ML20154D964

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses CRGR Review of Rev 2 to Reg Guide 1.100, Seismic Qualification of Electric & Mechanical Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants, (Effective Guide).Approval to Issue Guide Requested
ML20154D964
Person / Time
Issue date: 01/25/1988
From: Beckjord E
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To: Jordan E
Committee To Review Generic Requirements
Shared Package
ML20153G441 List:
References
RTR-REGGD-01.100, RTR-REGGD-1.100 NUDOCS 8809160180
Download: ML20154D964 (3)
v • d • e


Text

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

)[et as: o

', UNITED STATES gj,(' ' ,e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

)

JAN 2 51988 MEMORANDUM FOP: E. L. Jordan, Chairman Committee to Review Generic Requirements l FROM: E. S. Beckjord, Director l

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research SUPJECT: CRGR REVIEW - REVISION 2 TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1.100, "SEISMIC QUAllFICATION OF ELECTRIC AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS * (EFFECTIVE GUIDE)

Rackground The Comittee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) in its 97th meeting on October 1,1986, reviewed the subject regulatory guide and provided it's cocinents as documented in CRGR minutes dated October 15, 1986.

During its 326th meeting, June 4-6 1987, the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) concurred in the NRC staff's proposal to issue the proposed Revision ? to Pegulatory Guide 1.100 for public comrent. The proposed Revision 2 was issued for public coment on August 26, 1987. The coment period  ;

expired on October 30, 1987, i l

I This guide endorses IEEE Std. 344-1987, "Recommended Practices for Seismic Gualification of Class 1E Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations "

dated August 3, 1987 (Enclosure 1). The NRC staff has extended the application of this standard to the qualification of mechanical equipment.

Regulatory Position C.1 was included to provide guidance for qualifict. tion of rechanical equipment. Regulatory Position C.2 recognizes the use of experience data as an acceptable method of seismic oualification. This method, however, should be appropriately justified and will be evaluated by the NRC staff on a case-by-case basis.

gblicCommentsar.dResolution:

A total of seven coment letters was received (Enclosure 2). The coments were in the following areas:

(1) Applicability of IEEE Std. 344-1987 to nechanical equipment.

(2) Differences in cualification methods for electric and mechanical equipment.

(3) Scope: Examples of mechanical equipment supports.

(4) Unrestricted use of SOUG experience data and GIP for future plants.

8809160100 8804:4 TIk$ #$

b** ,g, NN2619?8 The sumary of connents and the staff's resolutions are provided in Enclosure 3.

As a result of resolution of public connents, the staff plans to revise Sec-tion B, "Discussion," of Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.100, as indicated in comparative text (Enclosure 4). No other changes are proposed.

Concurrences on this package were obtained from the Director of NRR, and OGC.

Action

Eric S. Beckjord, Nrector Office of huclear Regulatory Research

Enclosures:

(15 copies each)

1. IEEE Std. 344-1987 (10 copies)
2. Public Coment letters
3. Resolution of Public Corrents 4 Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.100 l

l l

l ll l

-w I '

{ ..

P

[

f i

t I

e i

l t

i i

ENCLOSURE 2 PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS P

i I

[

r

{

i e

i i

f l

4

12 5 -

STEVENSON & ASSOCIeE ~b,S 'p g

a structurabmechangggg engineering firm RULES & PRocirms pn

.+ .v.ti 9:17 Midne t Asenue . Clescland. Ohio s1125 * (216) 587 3805. Teles: 985570 99906.1 0045F September 29, 1987 p e,,4ce n t-o li / 9s;:

52 PX M 91c, Rules and Procedures Branch "~

Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration and Resource Management /

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen:

1 personally, and as Chairman of the ASME 7ask Committee on Seismic Performance Qualification of Mechanical Equipment, strongly object to the extension of the Regulatory Guide 1.100 Revisions 1 on "Seismic Qualification of Electrical Eauipment for Nuclear Power Plants," scope to include mecnanical /

equipment primarily by reference to IEEE Std. 344-1987. The ASME Comittee on Qualification of Mechanical Ecu*pment in addition to its active development of 13 performance and operability standards for mechanical equiement has had under active development for the past two years a standard for seismic Qualification of mechanical 2auipment. This standard, the table of contents of which is attach?d to this letter, is in the final stages of review and approval. I have attached the text of Appendix A of the draft mechenical standard which is a che:k list for the determination of "similarity" whi:h is essential for the use of experience data in seismic Qualification. No equivalent check list 55 contained in the IEEE 344-87 Specifications. The draft mechanical standard is currently awaiting the release of i NUREG/CR (scheduleo for October 1, 1987) being prepared by Southwest Research Institute under the direct

  • ion of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and sponsored by the NRC on "Similarity.* The "Similarity" NUREG/CR will be used for the final editing of Appendix A of the draft mechanical stanJard.

