ML20154Q996
| ML20154Q996 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1986 |
| From: | Devincentis J PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| To: | Noonan V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| SBN-973, NUDOCS 8603240201 | |
| Download: ML20154Q996 (9) | |
Text
'
I SEABROOK STATIOM Engineering Office Pubic Service of New 'rmampshko New Hompshire Yankee Division March 20, 1986 SBN-973 T.F. B7.1.2 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:
Mr. Vincent S. Noonan, Project Director PWR Project Directorate No. 5
References:
(a) Construction Permits CPPR-135 and CPPR-136, Docket Nos. 50-443 and 50-444 (b) USNRC Letter, dated February 14, 1986, "Selamic Qualification Review of Equipment," V. Nerses to R. J. Harrison
Subject:
Seismic Qualification Review of Equipment
Dear Sir:
Enclosed please find, as Attachment 1, revised excerpts of FSAR Section 3.9(B) which addresses the concerns raised in Reference (b).
The enclosed will be incorporated into the FSAR by a future amendment.
Very truly yours, LJ ~J John DeVincentis, Director Engineering and Licensing Enclosures cc: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Service List 8603240201 860320 PDR ADOCK 05000443 A
PDR Q4 P O. Box 300 + Seabrook, NH 03874 Telephone (603) 474-9521
Diane Curran Patsr J. Mathiw3, Mayse Harmon & Weiss City Hall 20001 S. Street, N.W.
Newburyport, MA 01950 Suite 430 Washington, D.C.
20009 Calvin A. Canney City Manager Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
City Hall Office of the Executive Legal Director 126 Daniel Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555 Stephen E. Herrill Robert A. Backus, Esquire Attorney General 116 Lowell Street Dana Bisbee, Esquire Assistant Attorney General P.O. Box 516 Manchester, NH 03105 Office of the Attorney General 25 Capitol Street Philip Ahrens, Esquire Concord, NH 03301-6397 Assistant Attorney General Department of The Attorney General Mr. J. P. Nadeau Statehouse Station #6 Selectmen's Office Augusta, ME 04333 10 Central Road Rye, NH 03870 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Designated Representative of Mr. Angie Machicos the Town of Kensington Chairman of the Board of Selectmen RFD 1 Town of Newbury East Kingston, NH 03827 Newbury, MA 01950 Jo Ann Shotwell, Esquire Mr. William S. Lord Assistant Attorney General Board of Selectmen l
Environmental Protection Bureau Town Hall - Friend Street Department of the Attorney General Amesbury, MA 01913 One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey 1 Pillsbury Street Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Concord, NH 03301 U.S. Senate (ATTN: Herb Boynton)
Washington, DC 20510 (ATTN: Tom Burack)
H. Joseph Flynn Office of General Counsel Diana P. Randall Federal Emergency Management Agency 70 Collins Street 500 C Street, SW I
Seabrook, NH 03874 Washington, DC 20472 Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
Matthew T. Brock, Esq.
Hampe and McNicholas Shaines, Madrigan & McEachern 35 Pleasant Street 25 Maplewood Avenue l
Concord, NH 03301 P.O. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 l
Donald E. Chick Town Manager Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
Town of Exeter Holmes & Ells 10 Front Street 47 Winnacunnet Road Exeter, NH 03833 Hampton, NH 03841 Brentwood Board of Selectmen Ed Thomas RFD Dalton Road FEMA Region I Brentwood, NH 03833 John W. McCormack PO & Courthouse Boston, MA 02109
SBN-973 ATTACHMENT 1 Revised Excerpts FSAR Sections 3.9(B).3.2 and 3.9(B).3.3 Seabrook Station l
SB 1 & 2 Ammndmint 56 FSAR N:vtabsr 1985 i
i
\\
/
1 condition by assuring that (1) the deflection of the pump l
impeller shaft will not exceed the clearance between the impeller i
and impeller casing and (2) the bearing will not be subjected to excessive loads imposed by deflection of rotating assembly and by differential movement of the coupling between the pump and pump driver shaft. The pump supports, including the base frame and anchor bolts, are analyzed for dead weight, nozzle loads, I
operating loads and seismic loads. The stress limits for the supports are those of AISC Manual of Steel Construction, and are i
described in Table 3.9(B)-10.
l The lowest natural frequency of all active pumps, except the j
service water pumps, is demonstrated by test or analysis to be f
greater than 33 Hz.
