ML20133N048
| ML20133N048 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1985 |
| From: | Wisenburg M HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| To: | Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-#485-922 OL, SL-HL-AE-1390, NUDOCS 8510280364 | |
| Download: ML20133N048 (21) | |
Text
.
The Light Company n _,,, uen,w~, m n,um n.,,~,,,.w.~,nomumsmn October 22, 1985 ST-HL-AE-1390 File No.
C9.17 Mr. George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 South Texas Project Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50-499 Responses to DSER/FSAR Items Renardina Section 3.10
Dear Mr. Knighton:
The enclosed attachment provides STP's response to Draft Safety Evaluation Report (DSER) or Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) items.
The item numbers listed below correspond to those assigned on STP's internal list of items for completion which includes open and confirmatory DSER items, STP FSAR open items and open NRC questions. This list was given to your Mr. N. Prasad Kadambi on October 8, 1985 by our Mr. M. E.
Powell. Note, that the item numbers referenced with (P) are partial responses only. For these items the response reflects the Non-NSSS Scope.
The attachment includes mark-ups of FSAR pages which will be incorporated in a future FSAR amendment unless otherwise noted below.
The items which are attached to this letter are:
Attachment Item No.*
Subject 1
D 3.10-2 (P)
Section 3.10:
D 3.10-3 (P)
Equipment Qualification (Non-NSSS Scope)
D 3.10-5 (P)
D 3.10-11 (P)
D 3.10-12 (P)
D 3.10-13 (P)
D 3.10-19 D 3.10-20 F 3.10-21
- Legend i
D - DSER Open Item C - DSER Confirmatory Item F - FSAR Open Item Q - FSAR Question Response Item 1
I L1/DSER/e e5102eo364 05M022 498 PDR ADOCK O PDR E
Houston Lighting & Power Company ST-HL-AE-1390 File No.: G9.17 Page 2 Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Powell at (713) 993-1328.
Very truly yours, s
n M. R Wi e'
)
Manager, uclear L ing CAA/bl Attachments:
See above Ll/DSER/e
ST-HL-AE-1390 File No.: G9.17 Page 3 cc:
Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Director Brian E. Berwick, Esquire Division of Licensing Assistant Attorney General for i
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation the State of Texas i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station I
Washington, DC 20555 Austin, TX 78711 I
Robert D. Martin Lanny A. Sinkin Regional Administrator, Region IV 3022 Porter Street, N.W. #304 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20008 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76011 Oreste R. Pirfo, Esquire Hearing Attorney N. Prasad Kadanbi, Project Manager Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Washington, DC 20555 Bethesda, MD 20814 Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire Claude E. Johnson Chairman, Atomic Safety &
Senior Resident Inspector /STP Licensing Board c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 P.O. Box 910 Bay City, TX 77414 Dr. James C. Lamb, III 313 Woodhaven Road M.D. Schwarz, Jr., Esquire Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Baker & Botts One Shell Plaza Judge Frederick J. Shon Houston, TX 77002 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission J.R. Newman, Esquire Washington, DC 20555 Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
1615 L Street, N.W.
Mr. Ray Coldstein, Esquire Washington, DC 20036 1001 Vaughn Building 807 Brazos Director, Office of Inspection Austin, TX 78701 and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Citizens for Equitable Utilities, Inc.
Washington, DC 20555 c/o Ms. Peggy Buchorn Route 1, Box 1684 E.R. Brooks /R.L. Range Brazoria, TX 77422 Central Power & Light Company P.O. Box 2121 Docketing & Service Section Corpus Christi, TX 78403 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission H.L. Peterson/G. Pokorny Washington, DC 20555 City of Austin (3 Copies)
P.O. Box 1088 Austin, TX 78767 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission J.B. Poston/A. vonRosenberg 1717 H Street City Public Service Board Washington, DC 20555 P.O. Box 1771 San Antonio, TX 78296 Revised 9/25/85 I
i
ATTACHMENT I STP FSAR ST.HL AE Ph9o PAGEl OFJR Pressurizer safety valves will be qualified by the following procedures (these kg valves cre also subjected to tests and analysis similar to check valves):
(1) stress and deformation analyses of critical items that might affect opera-bility for faulted condition loads, (2) in-shop hydrostatic and seat leakage tests, and (3) periodic in situ valve inspection.
In addition, a static load equivalent to,that applied by the faulted condition is applied at the top of the bonnet, and the pressure is increased until the valve mechanism actuates.
Successful actuation within the design requirements of the valve assures its oveipressuriza, tion safety capabilities during a seismic event.