A meeting of the Seismic lask Committee on the Seismic Perf ormance Qualification of Mechanical Equipment Standard (membership list attached) is scheduit e for 20 0$tober 1987 to finalire the standard and in particular inesperate as appropriate the "Similarity" material contained in the NUREG/CR A vote on the standard by the being prepared by Soutnwest Research Institute.

SSME Main Comittee on Qualification of Mechanical Ecuipment is planned at its next rr.eeting on 11 November 1937.

I 1 strongly urge you to do the follow'.ng:

1. Del"y issuing Rev. 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.00 until the approval of l

1 the mecnsnical standard can be properly referenced. This should be

! approrimately 0 renths from November 1987 or alternatively I

NNM5 PDR 870929 REGG l I 02.2oo a. D em l

A#rfdW

Rules & Procedures Branch USNRC September 29, 1987 Page 2

2. Issue Rev. 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.100 with its original setpe, that is applicable to electrical equipment only. A rev. 3 to Regulatory Guide 1.100 could then be issued covering mechanical equipment and properly referencing the ASME mechanical seismic qualification standard when available in approved form in approximately 6 months.

To do Gtherwise will seriously undermine a major standard development effort at its moment of completion and which, up to now, has had active NP.C participation and support.

Sincerely,

[ John D. Stevenson President JDS:mm cc: G. Arlotto, NRC R. Bosnak, NRC R. Miller, Duke Power

0. Kana, SWR

i 99906.1 F 0027G l

4 6

Membership list .

Seismic Task Committee on Qualificati>Jn of Pumps & Valves j i

Nuclear Engineering Division G. J. Echm Research Center Site Westinghouse Electric Corp. "

Pittsburgh, PA 15230 General Electric Co.

W. English t MIC 115 115 Curtner Ave.

San Jose, CA 95125 l

ANCO Engineers Inc.

P. Ibanet 9931 Jefferson Blvd.  ;

Culver City, CA 90230 L t.. lear Regulatory Commission  !

Jerry E. Jackson (M.S. p-234)

Washington. 0.C. 20555

O. Kana Southwest Research Institute f 6220 Culebra Rd. L San Antonio, TX 78294 Bechtel Power Corp. ,

Peter M. McMahor. 15740 Shady Grove Rd. i Gaithersburg, MD 20877 l

A. E. Meligi Sargent & Lundy Engineers i 55 E. Monroe St.  !

Chicago, IL 60603  !

t

- William J. Metevia Yankee Atomic Electric Co.

1611 Framingham Rd.

Framingham, MA 01146

)

i E

c - _ - -_ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

i Duke Power Co. '

. . , W. M. Scheffler P.O. Box 33189  ;

Charlotte, N.C. 28242 AEPSC i' Satyan T. Sharma 1 Riverside Plaza Columbus, OH 43216-6621 ,

3 E0E Incorporated Paul D. Smith 121 Second Street San Francisco, CA 94:05 l 1

Stevenson & Associates John D. Stevenson 9217 Midwest Avenue t

Cleveland, OH 44125 i t

Impe11 Corp.  ;

J. H. Wawrzeniak 4200 S. Hulen, Suite 314  :

Fort Worth, TX 16109 I l

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Gerald H. Weidenhamer 5650 Nicholson Lane Rockville, MD 20852 i i

f I

I l

l t k

1

.l

.i I

I i

I l

r I

h I

2 I

I i

i i

i

.s ,

^

'" 99906.2 08440 Oraft Rev. I 11/5/85

~ .

Rev. 2 12/16/85 Rev. 3 2/11/86 '

Rev. 4 4/20/86 .

