ML20116E652
| ML20116E652 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 04/25/1985 |
| From: | Bandyopadhyay BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| To: | Bagchi G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20116E656 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8504300359 | |
| Download: ML20116E652 (7) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:~ B3h BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY fME1@ ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES, INC. si3 E!1 E. Structural Analysis Division Upton,Long Island. NewYork 11973 -Department of Nuclear Energy Building 129 (516) 282s 2032 FTS 666' April 25,1985 [ Mr. Goutam Baschi Equipment Qualification Branch MS-P-234 Phillips Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Ave. .Bethesda, MD 20814
Subject:
Riverbend Station, Unit 1 SQRT Audit
Dear Mr. Bagchi:
Attached please find our comments on GSU's response (dated 3-29-85) to SSER findings. In summary, not or.ly GSU's response did' not resolve the outstanding comments, but also it raised serious concerns, in our opinion, e regarding GSU's qualification review program. To illustrate, one of several disturbing statements is quoted from their response: " Vendor / test lab cannot document how the test specimen was was welded to the test fixture"..Ref. 80P-8, Response 2. .in addition, they have provided inaccurate statements during and after the audit (e.g., qualification status through sunnary reports, etc.). If you have any questions, please contact us. Sincerely yours, M E. An&p =j Kamal K. Bandyopadhyay jm 5' Attachment ~ cc: N. Romney, NRC M. Reich, BNL C. Hofmayer, BNL P.S. This material was transmitted by Telecopy on April 22, 1985 QCD Q2mjgg)_gl8886 ,-= d I ip CF
= _ _ - 1-SEISMIC Generic-1: Response is'not adequate. Granted, both SWEC and GE have generic review procedures and acceptance criteria. However, slippage was observed during the audit. Assurance of a more systematic review program is needed. Generic-2: Response is not acceptable. Qualification document package must address all equipment modifications. Therefore, comment is repeated. Generic-3: GSU's approach to identify limited-life equipment appears appropriate. At a later date, 650 should report to the staff the effectiveness of this approach. Generic-4: Response is not acceptable. Numerous incorrect or improper installations were observed during the audit (Ref., e.g...NSSS-3, NSSS-5, NSSS-6, 80P-4 and 80P-8). Therefore, comment is repeated. Generic-5: Since the start-up manua,1 is being revised to i address return of equipment to the qualified j status, the pertinent sections should be submitted to the staff for review. Generic-6: Response does not address the NSSS piping analysis and, as such, is not complete. G-values for both NSSS and BOP pipe-mounted equipment are to be verl,fied and confirmed in the future. i t i l r --,,-.,,4_..-,-.y. -., -. ~,,, -,., -.,...., _. -, _ _ r e mw m. ,m-,-.ym-wm-.,-.v,._-,-y.-...m-- --c.-=~-m---,
. Generic-7: During the audit, it was. observed that some 80P equipment specifications called for IEEE-Std-344 -1971 instead of 1975 Std. as the basis for seismic qualification (per audit note, one example -is SWEC Spec. 228.212,p.1-45,GlobeValve). Please verify and confirm that 1971 Std. alone was not used for Riverbend 80P equipment. Generic-8: Response is acceptable. GSU will confirm completion of seismic qualification. NSSS-1: Response is inadequate. It should be demonstrated through number of events that the SRV qualifica-tion time is equivalent to so many years of re-duced life. i NSSS-2: (1) Response is not adequate. Dynamic similarity '(e.g., mass distribution, stiffness, boundary conditions etc.)~ including all differences should be documented and justified in the qualification documents and be made available for SQRT review. 4 (2) Response is not adequate. A complete description of the test mounting shall be included in the test I report (bolt: number, diameter, spacing, grade, etc.; weld: type, size, length, spacing, grade, etc.). f Documents (3) Reiponse does not address the comment. presented during the audit did not answer the specified concern. Therefore, the comment is repeated. l
. NSSS-3: Upon completion, the reference documents should be made available to the SQRT for review. NSSS-5: (1) Same as Comment No. 1 of NSSS-2 above. (2) Same as Comment No. 2 of NSSS-2 above. (3) Same as Comment No. 3 of NSSS-2 above. 4 (4) Response needs to be verified with the qualification documents. (5). Response is not acceptable. Failure at a higher vibration level does not necessarily mean 1 - qualification at the required level. (6a) The reference documents should be made available 'i to the SQRT for review. s (6b) Response is acceptable. 3 NSSS-6: The reference analysis document should be made available to the SQRT for review. NSSS-7: (1) The documents used to conclude that environmental ag.ng has no effect on _ seismic qualification of the transmitter should be made available to the SQRT for review. (2) Response states that " complete... instructions have been defined to the RBS installation l engineers...". Documents through which these instructions have been conveyed should be made available to the SQRT for review.
. NSSS-8: (1) The reference documents should be made available to the SQRT for review. (2) Same as Comment No. I above. (3) Any documents used to respond to the comment should be made available to the SQRT for review. Note that there was no response to this comment during the audit (see attached " QUESTION / RESPONSE IDENTIFICATION FORM" prepared by/for GSU during the audit). 80P-3: (1) The reference documents should be made available to the SQRT for review. (2) Response is inadequate. See Comment No. 2, NSSS ) ^ -2. i (3) The test report specifically demonstrating that the MCC was tested for both the energized.and the deenergized conditions should be made available to the SQRT for review.' (4) Same as Comment No. I above. 80P-4: The reference documents should be made available to the SQRT for review. t 80P-8: (1) Same comment as E0P-4. (2) Response is not adequate. Details of test mounting must be documented in the test report. All ' pertinent documents should be made available to the SQRT for review.
~':'., . (3) Per audit note, reference of anomalies is given in Appendix L Report No. 80202, p.11, Sect. 7.2. Therefore, the comment is repeated. (4a) Was the base plate grouted after the site inspection? Provide necessary documents. (4b). Necessary documents should be n.cde available for SQRT review. (4c) Since GSU maintain that "the base plate is considered part of the floor support system", GSU must demonstrate structural integrity of the base plate, and verify and confirm that the base plate was considered in generating the floor response spectra. t B0P-9: The reference document should be made available for SQRT review'. B0P-10: (1) Same comment as B0P-9. f (2) The effect of relative support movement should be calculated for the worst case (probably for out-of -phase motion) and be added to other loads. l r e I l
".i^'. 4 : 3 U.* @b 6 g QUESTION / RESPONSE IDENTIFICATION FORM l 'ci;;5j,.,. NRC AUDIT [ [- 10/29-11/2 .,-{% i1 E.M,8 Date 1% / I /84_ f3g/-[d 3.8 E t.7%. A < T 5.~ J A?' .'s t udit Item ~ / /# il e Initiator: h . ~ rk or MPL No. Walkdown (Team No. _) or Identified During _ Documentation Review l NRC Question: S/.. /x'. i, e, (,,. ( YA k o' [_.h k f ' <., <c / L
- f. I ? -
( I .- $.'- u 4".t.,, o .) o l r l l f l t Responsibility: SWEC _ CE 1 GSU l_' Department (s): y i I, Resolution / Response: L *l-D I i I .}}