Using these methods, all safety-related valves in the systems will be quali-h1 fied for operability during a faulted event. The methods outlined above con-servatively simulate the seismic event and assure that the active valves will perform their safety-related function when necessary.
The above testing program for valves is conservative. Alternate valve opera-bility testing, such as dynamic vibration testing vill be allowed if it is shown to adequately assure the faulted condition functional ability of the J.1 valve system.
3.9.3.2.1.3 Pump Motor and Valve Operator Qualification (NSSS Scope) -
Motors for active pumps and motor operators for active valves and all vital 4g electrical appurtenances thereto, will be seismically qualified in accordance with IEEE 344-1975.
If the testing option is chosen, sine-beat testing vill be justified. This justification may be provided by satisfying one or more of the following requirements to demonstrate that multi-frequency response is negligible or that the sine-beat input is of suf ficient magnitude to conserva-tively account for this effect.
1.
The equipment response is basically due to one mode.
2.
The sine-beat response spectra envelops the floor response spectra in the region of significant response.
3.
The floor response spectra consists of one dominant mode and has a peak at this frequency.
If the degree of coupling in the equipment is small, then single-axis testing is justified. Multi-axis testing will be required if there is considerable cross-coupling; however, if the degree of coupling can be determined, then single-axis testing can be used with the input sufficiently increased to include the effect of coupling on the response of the equipment.
Seismic qualification by analysis alone, or by a combination of analysis and testing, may be used when justified. The analysis program can be justified by demonstrating:
(1) that equipment being qualified is amenable to analysis, and (2) that the analysis be correlated with tests or be performed using standard analysis techniques.
3.9.3.2.2 Pump Operability (BOP Scope):
e operabi
[ofASMEacti,y
/
pumps und ' plant conditi s, whEh~their) ety function) relied upon to safely ut down the p nt or to miti ate the consequen(es of an accidenf, has bee demonstrated b seismic analys orteststot[extentofavailability l41 gI d capability of est equipment any of the foJIoving programs /
i 10 SEXY Amendment 41 3.9-53 A
.-=
ATTACHMENT t ST-HL AE-13 9 0 PAGE;L OF17 INSERT A Safety-related active pumps are qualified by in-shop tests as appropriate for each type of pump and seismic qualification prior to installation in the plant. The in-shop tests include:
(1) hydrostatic tests of pressure-retaining parts; and (2) performance tests to determine total deve, loped head versus flow over the range of anticipated operating l
conditions and other pump parameters. After the pump is installed in the f
plant startup tests are ronducted. A range of operating temperatures is experienced during the power ascension stage. The required periodic inservice inspection and operational testing are performed. These tests demonstrate that. the pump will function as required during all normal operating conditions for the design life of the plant.
The post accident operating conditions for safety related pumps do not differ significantly, from normal operating conditions. The range of temperature, net positive suction head (NPSH), and flow experienced by each pump during preoperational testing, normal operation and inservice testing is similar to post accident conditions.
In addition to the above i
j tests, the operability during the seismic event is shown by one of the l
]
following programs:
4 J
I
. _ -. _ _. _ _ _. _ _. -_.-.____.,_ _,,,.___,.~,. _._ __ _-___._ _.._,- _,,,_., _._ _
.,_.,.,_._. _._,....,.__. ~ - _..,. _,_.
ATTACHMENT I STP FSAR ST Hic AE-IMO PAGE 3 0F W 1.
An individual pump, selected as a prototype, has been tested in the manu-facturer's shop, with the test conditions equivalent to the combined plant conditions which the pump is expected to withstand at the time the active function is required.
Vibratory excitation of the pump to simu-late seismic loading is demonstrated:
(a) by a separate test under con-ditions sufficiently severe to provide adequate margins for assurance of operaM11ty under combined plant loading conditions: or (b) by seismic l 4g
~
analy, sis of critical pump components.
7.
An individu pu=p, selected as a prototype, has been tested partially:
(a) in the manufacturer's shop under those test conditions as li=ited by the test facility, e.g., hydrostatic tests, seat leakage test, and per-formance test (also during these tests, bearing temperature and vibration levels have been monitored); (b) in a testing laboratory for simulated seismic excitation loadings; and (c) in the plant after pump installation for confirmation of operability under flow conditions during system pre-operational hot functional tests.
3.
Pumps which are equivalent to a prototype pump that has successfully met the test requirements of a pu=p operability assurance program, are not tested if the loading conditions for those pumps are equivalent to or less than those imposed during testing of the prototype pump.
The test results of the prototype pump are documented according to ANS1 N45. 2, Section 18, r f "'CI M45. 2.11, 66 6. 3. 3.
