive mechanism were enchanged again between the third and fourth position. This adequately addressed the requirement that wiselc testing be multidtrectional. Five 00E tests, followed by an 55E test, were performed in each of the four positions. proper envelopment of RR$ by TRS was demonstrated for each test. Operability was demonstrated both during and after eat.h te t.

No structural failures occurred.

Based on our review of the field installation, review of the qualification documents, and the applicant's responses to questions, the CEDM reed switch position transa.itter is adequate for seismic loading.

2.13 Pressure Transmitter (NS5$-13)

The. pressure transattter (model no. 1153GA9, tag no. PT1010) was supplied by Rosecount. The purchase order specifled Rosemount model ll52GD c' e:aal. The one in the field was 1153GA9. whien is reportedly cette-Ints locally mounted ites is placed in the reactor Duilciag at an elevation of 21 ft.

It weighs about 21 lb.

The mounting consists of horizental and 16

w W*:- -

w7 ;

mg ~

s

c,.a. rwam.s,_ga.,y,w.a Q,;

~

.ertica! ;;ates, alth the plate being eclied to the st ut.;s 5 16 in. bolts.

5e accurtenances were icose anc 'iex10le acc ar.'c

~

affect the dynamics of the system. This item was cualifiec 5 3 test e

tests are documented in RMT report no. 3788: Qualificatie, of 7est M c--

for Rosemount Trarsmitters. Model 1153. Series A, dated Nar:P 23. 1975 Dayton T. Brown Laboratories prew'd the report for Rosemount.

OE reviewed and accepted the renort according to the yccepta9ce letter W no. 9403340-26.

The dynamic qualification consisted of type testing. The model tested was 11530A5. It is representative of all 1153 series A transm1sters. The

~

remainder of the model line differs by the spring constant (thickness) of the sensing diaphrage. The sdiffness of the metal sensing diaphrage, whose movement is minute (0.004 in.), does not. constitute a significant design di f ference. The tests were conducted at Environ Laboratories, Inc. in

$1nneapolis, Minnesota. The sine-sweep test did not indicate any natural f requencies in any of the vertical, side-to-side, or front-to-back directions below 40 Hz. ThiswAsfollowedbysine-dwelltestsat10,20, and 30 Hz with an input of up to 3.5 S's.

The comparable reautred g-levels are 0.25 g in each direction.

The equipment converts pressure to electrical signal. The single feequency, single axis tests are adeq6 ate to demonstr. ate opera 0111ty 'or this relatively rigid ites. All unf ts performed well curing the testug, exhibiting 20.1% deviation from readings taken prior to' the test.

Following the tests, all readings were within the acceptance level Of :D i*.

of span with the exception of zero readirg for transmitter serial l

no. 106186, which deviated by 2%. However, this was a one time occurrence which corrected itself with the passage of time. Hence, it is of no l

l consequence.

Based upon the field observation and the re*few o' the qual' fica Me repert. the pressure transmitter it.adecuate'f cuaitf.ec *:- t*e se s-*:

e v -:- eat.

~

y 9

G

k Y b [f[i k k M E N h d ? N ! M E b i M d p. m..Ss:k m.

s, 9..,

.s.n 2 BALANCE OF PLANT (BCP) EQUIPMENT 3.1 23 KVA Inverter (809-1)

The 20 kVA inverter (model no. SV1200/AC34R/TS200MB/R.14, tag no. SUPS 3PG-5) was supplied by Solid State Controls, Inc. Purchase orcer specification no. 215-70 contains the general spectftcation, while details t

are in project identification no. LOU-1564.282. The rectangular box type structure measures about 111 W x 89 H x 36 0 in. and weighs about 4.500 lb. Two of these wre located side by side in the auxiliary butiding at the 21 ft elevation. The inverter is a part of the vital AC system and 2

supplies emergency 120 V power. The mounting consisted of seven 1/2 in, bolts attached to the floor. There were eight bolt holes in the base; however, due to inaccessibility, there were only seven bolts installed in the field. An analysis was done which showed the strength adequacy for this mounting. The referenced qualtftcation document 1s: Summary Report on Setsnic Evaluetten of 20 kVA Inverter to Solfd State Controls. Inc.,

dated November 23, 1977. It was prepared by Battelle Columbus Labs for Solid State Controls. Inc. and reviewed by Ebasco.