Rev. 5 1/22/86 l

ADDendit QM(.QR.A ,

RECOMM(NOLD PRACTICES FOR i

- SE!SMIC PERFORMANCE QUALIFICATION OF MECHANICAL (QUIPM(NT USED15"NUCLEARP0h(RPLANTS WITH ,

i vsRTICutaR APPLICATION TO PUM8: ANO VALV($ i j

Spon> r i

e The ASME Comr'.ttee on Qualification of '

i Mechante*' EQuicment Used in Nuclear i Power Plant. CME l

Notice i Thil document is a draft which represents work being done by ASME  :

ttchnical comnittees aimed at generating an ASMC Standard. It is furnished as informational material only.

The user is cautioned that this is not an approved document and cannot be presumed to reflect the cosition of the American Society of, Mechanical Engineers, i l

Note: This document shall be ref ormated in accordance with current QMI guidelines concurrent with review for technical content. .

I 1

l l

t 1

99?06.2

-* 08440 1

  • TABLE OF CONTENTS .

E121 1

1000 SCOPE .................................................... .

1 2000 PURP05t...................................................

2 3000 REFER [NC[5................................................ ,

t 2 7 4000 DEFINITIONS............................................... >

5000 GENERAL 015CU5510N OF CARTHOUAKC ENVIRONM[NT 6 AND (QUIPMENT RESPON5t.................................... ,

6  :

I 5100 Eartheuake Environment...............................

' 6 5200 teuiement en roundations............................. 6 ',

5300 teusement on structures.............................. 6 5400 teuiement on Systems (In line1....................... 1 5500 }imulatine the tartheuake..........................i.

Required input Motion........................

1 5510 1 5520 Response Spectrum............................ 8 5530 T_ime History.................................

8 1

5540 Power Spectral Density Function.............. 8 i

5550 Acceleration Design value....................

8 l 5560 toad Coefficient............................. ,

t 8

j 6000 GENERAL SE!$MIC QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS................ -

'. 9 6100 Desien easis tartheuake.............................. 9 6200 0ameine...........................................?.. 9 1 6210 Introduction.................................

0amoing.......................

10 t 6220 Measurement of 10 l 6221 Osmeine by Measurine the Decay Rate...... i l 6222,_ Oameine tv Measurine the Half Powe_r, 10 ,

Bandwidth............................. 11 [

6223 Cameine by curve Fittime Methodt....... 11 6230 Application of 0amping....................... 12 l 6300 eeseense 5eeetrum.................................... 12 1 6400 Reeutred Ineut Motion................................

va1ue............................

13 6500 Acceleration Oesten sueeort Mot 1gn..........................

14  !

6600 Differentia)

Evaluation f or 0)f f erential Support Motion...

14 ,

6610 14 6100 toads to Be considered in cualification.............. 15 6800 ratieve and acinc tensideratient.....................

Fatigue......................................

15 6810 15 i

1

' 6820 Aging........................................

I I

t

?

?t12

.......... .. .............. 16 7000 QUALIFICATION METHOO$...

16 1100 Qualification by use of Eueerience 0sta..............

16 1110 Introdvetten..................................

16 1120 Experience 0ata...............................

16 1121 Previous Qualifications................... 16 1122 Natural (arthcuakes....................... 17 1123 Other (sperience.............., . ........ 17 1130 Similarity....................................

17 1131 [utitation................................

18 1132 Physical Sy5tems..........................

19 1133 Oynamic Response..........................

19 1134 Operability...............................

19 1135 Similarity.............. .................

19 1140 Acceptance Criteria...........................

19 1200 Ouilificat_ien bv sna1vsts............................

19 1210 Introcuttion.. ............. ................. 21 1220 Dynamic Analysis..............................

21 .

1221 Introduction..............................

  • 21 1222 Responst Histories........................

.............. 22 1223 Time Histories............

22 1230 Loat Coefficient An41ysis....................

22 1240 Nonlinear Ecuipment Response..................

22 1250 Acceptance Criteria...........................

23 1300 Qualification bv Testino.............................

23 1310 Intro $uction.................................. 23 -

1320 Types of Tests............................... 24 1330 Gene r a'i . Appr oach Te Te s ting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24 1331 Preliminary Test........................

Development of Simulated Seismic Motion:.. 24 1332 25 1333 Conduct of Test and Operability.........

25 1340 Acceptance Criteria..........................

26 7400 Co*bined Ovalification wetneds.......................