The prototype pump is celected from a group of similar pumps which are used in the plant.
A prototype pump used in one nuclear power plant is decced to qualify as a prototype pump for other plants provided that the system operating conditions of both plants and the pump loading condi-tions at the time when the active function is required are equivalent or less severe.
The pump manufacturer is required to show by testing, analysis, or existing documented data that the pump will perform its safety function e'
when subjected to the maximum seismic accelerations and maximum faulted nozzle loads. The pumps are tested or analyzed for the lowest natural frequency. The pump, when having a natural frequency above 33 Hz, is considered essentially rigid. This frequency is considered sufficiently MFArY high to avoid problems with amplification between the component and structure for all seismic areas. A static shaft deflection analysis of 41 y~the rotor is performed usinghth; applir M
- f--ir rcep. : 77^M-Q110.
The deflections determined from the static shaft analysis are compared to 27 the allowable rotor clearances.
If rubbing or impact occurs, its dura-tion must be short and shown by prototype test or existing docu=ented data to not to unacceptably damage or prevent the pump from performing its design function.
In order to avoid damage during the faulted plant condition, the stresses caused by the combination of normal operating loads, SSE, and dynamic system loads pre kept limited to the material iadicated in Tablep 3.9-4A nd 3.^
5.
The maximum elastic limit, as ymf seismic nozzle loads are considered in an analysis of the pump supports to assure that a system misalignment cannot occur.
g*
v 5
Faulted nozzle loads are.provided in the pump design specification.
External piping loads on the pump nozzles are kept within these specified limits.
The pump specification requires the vendo* to demonstrate the 3.9-54 Amendmen 44
ATTACHMENT I ST HL AE 1390 PAGE L1 OF lR INSERT B the zero period acceleration (ZPA) of the applicSble seismic response j spectra in two orthogonal horizontal directions and in the vertical direction simultaneously.
INSERT Z
<R In cases where the natural frequency is found to be below 33 Hz, a dynamic analysis has been performed using the applicable seismic response spectra. The deflections determined from the analysis are compared to the allowable rotor cleerances.
ATTACHMENT I STP FSAR ST HL AE-l m o 3.9 - R. 3 A PAGE c; OF )3 Sperability of the pump when subjected to the load combinations given in Table G.9-2./.
In addition, the pump casing stresses resulting from the 9
(
maximum faulted nozzle londs are limited to the values given in Table 41 3.9-4A.
Q110 27 Environmental service conditions for normal, abnormal and accident condi-tions are identified in Section 3.11.
Safety-related active pumps are environmentally qualified for operability during conditions where their operation is essential.
Performing these analyses with the conservative loads stated and with the restrictive stress limits as allowables assures that critical parts of the pump do not get damaged during the faulted condition; therefore, the relia-bility of the pump for post-faulted condition operation is not impaired by the %1 seismic event.
L caco.-hcre the natural f requcacy is found-tc be belew 33 !!, a dgc.!:
43 c--1p i h:2 5:cr perfe-ed = ing the app!!cchir rin=le-resper^
- t-. To complete the qualification procedures, the pump motor has been qualified for operation during the mar.imum seismic event. Any auxiliary equipnent which is vital to the operation of the pump motor qualification has been separately qualified by. meeting lEEE 344-1975.
l 41 Similarity is established between the prototype and a group of pumps by virtue of the following characteristics.
1.
Manufacturer - Pumps should be from the same manufacturer.
6
~
2.
Geometry & structure - Pumps should be of same type, size and physical Qll characteristics.
27 3.
Hvdraulic rating - Pumps should be of same capacity and head.
Operability of the pump is verified by analysis by assuming that the rotor of the pump does not interfere with the casing while rotating. Deflection of rotor is maintained within certain tolerance such that operation of the pump and its hydraulic characteristics remain unchanged. Deflection of the rotor depends upon the stiffness of shaft, bearing, pedestal and the body of the a
Pu=p.
7 4g Valveoperability(BOPScop]e). /
2nseer, __p.
The operability of active C
3.9.3.2.3 valves, including valve operators, under plant conditions when their respec-tive safety function is relied upon to effect either a plant shutdown or to mitigate the consequences of an accident, has be.en demonstrated to the extent of availability and capability of test equipment by any one of the following acceptable programs:
p,.S S E, Cc loa 1.
An individual valve, selected as a prototype valve, has been tested with the test conditions imposed during the demonstration of valve opening and/or closing equivalent to the combined plant conditions U.tludins.SSE-6
- ic-.i c xdition;) that the valve is expected to withstand at the time lg3 the active function is required.