This equipment was qualtffed through tes(. The laboratory mounting had sin 1/2 in, bolts. The dynamic test consisted of single amis random input with cross coupling accounted for by increasing the input level based on oreliminary test and analysis. This was achieved through initially testing and calculating the coupling effect based on off-axis response.

TRS were generated for each test. There were 15 OBE and tnree SSE level tests perforeed. In each case the TR$ enveloped the RR$ adequately.

l Operability was verified.

There were some in situ tests performed on this unit by Wyle Laboratoriet. The resuits of these test are reported in the document:

Selsete Recertification Analysis and Test of Class IE Static Uninterruptible Power $J; ply, test report no. 46097-1 cated May 1982.

Dese tests were Derformec te sucDort the analyst 5.

The relevant natura' f *equercy results are:

18

ym,mw unw y46f2'fMZM:(g::. mv--m --.

m m.~

w.s :. m.

[

... ' ?

• h(Mlfl($rW l y p tf1 L N y;

};g g

Ir: Situ Test Malysis (Hz)

(H )

s/s 16.8 15.1 f/b 23.5 22.1 Coupled s/s & f/b 25.1 25.7 The correlation appears very satisfactory. The critical stresses from the analysis are as follows-l l

Total Stress Allowable Stresses (AISC)

Identification (psi)

(psi)

Anchor bolts (ASTM A307) 9,948 (tension) 19,736 5,165 (shear) 10,000 Structural member 11,667 21,600 The stresses are witi,tn the allowables.

The tests performed are adequate. Operability was verified. However, during the field faspection, two things were detected:

1.

The first concerned the plate box on the top of the unit which was not securely attached.

This problem was corrected anc confirmed after it was coleted out.

The second probles related to the two cabinets not being 2.

connected on their common side. The qualification test report had recommended that this be done with a spacer grid in-between.

On inquiry, the applicant indicated that this would be ecce, per DCN NY-E-842, dated March 26, 1982, but that there was et'f*culty in o meuring the parts.

19

,,_my_-w

-*W*""*"

• ~ ~ '

___.__m_.---

i Based upon our observation of the field installation, review of tr.e qualification reports and the response to our questions, the 20 kvA inverter unit is adequately qualified for the seismic environment.

Diesel Generator t b 011 Pisina (80p-2) 3.2 The diesel generator lube oil piping was. supplied as part of the

{p.,. generater (model no..KSV-16-T) try Cooper'Energyiservices (formerly u.

C::;;. ".ssemer).a.The piping is located adjacent to the engine at the

[ l21 ft elevation ofthe reactor auxiliary. building. The qualification

.... e.;

report, Emereency Diesel Generatorc Eneine ?: x W System, AM-3383, I, -

CES-0279-1 dated July 27,19M was sugipiled by Cooper Energy Services.'

~

The report presented a dynamic analysis. However, the number of dynamic. degrees of freedom included in the analysis was not clearly adequate. Therefore the piping was gus11fted by.an equivalent' static analysis, as allowed by C.1 of[hegelatory Guide 1.100. This was done using the 1 g static. solutions-in all three' directions' presented on pages A-80 throughA-194ofthe[qualificattenreport.-Stressesforeachdirection L

were muitihlied by tho' product of thi h ineet peak spectral value and 1.5.

The maximum of the SR$$ combination of these stresses in all three directions was 14,000 psi, well under the 27,000 pst allowable. Because of this margin, the analysis was accepted despite the fact that three short runs of pipe were not included in the model., Lack of consideration of the 1% psi pressure loading was accepted on the same basis. The support

onfiguration of the model matched field mounting cond'itions.

Based on our observation of the field installation, review of the qualification document, and responses by the applicant to questions asked, the diesel generator lhbe oil piping is adequate for seismic loading.

3.3 Level Switch (80P-3)

The level switch, supplied by Magnetrol, with model no. A103F-TOM-EP/VP-51MD4-51MD4, is mounted with eight 5/8 in, bolts on tne i

top of the Jacket water standpipe located at the 21 ft elevation of th9 20

-v;,

.. s.. u '. A.w.r a.. A h u UL A*

>.i - - '

• W a.o i u y tai!cing. The eference cecu ert 'v'-

a-

-..: r

's e nyle Lans -e:

-t, Liquid Levels Cont-ols, cate: %

.*t-r-;ce:

o. 43235-1.