26 8000 DOCUMENTATION..............................................

j 26 8100 Genera 1.............................................. 27 8200 Inout sectific: tion teovire-ents..................... 21 ,

8300 5eismie Oualification Reeert......................... 28 8310 Analysis 0ata................................. 28 8320 Test 04ta..................................... 29 8330 Past [seerience 0sta.......................... 29 8331 Strong Motion Eartncuake Data........ ....

8332 Generic Response Spectra  :

i

...... . .... .... 30 Enveloping Osta..

........ 30 8333 Combines Metnocs of Qualification.

P l

I flit 31 1 Table 1..........................................................

1.60...... 32  ;

l

. Figure 1 Horizontal design response spectra from R.G.1.60........ 33  ;

I figure 2 Vertical design response spectra from R.G. 34 l F gure 3 Seismic Ousitfication Required input Motion (R!M)...... -

l Figure a Graphical representation of Camping values for use 35 ,

--* en piping..............................................  !

Appendices r I

Appendia A . Similarity Check L15t........................

A-1 A.) Input Excitation................................ A.2  ;

A.2 Safety Related Design Parameters................ A.3 .

A 3 Physical Similarity.............................

A-5 A.a Dynamic Response................................

A-6 A.$ Operability..................................... A-1 l A.6 Qualification by Similarity is valid............ '

Appendt B - tramples of Qualification of. Pumps B-1 and Ar,11ysis................................. B.1 o

B.1 Vertical Pump-Motor Assembly.................... B-1 i'

b .1.1 Intrecuetion.............................

B-1 B .1. 2 model 0escrietion........................ B.2 B.1.3 Metnee of Ana1vsit....................... 52 ,

B.1.4 Lose Ce-einations and 5tresset...........

- - B-3 l 5.1.5 Su9-arv anc Ceneludine semarts........... B-a B.2 Four 'nch Butterfly va1ve....................... Ba l B.2.1 puroese..................................  ;

j B.5

" 8.2.2 medel 0escrietion........................ B.$ f B.2.3 Metned of analysis....................... B-5  !

}'

B.2.a* Resuitt.................................. B.6 I a

8.2.$ SUPr4PW and ConcludinQ eemarks...........

{

J B.1 Table B.1 (igthfrequencies for Pump Motor Assembly..............

1 B.B l Table 8.2 Evaluation at critical Locations....................!.

l B.10  !

Table B.3 Allowable Stresses 9 2000F.......................... B.11 l Table B.a Beam Stresses - pst (Level-8)......................... 5 11 7 [

Table 5.5 Beam Stresses - psi (Level . C)....................... B-12  ;

Table 5.6 Plate Stresses . psi (Level . B)...................... B.12  !'

Table B.7 Plate Stresses - psi (Level - C)......................

i B-12 j Table B.B Other Locations....................................... B-13 l 2

Table B.9 Nodal Displacements (in.) (Level -C).................. B-la  !

Figure B.1 Pump Assemb1y........................................ B.16 2

Valve.................. l Figure B.2 Analytical Model of Butterfly B 11 l Figure B.3 Finite Clement Mode 1.................................

B 18

. - Figure B.a Butterfly Valve Assemb1y.............................

1 Appendia C . Qualification of Pumps and Valves l v

by tiperience and the Oe'elopment of Bounding Spectra C1 ,

4 C.) Introduction............ ......................, C1 C.? Application........ ............................ C.2  !

l C.3 Caveats an: Exceptions.....................  !

b J

1 J

l .  ;

5 1

1 i

! l l I

.s

  • - ~ _yp C-2 C.3.1 H o r t_ r o n t a l P u"21_3 0.d v a l v e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C-2 C.3.1.1 Hortrontal Pumps.................... C2 C.3.1.2 vertical Pam ps.. ................... C-3 C.3.7 Motor-0etrtlea. valves....................

  • C.4 References Figure C.1 Seismic Motion Bouncing Spectra Horizontal C-5 Ground Metion........................................

pw e 6

e p

y 64 4

e4 1221C 19906.2 apotN0tt A Similarity Check litt

?

e' l,

i t

l

i

.s  ;

. . . 1227C ,

99906.2 t l

.! . l Ai Escitation similarity i

a) Original tacitation is Defined in Terms of: i i

1-i j i I

Response Spectra j 1 .; -

o I

e i

Acceleration Design Values i l

I I Other f '

4 i

,~

(D) Does tne original excitatioe (nvelope the New Recuire: l j

i Encitation?  !