(Such a test program is done for 27 E ;;;; cr:11 -!:: valves only L Tvy w.i p h y 4 4 [A A A W U d i. 4L.
3.9-55 Amendment 41 1
(
ATTACHMENT ST HL AE 139o J' AGE G3 OFJP a
INSERT C 4
The qualification of pump and pump drivers as an assembly is performed by analysis and/or by testing.
In cases where the pump and the drive ~r j
are qualified separately by either analysis or testing, the coupling between the components is analyzed to demonstrate that misalignment does not occur.
?
INSERT D The safety related active valves will be subjected to a series of stringent tests prior to service and during plant life.
Prior to installation, the following functional tests are pcrformed:
(1) shell hydrostatic test to ASi1E Section III requirements, (2) seat leakage tests or disc hydrostatic tests, and (3) operational tests to verify that the valves will open and close within the specified time limits when subjected to the design differential pressure (except check valves).
For qualification of motor operators for environmental conditions, refer to Section 3.11.
Cold hydro-tests, periodic inservice inspections, and periodic inservice operations are performed in-situ to verify the functional ability of the valve. A range of operating temperatures is experienced during the power ar#
ascension stage. With required periodic maintenance, these tests demonstrate reliability of the valve 5for the design life of the plant.
h F
(
ATTACHMENT I ST.HL.AE-Qq PAGE'7 OF;p STP FSAR 2.
An individual valve, selected as a prototype valve, has been tested under conditions which simulate separately each of the plant loadings 6
(including SSE seismic loadings) that the valve is expected to withstand lQ110.
in combination during valve opening and/or closing.
27 Sometimes such a test program has been supplemented by analyses which demonstrate that the individual test loadings are suf ficiently higher than yhe plant loadings, to provide adequate margins for assurance of operability under combined loading conditions.
3.
An individual valve, selected as a prototype, has been tested partially:
(a) in the manufacturer's shop under those test conditions as limited by the test facility, e.g.,
shell hydrostatic test, back-seat and main seat leakage tests, disc hydrostatic test, and operational tests to verify the opening and closing of the valve; (b) in a testing laboratory for simu-laced seismic excitation loadings; and (c) in the plant after valve in-l41 stallation for confirmation of operability under flow conditions during system preoperational hot functional tests.
Th'e test results of the prototype valve are documented according to ANSI hl N45. 2, Section 8, an d 1.':C T ':15.2.11, Ccc ia. 0.3.3 /
The prototype valve is selected from a group of eimilar valves which are l 41 used in the plant. A prototype valve used in one nuclear power plant is deemed to qualify as a prototype valve for another plant provided the system operating conditions of both plants and the valve loading condi-tions at the time when the active function is required are equivalent or (ore m W less severe.
Wh en.
Smulaxty
'b# "'*d g
.valveshavebeenqualifiedby[ analysis 4
h e
they are similar to a valve which has been already qualified by testi.;,
naly-sis.
Following are the characteristics considered in determining that a
.T nSE.d valve is similar to the tested prototype valve o.nd fwns -Hu p.chnicAA, kuwh 6".
D$ 5IdiY:h '
41 a
Similar pre ure rating.
b.
Similar ize and thickness exce t the size of the ope tor.
hy c.
Sam manufacturer and model umber.
6 Q110.
The mather tical model used in the rototype valve has be checked to agree 25 with the xperimental results.
substantially similar athematical model has been u d for the other valve w h a slight change in e size of the opera-tor.
S ilarity is established tween the prototype a a group of valves b vir-ue of the following char eteristics:
1.
Manufacturer - V ves should be from the same manufacturer, 2.
Geometry & st cture - Valves should e of the same type, ze and physi-t cal characte stics.
Where more th, one material exists the pressure, temperatur ratings and the standa d calculation pressur s are chosen for the weak t material which yield he highest stress.
ese stresses are l
l l
R.AM
%vadevvv2 JJ
ATTACHMENT I 4
ST HL AE 1390 PAGE 3 OF lP 4
INSERT E s3f66 i
Manufacturer - valves are from thefanufacturer.
M, a.
t"r :21 4
b.
Geometry and Structure - valves are of the same type and A
e rh2r teristi;;, A valve is not considered similar to a qualif.ied I
valve if the ratio of the sizes between the valve and the qualified valve is greater than 1.5.
Pressure Rating - in general, a valve of lower pressure rating is c.
selected for qualification and extended to the valves of higher i
]
pressure rating.