The switch was qualified by rancom multifrecuency, mit:ao s test > ng P-ior to qualification testing, 0.2 g sine sweep resonar.ce searches revealed natural frequencies of 45 Hz in the side-to side,17 Hz tr. the front-to-back, and 32 bz in the vertical direction. The qualification testing was done for model A153F, which is nearly identical to A103F.

The seismic qualification testing was done in sequence with environmental testing and aging. Five OBE and one SSE seismic tests were performed with the test mounting identical to the field mounting. Functional operability was monitored during and after the tests with some chatter observed during the tests.

During the field inspection, it was noted that the unit was free to rotate one quarter turn. Also, a 5 ft length of fle=1ble electrical conduit leading to the switch was unsupported. The rotation concern was

~

adequately resolved by LP&L securing the unit on September 2, 1982. The concern about the unsupported conduit was resolved by noting that tne conduit was remote from other equipnert and that the conduit is designed to relieve the loading on the electrical leads. As previously indicated, the cualification report indicated chattering during the seismic qualification. This concern was also resolved by contacting the eauipment vendor who indicated that the switch was not required to function c *ieg the seismic event.

Based on our observation of the field installation, review of the qualification report and the clarifications provided by the applicant, it is concluded that the level switch is adequately qualified for the prescribed loads.

3.4 Arial Fan (80D-4)

The axial fan (nocel no. 84-26-870(S-41), tag ne. E23(3 A-5 A)] a s socolied by Joy Manu'acturing Company.

The cur: nase orde no. is '.<-C3546.

1

C W il;3 6,c i'TM6'hl% C.qi$ M M F FIidAE 4,cQ Q g j,M y,j, m.

. =.. e a m i.

.u.. -.,u.ga

.vrw-g., j catec April 23, 1976. Otner relevant information is contained in Ebasa* -

specification no. 602-75 and project specification no. LOV-1564.74SL.

Th' enclosed motor, direct drive fan is 84 'n. in diameter and 48 in. long it weigns 4,048 lb. The unit is located in the auxiliary reactor butiding at an elevation of 56 f t 6 in.

The field mounting consists of members welded to the fan housing which are bolted to a vertical wall. Each extension attachment has four 5/8 in. bolts. This fan is part of the diesel generator room 'A' ventilation system. It evacuates the diesel generator room and maintains the temperature within limits.

It operates at 870 rpm and has a 60 hp motor. The qualification document referenced is: Arial Flow Fan IE-28(3A-5A H S-41, dated September 28, 1976.

It was prepared by

• Joy Manufacturing Company and reviewed by Ebasco.

The unit has been qualified by analysis. 'The lowest shaft. frequency is around 41.5 Hz, indicating a relatively rigid unit. This justifies the static equivalent analysis performed. The required acceleration levels for this location are 0.49 g in each of the horizontal and 0.3 g in the vertical direction. The critical parameters to be checked for seismic events are:

1.

The clearance between the tips of the fan and the stationary housing 2.

The clearance between the motor rotor and statar 3.

Maximum stresses.

These are calculated and compared as follows:

Total Stress Allowable Stress Identification (psi)

(psi)

Anchor bolt 26,046 33,000 Shaft 5,122 45,000 22

.yp mp:z.

3 i

l Critical Deflection Allowable Deflection Identification (in.)

(in.)

Fan rotor 2.622 x 10'3 0.16 Motor rotor.

.7 x 10-5 O.025 i

y-n7 q.J The analysis is adequate.~ ;The critical stresses and deflections are 1,3x ~

M ~

. within all+ouebles.

c However.. balancing'.ef the unit installed in the, field gg

.e

, m a c....

.. w..,.p a ngy - :was':not perfenned. ' The applicant has.; committed to field balancing the fan '

JN.h in as 61stter Amington to lhados,Jne. W3582-1270, dated September 2

'^

_ -;V

,g g f.nl g-p7,gd. % y 1 - ' [. ~iff" g...