I 1

I-t

t l No 5

Yes L 3

% f J

T 6 1 If answer is no, indicate the differences with reference to l 4

cirection and frequency as appitcable, '

s I

a J

1 (

(c) Indicate curations and nunter of strong motion part of the [

1 original entitation considefT as applicable for testing only. t n

q

$$t Times _ ,5ec. ,

i in order to have a valid cualification by similarity. entitation levels and time durations acclicable to the origina) component should be equal to or higher than the required escitation levels and time duration for the new component. If there are segments of the origina) escitation that ,

! does not envelope the recuired escitatton for new components, an i assessement of tne natural frequencies for the new component is [

netessary. If no natural f requency of the new component ts f ound in the - l j

i unenwelope segment, an affirmative answer can 5tt11 De reaches to the  !

t i f i

I  !

t l

?

l

.~.

cuestion. *0oes the original escitation enveiop the ne required  !

escitation?*, by discussing the differences witr. respect to excitation direction anc frequencies 45 applicable.

A.2 5AFETY.RtLATto OtStGN PARAMCitRS:

List appropriate parameters for both the original and the new component in Table A.). I l

Table A.1 list of input Parmeters

?

1. Temperature
2. Design Pressure i

/ 3. Operating Pressure ,

4 Hydrostatic Pressure .

5. Process Medium Max. Leakage Rate f l 6. i
1. Torque 1 i 8. Thrust I t
9. No :ie Leads l .

l

.10.. 0ther.Parametcrs 4 . . . . . _ _ , . . . . . .

l (List as Applicable) I

! [

A :omparison of the design parameters for both the original and the new l j

new camponent exceeds the corresponding parameter fo l l component by more than 10 percent an assessment of the effect of j increment (s) shall be made in terms of cuantities imo ctiny)the

  • j Qualification status such as stresses, def ernations, etc.(

f j '

i l

i If any of the imput parameters of the new component is 10% higher [

til than the original component, the increased stresses and deformations shall be within specified allowable limits.

l 1 .

4 L

t t

i i I i

I l I i

L. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _

.s

'** A.3 PHYSIC'At s!M!(ARITY New Component is:

a. * .

Identical to orginal component Identity is demonstrated through make, model. and serial number comparison as applicante. (

Provide teferences; l L

1. t
2. [
3. '
b.  !

Similar to original component '

i f

Provide comparative data with appropriate i references for the following: f a ,

1) Component Physical Dimensions l

2)

Component Weight, itt Distribution and I 1

Center of Gravity

' 3) Sill of Materials ,

f 4)

Cross sectional and Length Datt to j Characterire Stiffness and lond 1 Transferring Capacity  !

t

5) Mounting with respect to: s i

. [

. Mounting Description f i  ;

.1ype of Support ,

59pport Details

] . structural Mempers 4

. Site

. Location f

. I

. Materiai d

I A.)

I t I

l l l i

l

-Weiding Details

. Rod (material)

. Location

. Site 6 Length *

. Type ,

. Bolting Details

, toits 6 Muts Material, Grade f

s s

. Number and Site

. Geometry (Bolt circle or tattern ,

Info.)

. Walhers

. Moles in Sole Plates (circular or oval) i i

Pre. Torque Values

., I r

6. No221es

. Locations

. Sites i i

1. Other intsrfaces with adjacent items

)

j such as cables, conduits, tubes. etc.

< l Provide ecmpartson of itemfIf (1) through (1) of this section for botM the there are any differences in any one of l '

original and new component.the items (or sub. items), the effect of the differen in terms'of the following* I 1 1. Stiffness 3 f

' 2. Mass distribution  !

. 3. Soundary conditions 4 Natural frequencies I 1

and determined to be within 15 percent of the original component values.

The different effect on the stresses, ceformations and load capacities ) at f

(such as stem or shaft buckling capacity, bearing load {

allowable Criteria timsts.  !

, (

l d

1 A.. ,

i j ,  !

. , . A4 OYNAM!C RESPONSE A. Original Component DynamtC Response 4.

. It determined by an ytti and exprested in terms of:

I

- RelDonte $DtCtra

. Time History Dynamic Coeffitients Faiiure Moces an:/cr Fatiure Criteria b.