I The mathematical model used in the prototype valve has been checked to g
agree with the experimental results. A substantially similar mathematical i
model has been used for th'e other valve with a slight change in the size i
1 of the operator and/or size of the valve. Based on the similar mathematical model, the natural frequencies are computed to confirm the dynamic hharacterksthcs of the valve and to determine the method for the I
stress analysis. Where more than one material exists, the pressure, 9/
a temperature ratiqp and the standard calculation pressures are chosen for l
y i
the weakest material in the stress calculation. These stresses are then 4r- (
compared with allowable stresses for the weakest material in the temperature j
j l
range of interest.
i i
t
?
l l
J n
4 l
c-----
---.m
,Tvrw-y-my%.y me,
,,c--m
-,-m--g-ww%mm 99-
gow g g g,,
g-g ewq,%- m p, popwgg -wwwg we p m
ATTACHMENT I STP FSAR ST.HL-AE. rheno PAGEc) OF Iy
-tb-per-d eit h 211-M ic ~ rce::
the uccha:
- cric P the
-tc;pcr m rc rcng: cf int m - H Functional operability of safety-related active valves is assured by showing that the boundary joints, yokes, and similar structures have not failed, actu-ators do no,t freeze or bind, and structural integrity of the valve internals is not degraded.
Valve end leads are provided in the valve design specifica-tion for safety-related active valves.
External piping loads are kept within these specified limits. The faulted condition nozzle loads are considered in one'of the' following ways:
(1) loads equivalent to the faulted condition nozzle loads are simultaneously applied to the valve through its mounting g*
during the test, or (2) hv analysis, the loads are shown to not affect the U-operability of the valve.
The valveh ur:F--
specifications require the ven-dortodemonstratetheoperabilityoftheactivevalvewhensubjectedtothe loading combinations given in Tabic 50.9-2.0 In addition, the stresses are limitedtothevalesgiveninTables/a.9-5and3.9-6A..g. a.m 2.g-a.u 3
u.
Environmental service conditions for normal, abnormal and accident conditions are identified in Section 3.11.
Safety-related active valves are qualified for operability during conditions where their operation is essential, y
y The valve specification requires that active valves be stroked during dynamic or static testin Q '-- g rie r required input et!^- "' I M cur --
r^
- - ^ ^ '
F fice for the e - e tu t % -
Acceptance criteria is provided fer structural failure, permanent deformation, performance characteristics, seat leakage, and malfunction of any appurtenances.
41
~Cn M._._.,
g OAd.
Qll(
G-Valves that are safety-re ated but can be classified as not havin an extended 27 structure, such as chec valves are considered separately. Ch: % valves are characteristically simple in design, and their operation will not be affected by seismic accelerations or the maximum applied nozzle loads. The ?
' valve CD~6 designsf-fcompact, and there are no extended structures or masses whose motion could cause distortions that could restrict operation of the valve. The noz-21c loads due to maximum seismic excitation will not affect the functional ability of the valve since the valve disc is typically designed to be isolated from the body wall. The clearance supplied by the design around the disc will prevent the disc from becoming bound or restricted due to any body distortions M
caused by nozzle loads. Therefore, the design of these valves is such that R
once the structural integrity of the valve is assured ucing "'- '^rd 2:S0dC, the ability of the valve to operate is assured by the design features. The valve will also undergo the following:
(1) in-shop hydrostatic test, (2) in-shop seat leakage test, ead- (3) periodic in situ valve exercising wed
,1 M inspection to assure functional ability of the valve, I
The above methods provide assurance that safe'ty-related active valves are qualified for operability during conditions where their operation is required.
3.9.3.3 Design and Installation Details for Mounting of Pressure-Relief Devices.
3.9.3.3.1 Design and Installation Details for Mounting of Pressure-Relief Devices (NSSS Scope): Safety valves and relief valves are analyzed in accordance with the ASME Section III Code.
3.9-57 Amendment 41 i
ATTACHMENT I ST HL AE 1390 PAGE to OF 17 INSERT F For line-mounted valves, enveloping acceleration values fene piping analysis are specified as Required Input Motion (RIM). Values of 3g for each of the two horizontal directions and 29 for the vertical. direction are specified unless lower values are justified.
For floor or wall mounted valves, required response spectra (RRS) are specified. The seismic accelerations in the three orthogonal directions are assumed to act simul taneously j
INSERT G The qualification of valve body and extended structure as an assembly is performed by dynamic testing or static operability test supplemented by analysis.
I j
INSERT H by test and/ or stress analysis of critical parts which may affect operability, including the faulted condition trait
$4 i
l
.. ~...