I 4

v Based on our observation of the field installation and review of the quaitftcation document the am1al fan 1s adequately quaitfled for seisaic

~

loads.

E 3.5 HVAC hateh Puno (80P-5) x y

x

..,.j g s.

The.NVAC isatar pump, model'~no. 4013,' is supplied by Buffalo Pumps Co.

L It is bolted'te a' concrete ' ped'at the 46 ft elevation of the reactor aux 111ery butiding with six 7/8 in. bolts. The qualification report, !!o,de1, 4013 CRE Puno. M2 Frame, dated January Ig77, was supplied by Mcdonald Engineering Analysis Co.

The pump was qualifted with an equivalent static analysis using the computer code STRtXX.. This we.s justified by a dynamic analysis which predicted a fundamental natural frequency of 36 Hz. One g horizontal loads were included with a 0.67 g vertical load for each horizontal direction.

The envelope of these two load cases was considered along with nozzle and tooeller loads. Load combinations were performed correctly. This was vertfled for nozzle load combinations by cFecking each calculation because the discussion in the report did not describe the treatment of nozzle loads.

The treatment of the remaining loads was described adequately in the discussion.

23

. g.,. -

3.

.2 s

The maximum stress, 9,956 psi, occurred in the impeller key. This was less than the 10,000 psi allowable. The maximum calculated deflection of 7 mils ocevred between impeller and casing. This is less than the 8 mil maximum allowable deflection.

1 y,s :.

L' Based en our, observation of the field 1'sta11ation and review of the a

,m.

w f qualification. document,'it is' concluded that' the HVAC water pump is

, s.., #

G. . adequately,' qualified for seismic loadings,%..ws.,...

L??-+ e y,, y s g m

. n, pp.. yp;s Y,. m c

$9 3.6 ' Gravity Danser~f80P-6) 7 J

,., 3

,,;y r

• p

Thi,g,,rav.c\\wiLity. damper,Jsupplied is/Americam in'seming & Ventilation Inc..

w

^ c '.> ;,

~.l

• C % x:re.uj.; : +

,. c

~,,

L with nodel.no. 04A-P-2230, is' mounted 31 thy 3/8'in. bolts in the

~

[

containment cooler fan ducting at the,31 ft e1ev.ation of the reactor

+. m' Ltid!.93 T. he reference document.fer,its. qu,alification is the American

[

Warning and hat 11ating~ report, Seismic Cah:alations of DAA-P-2230 H.D.

~

Counter talanced Demeer with Sealed Jamb Construction,' dated May 19,1g77.

f.

/ h g:y' Q, lift

, 9 @ %, e,{ $.:..$\\. 1. g v.3iQi:j T

.b The damper.c.wa,s qua ed by static analpills using an "in-house",

w r

_. ~..

.. - s

.w.o w v %

damper vanes are,y,Se documentatten of the program indicated that the computer prcgram.3 E

~e m t.

analyzed as simply supported beams with distributed loads from seismic accelerations and pressure differentials. The damper was analyzed for 1 g horizontal and 0.67 's~ vertical accelerations with the resulting loads and stresses being combined tiy SR$$ summation. The maximum stress of 2,717 psfwas found in the wanes and' compares to an allowable stress of 23,400 psi. -The natural frequency calculation (based on a simply supported uniform beam) indicated the lowest natural frequency was 50 Hz and, therefore, the static analysis is perisissible.

During the review of the qualification report it was noted that Section VII of the SQRT fore was incorrect.

It was revised and incorporated into the audit package. Also, during the review of the qualification report it was noted.that no bearing load allowables had been given and that no standard for computing the allowable stresses was ment oned. These concerns were addressed by closer examination of support eng literature 24

.e e

l a

sepd ie: with the report. From this information it was found trat the max bum allowable bearing load was 1,810 lb and that tne allowable stress was 90% of the miniuum yield stress for the material. Since tne actual bearing load is much less than 1,810 lb and because the allowable stress fs consistent with tne AISC code allowables, this concern was adeouttely resolved.

Based on our observation of the field installation, review of the qualification report, and the clarifications provided by the applicant, it is concluded that the gravity damper is adequately qualified for the

- prescribed loads.