. !$ determined by tett in terrr1 of Response $pectra 1

- Time History Transmittibility Plott Resonant frequenciet A+$

a

i A.$ OP(RABILITY A. New Component:

. 15 $afety Related. Pattive

.  !! Safety.Related. Active

4. Safety function O(ring (arthquake ist
b. Safety function After (arthquake is:
c. Original Component Operabt11ty 15 verifted By L griente By Tests Sy Analyset ly Combine 6 Analytet and Tests ly Combined Analysts and Caperiente ty Combined lett and (spertente By Combined Analytti. Test and (seertence n.6 j

.m B. Can the operability verification results for original component be extended to the new component by similarity i arguments?

Yes No

- i List the documented evidence supporting the similarity i arguments for operability verification of the new componentt f I

a) b) .

l C)

A.6 Qualification by similarity is valid  ;

i

[

i.

Yes No }

i Prepared by:

Checked by:

I I

I I

Approved by:  !

i I

l l A-7 ,

I l l i

i

n _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

\h

. "w@h*2% A ef (p. &kM i )

CHAR 1.OfrE. M.C. 98949 reurposowe MALB. TUCKER **"

.  ::".= W m -2 m .s 5c97f ou he .b IG.

October 27, 1987 [Q f( 3$ %

h' i ,

Rules and Procedures Branch Division of Rules and Records r Office of Administration and Resource Management

11. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington D. C. 20555 -

Subj ect: Regulatory Guide 1.100 Proposed Revision 2 Task EE105 5 Duke Power Company Coments t Dear Siri j The following are Duke Power Company's coments to the August 1987 Proposed Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.100:  !

Cement No. 1 In regard to the Staff's specific request for coments on the consistency of IEEE l 344-1987 with the proposed resolution of US! A 46. the following is submitted: j i

Paragraph 4 of the Foreword of IEEE 344-1987 acknowledges the work of the Seismic Qualification Utilities Group (SQUG) in the development of the use ,

of experience data as a basis for assuring seismic adequacy of equipment. I It also acknowledges that the experience data guidance of IEEE 344 19?? '.as intended as interin guidance and a subsequent revision will follov be 4 on i the expected further inforr.ation on generic ruggedness of equipment.

The SQUG developments are being iinalised in their Generic Implementation i Plan (GIP) which is currently being evaluated by the NRC. It would be more l appropriate far the Regulatory Guide 1.100 Regulatory Position. Section C.  ;

to reference the SQUG GIF for guidance on the use of experience data in lieu l of the "interin" IEEE 344 1987.  ;

i Coment No. 2 The proposed Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.100 basically endorses IIEE i

Standard 3441987 "Recomended Fractices for Seismic Qualification of Class IE (Electrical) Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Station". Duke Power Coepany  !

believes it is not appropriate to' base seismic qualification practices for l eechanical equipment on this Electrical IEEE standard. IEEE Standard 344 1987 6

i was developed to address class 1E (Electrical) equipment and does not adequatelv address technical issues related specifically to mechanical equipment. The ASME l Comittee on Qualification of Mechanical Equipment (QME) is currently developing P

gPDR =R =^**^

b5D 371027 -

o1. loo c PDR '

AnW 3d ///V//

e.

D. S. Nuclear Ragulatory Conniccion

' October 27, 1987,

. *page Two I a standard which will address seismic qualification of mechanical equipment such es punps and valves. Also, the ash 2 Connittee on Nuclear Air and Gas Treatment '

(CONAGT) is addressing seismic qualification for mechanical equipment such as chillers, air handlers. fans, blowers etc. Duke Power Company, therefore, reconnends that any regulatory guidance on the subject of seismic qualification of mechanical equipment should be technically coupled to the ef forts of the cforementioned ASME connittees.

Cornent No. 1 The fourth paragraph under "B. Discussion" on Fase 3 of the August 1987 Froposed Revision 2 to Fegulatory Guide 1.100, provides exaeples of machanical equipment cnd equipment supports. We believe that mechanical equipment supports such as j pipe supports, snubbers, restraints, and hangers (normally called compenent supports) are not examples of items to be appropriately qualifted by the electrical equiprent standard .tEEE 344-1967.

i Supports for ASME Section III components including pumps, tanks heat exchangers, cnd piping are designed to ASME Section 111 subsection NF for all applicable loading cases including seismic. Regulatory Guides 1.124 and 1.130 reconnend the use of Subsection NF for supporting ASME Section Il coepenents. Other component '

cupports on non ASME Section III piping are designed to ANSI B31.1. and/or MSS SF58, and/or AISC for all loading cases including seismic.

l Specific cenpenent support cenfigurations and loads are determined by the piping enalysis model used to qualify the piping under all operating cenditions including seismic. Component supports connects the piping to the butiding structure. Manufactured components are required to mest the stress allowables in Subsection NT for each operating condition. The structvr;.1 steel and concrete j cttachnents reet the same allowable stresses as the building for all operating l conditions including seismic.