ATTACHMENT I STP FSAR ST HL-AE-I MO PAGEIt OF 17 3.10 SEISMIC QUALIFICATION OF SEISMIC CATEGQRY I MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT gg 3,g SeismicCategoryImechanihalandelectrfalequipment, instrumentation and pt support <#~~7 ddentift:_ g Tabl: 2.10-1 The information to demonstrate that they are capable of performing their designated safety-related functions in 30 the event"of an earthquake is. ease presented in this section. The seismic qualification criteria applicable to the seismic Category I equipment, and supports are provided. Methods : '
- fr used to qualify seismic Catego-7 ry I nechanical and electrical equipment, instrunentation, and supports are p
9 also provided.
X w__
o 2 ;;ia gsunat e_ tut; =ue:. 21y : f c,_,- :;u Ster-Supply Dj:tr-NSSS) rr*-e are previded i-Tebi: 3.10 1.
Seismic qualification for NSSS equipment is discussed in Section 3.10N.
l41 3.10.1 Seismic Oualification Criteria The STP design criteria meet the general requirements of the seismic qualifi-cation of seismic Category I equipment.
The seismic qualification and documentation procedures used for safety-related equipment and their supports meet the intent of IEEE Standard 344-1975 and Regulatory Guide (RC) 1.100.
The project compliance to RG 1.48 is noted in Section 3.lg amd B M e 3 9 - A.5, Seismic qualification of equipment by analysis and/or tests demonstrates that the equipment is able to withstand seismic loads as a result of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) preceded by five Operating Basis Earthquakes (OBE) without loss of function in the operating mode.
38 The acceptance criteria for qualification of seismic Category I mechanical and electrical equipment and instrumentation are specified,t th: : pplieru"""
The functional operability criteria such as the operability of equipment during and/or after the SSE, and/or maintaining pressure integrity are speci-fied.tr th: Mi li::. c The requirements for designing seismic Category I mechanical equipment that are qualified to maintain the pressure boundary integrity are in accordance with ASME B&PV Code Section III.
Equipment that has been previously qualified using methodologies equivalent to those described herein are acceptable provided that proper documentation is submitted and the loads and load combinations used in qualification envelop the project criteria.
3.10.1.1 Functional Monitoring.
Seismic Category I mechanical and elec-trical equipment and instrumentation are qualified to demonstrate their opera-bility.
To demonstrate proper functional operability, the normal mode of operation has been monitored during and after the seismic simulation or after the seismic simulation, whichever is applicable.
3.10-1 Amendment 41
ATTACHMENT l ST HL AE-1390 PAGE 12 OF l y
]
INSERT X The environmental qualification of the equipment including qualified life is discussed in Section 3.11.
The operability of active pumps and valves is discussed in Sections 3.9.3.2.2 and 3.9.3.2.3, respectively.
ATTACHMENT 1 ST.H L-AE-Ib90 STP FSAR PAGE 12> OF 17 Monitoring equipment is required to monitor both input and output of the test cpecimen. The records confirm that the specimen performs all its safety-re-lated functions within its " allowable" tolerance.
38 5
3.10.2 Methods.... T.::: fur __ for Qualifying Electrical Equipment and Instru-mentation
'I 3.10.-2.1 Means of Qualification.
IEEE Standard 344-1975 and RG 1.iOO,
cre used'foi seismie qualifications. -~".. ;-- i2
-;_i....;
il!-tc 1 1.. 1 -
r
.......... ~ -..
.~~.~aa 1
E E
The horizontal and vertical OBE and SSE required response spectra (RRS) curves, as discussed in Section 3.7, form the basis for the seismic qualifica-tion of equipment, systems, and components. The RRS curves are identified with the building elevation and are a part of the ex::! r $' specification,
- x! rent lec2 tier er ler-ti^nr.
-A the acceptance criteria along with th:
P for the safety-related functions for each item of equipment.
Theseismicqualificationreports3rher prrpered by the cupplier 2nd rubritted for ::ci:r( demonstrate (in accordance with Section 3.10.1) that the equipment performs its required safety-related function before, during, and after (as r quired) five OBEs followed by one SSE. For components that have been previ-ously tested to generic criteria, test inputs are reviewed to assure that the test response spectra (TRS) envelops the applicable RRS over the frequency rarge of interest. Test reports are reviewed to confirm the required opera-bility.
38 For active mechanical equipment (i.e., pumps and valves) " r^ 'i stier rf test end/or analysis is used to demonstrate operability and structural integrity of components. Other seismic Category I safety-related mechanical equipment is qualified by analysis to demonstrate structural integrity. Load combinations, combining of dynamic responses for mechanical equipment, and the pump and valve operability assurance program are discussed in Section 3.9.
3.10.2.2 Method of Qualification. The methods for seismic qualification l 41 are listed below:
o
- Analysis, o
Test.
38 o
Combination of analysis and test.