3.7 Three inch 150 lb Diaphram Valve (80p-7)

The diaphram valve (tag no. 7FS-V130, model no. FS-302, serial no. 76-3527-8-14, pro. ject id. LOU-1564.103A, purchase order no. NY-403522 of December 31,1974) was supplied by ITT Grinnell. This is a 3 in. non4 nuclear safety category 7 seismic class I, handwheel operated diaphram valve with an ASTN-351 CF8 stainless steel body, an ASTM A-445 ductile iron bonnet, a Cr. MEPT diaphram, and an EPT "0" ring valve.

It is located in the fuel handling area at the 46 ft elevation. The qualification documant is: Seismic Report W-146 Seismic Analysis for Louisiana power & Licht Company Order MY 403522, rev. 1 dated July 1979. It was accepted by Ebasco Services Inc. according to the letter LW3-1458-79 of July 25, 1979.

The valve, located in the fuel pool system, functions as an isolator between the fuel pool and a component cooling water line. It is welded to the piping. The report states that the valve was designed and analyzed in accordance with the 1971 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, including winter 1873 Addendum. The natural frequency of the system is very high (1210 Hz). The system, thus, is relatively rigid and an eautvalent st'atic analysis is adequate. The required acceleration levels for this location are 1.0 g in each of the horizontal directions and 0.67 g vertical.

ine 25

cg g3 7 -

7.C n;y 7 - - e g f)

T analysis was performed with 3.0 g's in each of the horizontal and 4.0 g's in the vertical direction. The resulting stresses in the components were well below their allowables.

Considering the passtve function of the valve, where the structural integrity alone would assure its adequacy, the static equivalent analysis E

is adequate.

i Ba' sed on our obs'ervation of the field installation, and the review of f

the qualification documents, the diaphram valve is adequately qua11fted for seismic loads.

l r

3.8* One Inch 2500 lb Relief Valve (80p-8) i The 1 in., 2,500 lb relief valve (151-25028) was supplied by the Crosby Valve and Gage Co. The valve is' welded to the safety injection.,

~

piping at the 21 ft elevation of the. reactor containment building.

The qualification report,1 x 12.500 lb' Relief Valve, no. EC-618, dated 5

Jurve 18,1979, was supplied by Crosty Valve ~ and Gage Company.

An equivalevit static analysis was used to qualify the valve. A hand calculated fundamental natural frequency of 374 Hz justified the static analysis. One g loads in both horizontal directions and a 0.67 g vertical load were considered along with weight and operating loads. The calculation fielded a 3,500 psi maximum stress at the inlet neck, which compares to a 16,600 pst allowable.

Operability of the valve during a seismic event was not addressed in the analysis. However, operability is assured by a feature of the design.

The valve stem connects to the. eat via a ball / cup contact area. This l

prevents binding loads from developing between the upper and lower bearing surfaces by accommodating relative displacements and rotations between them.

The analysis did not 1.9clude consideration of nozzle loads applied by the connecting piping. however, the connecting piping was seismically 26

.r-

% mgr,1:

1, - '

. t ':,5 g% - ~ _ / ffff}

E e

4 qualtf ted, as documented in the Ebasco report, Stress Analysis calculatten No.1020, dated April 17, 1981. $1nce the valve body is much stronger than the connecting piping, qualtf tcation of the,p'iping justifies not considering the nozzle loads in the valve analysis. This conclusion is supported by the large margin of safety demonstrated.above.

Based'en our observatten of thelfield installation, review of the F

t qualificatien document, and the app'licant's yesponses to questions, the 1..

)

1 in. 2,500 lb relief valve is qualified fo;r setssic loading.

l i

7, 33, 3, 2 i

3.9 Half-Inch Globe Valve f 80P-9)

,.. 3/hy.9;,

j:s.

~

b

..u.

The half-inch globe valve (tag,ne. 2HV-V621) was supplied by Velan Erigineering Company. The valve is' welded te HVAC piping at the 46 ft:-

~

elevatten of the reactor containment building. The qualification report, Extension of Seismic Analysis to Manual Valves, no. SR-6684, revision 1 dated December 10, 1981,: 1s'suppliedby;VelenEngineeringCeepany.