The service water pump is a long deep _well pump with a natural frequency of 9.61 Hz. (~The operability of thip l
l M
Cg ump is assured by dynamic analysisp7 umps having a natural N-I M
frequency above 33 Hz, are considered to be rigid, and the problems NSfRT k with amplification between the component and structure are avoided.
To avoid damage during the faulted plant condition, three areas of analysis are performed on the mo' tor: the supports, the rotor assembly, and the motor stator frame. The supports, bolts, and the stator frame are analyzed for deadweight, operating loads, and i
seismic loads and the stress limits are those of the AISC Manual of Steel Construction. Deflection of the rotor shaft was compared to the clearance between the stator and the rotor, to ensure that j
rubbing - type failure will not occur. The angular and parallel j
shaft deflections at the coupling were calculated and compared to l
the allowables for the coupling. Rotor shaft stresses and bearing i
loads were evaluated and compared to allowables for the faulted ~
l A 99.
plantconditionsp l mse e ".
b Valve Operability Assurance Program i
The operability assurance program for seismic Category I active j
valves of all pipe sizes is comprised of tests and analysis. This program provides assurance that these valves will perfore their S.
i mechanical function in conjunction with a design basis accident during a seismic event. The active valves are subjected to several tests prior to installation; namely, a shell hydrostatic test to ASME Section III requirements, seat and disc hydrostatic tests, and functional tests. After installation, preoperational tests are performed. Periodic in-service inspections and periodic in-service testing further verify and assure the functional l
ability of the safety-related active valves.
i The valve body and other pressure retaining parts of active valves l
are designed and analyzed by considering operating loads and seismic induced nozzle loads. ~For valves with extenaed structures, an l
analysis of the extended structure is performed applying static, 3.9(B)-15 l
l
SB 1 & 2 Amandaant 56 FSAR N:vembsr 1985
\\
equivalent seismic loads of 3g for each of'the three principal axes acting at the center of gravity of the extended structuras.
The maximum allowable stress limits applied in these analyses i
demonstrates structural integrity and compliance with the limits 4
specified by the ASME Section III Code for the particular ASME i
Class of valve analyzed. Stress limits for all loading combinations are presented in Table 3.9(B)-11 for Class 2 and 3 safety-related active valves and Table 3.9(B)-11a for Class I safety-related active valves. Table 3.9(B)-25 lists all AE-supplied active i
- valves, g
The valve body for active and non-active valves are qualified by I
analysis and account for the interface loading imposed by the actuators.
The valve actuators for active and non-active valves are qualified by tests in accordance with IEEE 323-1974 and IEEE 344-1971. How-j ever, a 1.5 factor is applied to the sinusoidal input motion and, bN therefore, compliance with IEEE 344-1975 isachieved.p 48 f
M S $T b - -In addition to the above functional, tests and analyses, representative f
active valves of each design type with overhanging structures are tested to verify operability during simulated seismic events by demonstrating operational capabilities within the specified limits.
)
l Functional specifications for active valve assemblies are not prepared, but the requirements of R.G. 1.148 are' contained within the design specifications and system specifications. The requirements of ANSI B16.41 are not part of a specific test program l
but all of the individual tests defined, except for the vibration endurance tests, are performed as part of the series of tests comprised of vendor hydro tests' and seismic tests and plant start-up testing. The valve (s) chosen for the parent valve (s) for vendor seisinic testing generally complies with the size extension limitations of 200 percent to 50 percent except as follows:
(1) Posi-Seal butterfly valves, class 2 and 3, 150 lb. carbon steel body wit.h matrix operator, sizes 14 to 36 inches, are qualified by tests performed ~on a 30-inch valve.
(2) Walworth gate valves, class 2 and 3, 150 lb. carbot. steel body with Limitorque operator, sizes 3 to 16 inches, are qualified 4
i by tests performed on 8 and 16 inch valves.. Although the 3-inch value is below the 50% criteria, evalu3 tion of the i
valve dimonsions indicate sufficient conservatism so that operability is assured.
58-d O
3.9(B)-15a i
i J-. Z.*4EZ~~M ^
L, SB 1 & 2 Assndmant 56 i
FSAR N vembar 1985 1
}
d.
Operability Assurance Program Results for Active Valves The results of seismic tests and analysis on active valves are provided in our document entitled, "Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Seabrook Station Units 1 & 2, Seismic Qualification Review Team (SQRT) Equipment List," which was forwarded to Mr.
Frank J. Miraglia, Chief Licensing Branch f3, Division of Licensing, under cover of PSNH's letter, dated May 27, 1982..