3.10.2.2.1 Analysis: Mathematical analyses without testing are accept-l 41 cble if the structural integrity alone ensures the intended design function of the equipment (see Section 3.10.1) or if testing is impractical because of the oize and weight of the equipment. The proc ?urcs used <ree in accordance with S2ction 5 of IEEE 344-1975.
rnethodokgy IS When an equivalent static coef ficient analysis is performed, justification for 38 its use is provided.bj thm omyyliot.
See Section 3.7.3A l.2 for additional information on use of equivalent static load method of analysis.
)
3.10-2 Amendment 41 e
ATTACHMENT I ST HL AE-13cto STP FSAR PAGE I4 0F /F y q b b V^-
Analytical results are evaluated or mechanical strength, fatigue, alignment, and noninterruption of function as related to the functional requirements of the equipment during an SSE event.
Maximum stresses under all loading condi-38 tions are computed and compared with the allowables.
Interference effects as well as interaction effects are considered in the analysis when significant.
3.10.2.2.2 Testing:
Seismic tests are performed bv_rdojecting equipment l 41 to vibratory motion that conservatively -ciculatc -d# seismic vibratory envi-ronment at,the equipment mounting
- location.
Seismic qualification by testing is performed using either multifrequency or single frequency inputs. These test inputs and methods are in accordance with IEEE 344-1975, Section 6.
The multifrequency test method is used for floor-and wall-mounted equipment.
In addition, in special cases it is used for equipment mounted on structural steel, piping, ducts, or other types of supports or equipment where an analy-sis or test has been performed to determine the RRS at the equipment mounting location. These tests or analyses consider the dynamic amplification charac-teristics of the support system.
For equipeent qualified by multifrequency testingg the measured. Test Response Spectra (TRS) envelops the RRS in the frequency range of interest $s 4 tniY 38
~ fi:d ir T:ble 3.1" f g Single-frequency tests are used for line-mounted equipment, which includes equipment mounted in piping systens and in ducts. The equipment is tested to a required input motion (RIM). The RIM is the peak acceleration of the input motion (sine wave or sine beats) at a specified frequency. The piping and duct systems are designed and supported to limit the peak acceleration experi-enced by the equipment to a value less than the specified RIM acceleration.
Single-frequency tests may also be used for other types of equipment as per-mitted by IEEE 344-1975 and RG 1.100.
-T c.'- 1 : 3.1^ i id..;ifia th: :quipment w iified by 2 6; b frc:x m y t:sta 1 1 i er:1:g :t !- 12. lo d i.;; e r : q
.1 t r th:. W fi J ^"" _: '- :tir-
.L. 2 3.10.2.2.3 Combined Test and Analysis: When equipment cannot be quali-l 41 fied practically by analysis or testing because of its complexity, size, or weight, combined analysis and testing is utilized. This method of qualifica-tion is applied to equipment such as cabinets that may contain several differ-38 ent configurations of internally mounted devices.
The combined analysis and test method is in accordance with Section 7 of IEEE 344-1975, and the equipment qualification methods of Section 3.10.2.2.1 and 41 3.10.2.2.2.
Equipment that has been previously qualified by means of test and analysis equivalent to those described herein is acceptable if proper documentation is 38 provided.
3.10-3 Amendment 41
ATTACHMENT l ST HL AE-12Aq STP FSAR PAGE 15 0F IN N
sb1 3.10-1 i neifies e equip t qual ed usi combined alysis d
l t
methods The re ' ts of t qualif ation a F cii ' n the a ropri-8 l
(teequip t qual cation r orts.
3.10.2.3 Test Sequence Verification. As defined in Part B of RG 1.100, l 41 IEEE 344-1975 is an ancillary standard of IEEE 323-1974.
In accordance with this standard, seismic testing as part of the overall qualification is per-forn.ed in des proper sequence as indicated in Section 6 of IEEE 323-1974.-
3.10.3 Methods and Procedures of Analysis or Testing of Supports of Mechan-ical and Electrical Equipment and Instrumentation Analysis and/or test is performed for seismic Category I equipment supports to anzure their structural capability to withstand seismic excitation.
Information concerning the structural integrity of pressure-retaining compo-nants, their supports, and core supports is presented in Section 3.9.3.
The following bases are used in the analysis and design of cable tray supports, heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) ducts supports and instrument tubing supports.
1.
The methods used in the seismic analysis of cable tray and HVAC duct sup-ports are described in Sections 3.7.3A.l.2 and 3.7.3A.15.
The amplifica-tion of seismic loads due to the flexibility of the supporting system, if any, is accounted for in the design of the cable trays and in the qualifi-cation of duct mounted equipment.