}

n px"

~

Qualificaties is'with an eq.M.@7 43 y

. _4;s

.fr f

uivalent static analysis, which was j

)

i 5

.fustified by a hand calculated fundamental natural frequency of 49 Hz.' The f

.7

[

valve actually qualified has an identical body to this valve, but it has an actuator instead of a handwheel operator (see the Velan Engineering report no. SR-6631),. Estension of qualification to the handwheel operated valve is acceptable because of the high fundamental natural frequency of the actuated valve, and because of the reduced weight and eccentricity of the handwheel operated valve. The required seismic loads for a rigte valve at the mounting location are a 0.5 g horizontal and a 0.3 g vertical load.

1 g horizontal and 0.67 g vertical seismic loads in conjunction with weight and operating loads were considered.in the analysis. Not considering a second horizontal seismic load was accepted because of the symmetry of the valve. The method of combining loads was acceptable. The maximum stress in the valve body was 4,900 pst which is below the 26,200 psi allowable.

No deflection calculations were required since the valve need not operate during a seiselC event.

27

. 4., 49 e,..

t g ft ?

$.h t yf.QQ(

[

]

I A small gap (1/8 in.) was noted between the valve and a nearby flange during field inspection. Hand calculations showed a maximum predicted seismic deflection of the valve of 1 mil. Therefore the possibility of contact between valve and flange is not a concern.

4 Based on..ede observation of the field installation, review of the qualification _ document, and the. applicant's response to questions, the half-inch globe valve is qualifted for seismic leading.

3 y

,- ,; c

.c.s

[

3.10' Indicater (30P-10) t The indisater'(model no.1151', tag no.; EI iN 4613) was supplied by International Ins $ruments'." This panel,-sounted device seasures t

6.05 x 2.28 s 5.47 in, and weighs about 25 ez. The panels are located in the reacter suaillary building at the 46 and 21 ft elevations. The k

mounting consists of a'ffstere in the cabinet specifically designed for the f

indicator..Thequalificattenof[thislitemisdocumentedinreportne.

s 581-3, Indicatine' Instrument a + 1 9270'and Meter "e-dels 1122. 1136. and '

[

11)5,1, dated February _20,1976c !!t'was prepared by Acton I.aboratories for InternattenalInstrdentsandreviewed[by~Ebasco.'"

5 i

In the 11 hs of the more recent testing of the same equipment, which t

is discussed in the section for Indicator (N555-7), the old test report only suostantiated the general findings of the new tests. The qualification of this ites is, therefore, based on the new test series and discussed in the section for the indicator identified'above.

Based on the discussion presented in the section for the Indicator (N555-7), this ites is adequately qualifted.

i 3.11 Electric Relay (90P-11)

The electric relay (type MOR 137-8, tag no. CX-610) was supplied by Reliance Electric Company. This particular ites did not have a specific purchase order and reportedly was an off the shelf item. This P&B relay was mounted on Cabinet 2A, Section E, with standard mounting hardware.

The 28

EtuYaEJ M;_2$li$5sf8kh.c$&&&ti*iZ);3,.

catinet was located in tne reactor auxiliary building at ar elevatter.

35 ft.

The quaitfication document referenced is: Seismic Sima14 tion N"'

Program on Twenty One Components, no. 753.1, dated October 30, 198.

was prepared by Wyle Laboratory (test report no. 44258-1, dated October ;E.

1978) for Reliance Electric Company and reviewed by Ebasco.

The relay was qualified through tests. The tests consisted of single frequency, blaxial (in each horizontal and vertical directions),

independent inputs (in phare and out of phase) in the range of 1 through 35 Hz with increments of one third octave. This amounts to a series of single frequency tests. The ZPA level accelerations for the floor are 0.4 g in each of the horizontal and 0.3 g in the vertical direction. The input ZPA level for the tests were 2.8 g's in each of the horizontal and 2.1 g's in the vertical direction. Out of the 21 specimens, 5 experienced contact chatter in the 5 to 35 Hz range.

~ There were two resulting concerns from this test series:

the use of the single frequency input for the test, and a.

b.

chattering of the timers during the test.