Since piping is not addressed by Fegulatory Guide 1.100, we reconnend that pipe f supports, snubbers. restraints, and hangers not be qualified by IEEE 344 and be totally renoved fren the scope of Regulatory Guide 1.100. 1 Duke Fower appreciates the opportunity to connent on this revision and requests [

the Connissien give censideration to the above itens prior to finalication. t

[

I

\ery truly yours.

i i

C- -, ,, 115 /

&;/& Z< / 5 . w_,,rr . b . l i  !

Hal E. Tucker t l

DM/137/stn i

i

! [

!l

\

L U : s s\\

h TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

. 00CKETED USNRC cH Att ANoor. A TrNNrsset 374oftVI.ES & PROCEMES EP SW 1578 Lookout Place 23*"

00T 801987 87 s -2 mo 33 Sepk ley, su pre 3 4 Rules and Procedures Branch Division of Rules and Records Office of Adsinistration and Resource Managesent U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washingt.on. D.C. 20555 Cent 1s en:

COMMENTS ON REVISION 2 0F REGULATORY GUIDE 1.100 (RG 1.100)

TVA's coments on proposed revision 2 of RG 1.100 center around the f application of IEEE-344 1987 and the nanner in which experience data may be I used as a reans to demonstrate qualification to the latest IEEE standards.

The 1987 version of IEEE-344 states that plant equipment may be seismically qualified if it is similar to previously qualified equipment or equiprent outlined in an earthquake experience database. The licensee's ability to document seismic qualification based on an earthquake experience database hinges en the definition of sic.ilar.

TVA believes the intended position on similarity is defined by the earthquake experience database developed by the Seismic Qualification Utility Croup and the Electric Power Fesearch Institute (20 equipment classes and related caveats). Accordingly similarity is established if the equiprent to be qualified falls within one of the 20 equiprent classes, and the requirenants inposed by the caveats are satisfied. This is censistent with the position stated in the enclosed NRC remorandum from Themis P. Speis to Thomas M. Novak.

Frank J. Miraglia, and Robert M. Bernero dated August 21, 1986. This position is also supported by WREG-1030.

TVA roccgnises that '5is definition of similarity is conceptually different fron that which has been used in the past (i.e. speciJic design and ranuf acturing process. Appendix 3 quality progran etc.). Therefore. TVA strongly suggests that clarification of this poir.t be added to the proposed revision to avoid future interpretation irregularities. If the regulatory guide is not the proper place for this clarification, then written b'R0 procedural requirements should be formlated which will ensuru co'sistent interpretatien and appUcation of the IEEE standard.

hh 01 300 C 073030 py

    • E:.r c::: te t, E-c :,e nu. n <1 /WJr

.t.

Rules and Procedures Branch 00ri 801987 Failure +,o bring about clarification before or in conjunction with the final approval of revision 2 may result in the use of the earthquako experience data being unnecessacily limited.

Very truly yours, TERNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY yk /

R. GLidley, D r etor Nuclear Licens ng and Regulatory Affairs Enclosure cc (Enclocure):

Mr. G. G. Zech, Assistant Director Regional Inspections Division of TVA Projects Office of Special Projects U.S. Nuclear Regulktory Commission Region 11 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. J. A. Zwolinski, Assistant Director for Projects Division of TVA Projects office of Special Projects U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Highway EWW 322 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Browns Ferry Resident Inspector Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Route 2, P.O. Box 311 Athens, Alabsta 35611 f Bellefonte Resident Inspector Bellefonte Nuclear Plant P.O. Box 2000

Hollywood, Alabama 35752 Sequoyah Resident I?.spector i sequoyah Nuclear Plant 2600 Igou Ferry Road Soddy Daisy, Tennessee 37379 Watts Bar hesident Inspector Watts Bar Nuclear Plant P.O. Dox 700 Spring City. Tennessee 37381

-,-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20154D964&oldid=2955243"