2.
The seismic Category I instrument tubing systems are supported so that the allowable stresses permitted by Section III of ASME B&PV Code are not exceeded when the tubing is subjected to the loads specified in Section 38 3.9 for Class 2 and 3 piping.
For field-mounted instruments the supports are tested or analyzed to meet the following:
1.
The field mounting supports for seismic Category I instruments excluding line-mounted instruments have a fundamental frequency of 33 Hz or greater, with the weight of the instrument included.
If, however, the mounting should be flexible (i.e., frequency <33 Hz), the dynamics of the support are considered in the qualification of the supported instru-ment.
2.
The stress level in the mounting support does not exceed the material allowable stress when subjected to the maximum acceleration level of the mounting location. The weight of the instrument is included.
In some cases, panels and racks supporting seismic Category I devices are tested and/or analyzed with equipment installed.
If the devices are in an inop-erative mode during the support test, the response at the devices' mounting location is monitored. In such a case, devices are qualified separately, and the actual input to the devices is more conservative in anplitude and frequency content than the response monitored at the devices' location. The RRS for devices (i.e., in-cabinet response spectra) are generated and, as shown in the individual qualification reports as applicable to the device and the test response spectra to 3.10-4 Amendment 41
ATTACHMENT I ST HL AE-1390 STP FSAR PAGE Ito OF (2 which the device is qualified, envelops the RRS measured at the device 38 mounting location.
^#
3.10.4 Operating License Review
~
l h^
41 M"- t m _ _
.. -. m, m i t.- cf llc icolo 1fr-cf ;xclifie - rf; i_
d 1 0S M 7 mocusce... Te.L:_ 2.1^ 1.
Tr: :f::::: d : NCCC _;_i;- ::: ;;:?ifi:: ic '-
-- e n r-;-
_.... w..J L mLmp
_..l
- -: ----'-8, The: documentation Y
hrocedures..forsafety-relatedseismicCategoryI- - "" # re in accordance 38 with the recommendations contained in IEEE 344-1975 and RC 1.100.
l l
l 3.10-5 Amendment 41
ATTACHMENT I ST HL AE IMO PAGE 17 OE..I ?..._..
INSERT Y The method of qualification and the results are identified in the Seismic Master List submittal.
Equipment qualification documentation is stored in the Record Management Sts.;;c System (RMS) in a retrievable and auditable form. This documentation will be available for the life of the plant.
~'ATT ACHMENY l ST HL AE-IMO
~
STP FSAR REFERENCES Section.10:
3.10-1
" Environmental Qualification of Westinghouse Class IE 2
Equipment," WCAP-8587, Revision 1.
~
3.10-2
.orrone, A.,
"Seismit Vibration Testi g with Sine Beats,"
WCAP-7558 (October 1971).
3.10-3 Voge ng, E.
L.,
"Scismic Testin of Electrical and Control E uipment," WCAP-7817, Non oprietary (December 1971).
3.10-4 Vogeding, E.
L., " Seismic Tep ing of Electrical and Control Equip.ent (WCID Proces,A Control Equipment)," WCAP-7817, Supple int 1 (Decemb r 1971).
3.10-5 Potochnik, L.
, "Sei ic Testing of Electrical and Control Equipment ( w S ismic Plants)," WCAP-7817, Supplement 2 (December
).
3.10-6 Vogeding, E.
L.,
Se mic Testing of Electric and Control Equipment Westin house Solid-State Protection System)
(Low Seip ic Plant
." WCAP-7817, Supplement 3 (Decemb r 1971).
3.10-7 Reid, J.
., " Seismic Testing of Electrical and Control Eq pment (WCID NUCANA 7300 Series) (Low Seismic P ants)," WCAP-7817, Supph ment 4 (November 1972).
\\
Voeding,E.L.,"SeismicTestinkofElectricalandControl 3.10-8 Equipment (Instrument Bus Distribution Panel),"
WCAP-7817, Supplement 5 (March \\1974).
\\
3.10-9 Figenbaum, E.
K., and E. L. Vogeding, ' Seismic Testing of Electrical and Control Equipment (Type DB Reactor Trip Switchgear)," WCAP-7817, Supplement August 1974).
3.10-Vogeding, E.
L.,
" Seismic Testing of Electrical and Control Equipment for Low Seismic Plants," WCAP-78,17, Supple-ment 7 (September 1976).
.10-11 Miller, R.
B.,
" Seismic Testing of Electrical and Control Equipment (Low Seismic Plants)," WCAP-7817, Suitplement 8 (June 1975).
3.10-6 Amendment 38 j