The app 1'icant was made aware of the inadecuacy of using a single frecuency input in tests on a generic basis and the applicant committed to investigate and respond to the concern. The response, made during the second audit, goes as follows:

single frecuency testing for the Waterford site meets current requirements (IEEE 344-1975) because (1) all floor response spectra are narrow band, having a single peak, (2) peaks occur at very low frequencies due to the dominant soft soil respor.se of the site (around 1.6 Hz horizontally and 2.2 Hz vertically), (3) response spectea curves decay rapidly and monatonically so that the ZPA for Waterford occurs at 5 Hz, much lower than the standard ZPA of 33 Hz, and (4) all ZPA values are less than or equal to 0.5 g horizontally and 0.4 g verticaliy, Floor response spectra for the site we e reviewec by the 50RT, ana all we e as described above except for those of tne containment Du'1 ding (see Secticn A

9

i z. -

3). g4

~ry

-L yy p;qj

-}

of the CBI Stress Report for Waterford Station Unit 3 Steel Containment i

Vessel, dated December 6,1977). Generally, horizontal floor spectra in I

containment had. multiple' peaks and a ZPA nearer to 8 than 5 Hr. There fore,

the.applican*

• i response was found acceptable for all equipment except that located in

., sineent. The applicant then reviewed the qualification of

. s.

all equipses.

.a con'ainment and found'none qualtfled by,stagle frequency testing (see the[LP&L let'ser', Maurie to[Ka'ighton, no. W3PS3-0502, dated

.:,. a.

r f-February 11,1983). This resolved the coneere.,.t.

jf.'b y

g?pq)

Q_EQQ:.Q,3 ' f n

~c

.x

.~

IAen asked about the chattering of,the. timers, the applicant produced w,

l a letter from Ebasce Services Incorporated (dated August 10, 1979) to Mr. D.' Marper of. R..e11ance Electric" Company ad.drgssing Ous11fication of Z

[

. c.:

_s.

t Electrical ~Comoonents.. This letter states 6.. "Ebasco has' analyzed the a ~

circuits that the five relays are part of, land we have determined that contact chatter wovid' *n ne manner compromise,the safe operation or v

shutdown of the plant.'

}

,,._'.H l

'f:

.g.

m

^^

Basedonourabsorvattenofthis) field'. installation,reviewofthex

~

- jp; qualtftcation documents and particularly se the responses of the applicant te our questions, this, wait is qualifted for the prescribed loads.

I 3.12 ~Four inch 300 lb Gate Valve (80p-12)

The gate valve (model no. 4 in. 300 lb Gate Valve, w/ Actuator) was supplied by Anchor / Darling Valve Company. The valve, measuring 29 x 12 x 12 tr... is located on the condensate system piping in the reactor aust11ary building at the minus 4 ft elevation. It is welded to the piping. The purchase order spectf tcatiens are contained 1n document no. NY-403458, dated October 31, 1973'.. Ebasco specification no. 92-71 and project no. LOU-1564.099A. The referenced qualtf tcation document is LAB so. 80.281: Seismic Class ! Analysis of 3 and 4 In. Stainless Steel Gate Valves with Handwheel Operators. Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit 3 S.J.0. Nos. 4a63-64. -68. -69. -80. -99. -100.

It was prepared and reviewed by Anamet Laboratories Inc. for Anchor / Darling Valve Comoany and accepted by Ebasco Services in the letter te Ms. Dori Solyan dated January 27, 1981.

30

_a__-__.,._

l g.:. h%R

} &,&l?k h k

, : a,, ;.m :-

p.

+:

The dynamic qualification of this valve is based on static analysis.

Analysis shows that the valve system is comparatively rigid, legitimizing the static analysis. The loads considered were earthquake, gravity, piping i

and pressure. A load of 3 g was applied in each of the two horizontal and the vertical directions. This compares to a requirement of 1, 1, and 0.67 g.

a, L

.. Thisft'ss'passivecomponent:inthatitonlyhastomaintainthe'

n a

pressure boundary of the condensate sys,tes.' The stress' analysis satisfies h

thecriteriaoffavitedcondyttong'ivenintho'ASMEB&PVCode,SectionIII.

i-

" Nuclear Power Plant Components," Subsection NC (Class 2) and ND g-(Class 3). The stress summary is as follows:.

Total Stress Allowable Stress Location Identification (ost)

(psi)

Valve body seismic + operating

+ internal pressure 11.531 37,440 l

+ piping reaction I

Yoke Seismic + operating i

+ internal pressure 4,900 18,480

+ piping reaction The maximum deflection in the yoke of the valve was 0.0025 in. against an allowable of 0.020 in.

Based on our observation of the field installation and review of the cualification report, the valve is adequately qualified for seismic loads.

l 31

U o

4e

.m.3(ggap -

ucu g g:g y, y I

4 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Waterford III had two SQRT review-visits. This report is for the second visit. After the visit, a preliminary trip report 2 containing the findings was issued. That report indicated which of the items were qualified and required no additional documentation. It also identified

~

some equipment and certain general concerns for which additional infomation was needed in order te,compl'ete the review. Through

[

sutunittals,. the general concerns were satisfactorily resolved. These

~

documents,furtherprovidedtheadditionaldocumentationsrequiredforthe resolution of outstanding issues with respect to the identified equipment.

It is.therefore concluded that the reviews'of the Waterford Unit III is t

satisfactorily completed and all open items have been resolved.

Based on our review, we conc 1'ude that an appropriate qualification program has been defined and toplemented for the seismic Category I mechanical and electrical equipment which will provide reasonable assurance thatsuchequipmenttitillfunctionproperlyduringanda,ftertheescitation s

due to the vibratory forces japosed by a s.afe shutdown earthquake, p

32

.e sw ee..

r.w aw.:.... -de hib.ScaLs xaca ax wwa;+...* 'rfj.:.< >-

- +

,,. ~.

h 5.

REFERENCE I.

R. W. Macek, M. J. Russell, J. N. Singh, Waterford I!! SCRT it '.' t Report (Initial Report), EGG-EA-5643, Rev. 2, April n 33.

2.

B. F. Saffell Itr to J. E. Solecki, Review of Dynamic Qualification et Safety Related Electrical and Mechanical Equipment for Waterfora III.

SER Input ( A-6415), Saff-421-82, October 15, 1982.

e O

6 4._...#m-W

- g.._ -m66EMM5ACA,

.I [..TI 55Ill.

7,,ceoo23s

,,,,ct,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

atN#7N- * *" A

• BISUOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET 4 fif LE a%D SUOf efLE 2 s&ameeee*ai WATERFORD III SQRT VIS!T REPORT (SECOND VISIT) 2 asci*it=f 5 Access'n' so 7 AufMO#ast 6 OAT: atPomf covett fro J. N. *.ingh. R. W. Macek M. J. Russell May I" 1983 e et maomweNG OmGANt2Af80N NAeSt A40 MAILI8eG A0044Ss #arewe E. C.es DATe atPont assuea

~

EG&G Idaho, Inc.

August iont

. a e.

e.,

Idaho Falls, ID 83415 s

e me

.o o spo=soamo casansaation maana ano maiuseo soonsas =i. C,

Division of Enaineerine

,,,,,,c,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Office of_

nuclear Reactor ueculation i

i,,,,, wo U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comuntssion Washington,DC_20555 A6415 IJ fvptopet804T

• e m.00 Cove.eo nece, e. sees is sue,uweaefAnv motus

• me. -a a s

'8 agtf A ACT #99 60 er assi EG&G Idaho. Inc., has evaluated the Louisiana Power and Light Company's program for the dynamic qualification.of safety related electrical and mechanical equipment for Waterford Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3.

In this program, the applicants use test or analysis or a combination of both to qualify equipment, such that its safety function will be ensured during and after the dynamic event and provide documenta-tion. The review indicates that an appropriate qualificatior, has been defined and initiated for seismic category I electrical and mechanical equipment. When completed, this would provide reasonable assurance that such equipment will function properly during and after the excitation due to vibratory forces of the dynamic event.

e 7 aiv gO#DE A8eO DOCUnagas? A4Atvses i Fe CM SCm* 7048 e P.

0f % tis t AS Ort N ENDE O ft av$

r es as a:Lasit.tv $1attesta ?

s

, g cyae f v Class ' Fa e *s *>

• N '8 0' *a A a Unclassified Unlimited

M 's',C(j} g5 '***'

.e m..e.,

~

~^

'~

_ _ - - - - - - - - - -