4+
3.9(B).3.3 Design and Installation Details for Mounting of Pressure 4
Relief Devices The installation and design of pressure relief devices comply with the rules of ASME III, Paragraph NB-7000, and NRC Regulatory Guide 1.67.
1 a.
Overpressure Protection for Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary (RCPB).
j 1
j The pressurizer in the reactor coolant system is provided with three safety valves and two power-operated relief valves for over-pressure protection. These valves discharge through a closed piping system to the pressurizer relief tank, where the steam is condensed and cooled by mixing with water. The piping system and supports are designed to satisfy the following design criteria.
1.
Stress limits for load combinations listed in Table 3.9(B)-6 for safety Class 1 piping from the pressurizer to the safety and relief valves.
r 2.
Stress limits for load combinations listed in Table 3.9(B)-7 for non-safety class piping downstream of the safety and relief j
valves to the pressurizer relief tank.
3.
Load limits on pressurizer vessel nozzles as established by the manufacturer of the pressurizer vessel.
4.
Load limits on valve connections as established by the manu-facturer of the valves.
j i
The three safety valves are mounted on the pressurizer nozzles with the short inlet pipe and elbow necessary to position the valves vertically. The total length of pipe, elbow and weld-neck j
flange is approximately 24 inches and is as short as possible to utntatze the pressure drop on the inlet side of the valve.
When the valves open, the dynamic effects - from the flow of water l
and steam are included in the design analysis.
These transient load effects on the piping system, upstream and downstream of the safety and relief valves, have been evaluated j
I b45E.K T
-P-8 I
i) 3.9(B)-22 1
.. ~, _. _.
..m.,.
SB 1 & 2 Amendmant 56 FSAR November 1985 s
[using the RELAP 5 computer code, Ref. (1), to generate thermal-hydraulic characteristi,c's of the flow along Jhe piping system from which tables of,the wave force versus, time for each leg have been derived. To e, valuate piping stresses and support loads, the maximum force for each leg has been selected and applied statically j
~
)
to the piping system in the most conservative fashion. e'To account bgK}
for the effecp'of the suddenly apr.li'ed load, dynamic l'oad factors (DLF) have been applied to the reaction forces. DLF's have been i
based on the valve opening time,and the system dyna'mic. characteristics, or DLF of/2.0 has been used in'accordance with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.67.
The developed stresses' and loads on nozzles were combined vi th th'e other applicable loads from Tables 3.'9(B)-6 and 3.9(B)-7.
Thes[werecomparedwit 'the allowable stresses and allowable nozzle loads. The simultaneo a discharge from all valves has been assumed 1
( i [ the thrust analyses.
4{>
b.
Overpressure Protection for the Secondary (Main Steam) System A multiple-vcive installation, comprised of five safety valves, is provided in each of the four main steam lines. 'Ihe valves are installed on main steam piping headers, outside of the containment L
building in a piping chase between the containment penetration and the main steam isolation valves. The safety valve discharge side is configured so as to minimize reaction forces at the valve 3
branch / main header intersection point. The vertical branch line w
from the main steam piping header to each individual valve has a forged flange and sweepolet welded to the header.
Safety valves are bolted directly to the flanges.
The effect of the valve discharge transient was obtained by static application of an assumed discharge force, as obtained from the valve manufacturer, with a dynamic load factor DLF = 2.0.
It has been assu;ned that all five valves discharge simultaneously. The system of piping supports and rigid restraints limits both dynamic and static loadings to the piping system to code allowable stresses for the load combinations listed in Table 3.9(B)-7.
c.
Safety and Relief Valves for various Auxiliary Systems Mounting of safety and relief valves on auxiliary piping systems uti*izes standard piping components:
flanges, buttwelded or socket-welded tees, weldolets and sockolets for pipe branches to the valves.
The valves and valve discharge piping utilize flanged joints, butt-welded and socketwelded connections. Branch connections are qualified M
using code standard calculations for tees with proper intensification G
factor (ASME III, Table NB-3682.21 or NC-3652-4). The alternative method for branch qualification it the Bijlaard method utilizing Q
the SPHNOI/CYLN0Z computer program. The load combination for calcu-h lating stresses is according to Table 3.9(B)-7. These were compared N
}f with dhe allowable stresses.
5 8
3.9(B)-23 2
y
'.,1 "h
..m.
r-INSERT A The pump has two lateral restraints which maintain lateral displacements within the limits of the available clearances. Additionally, all stresses are limited to 1.5 S, thereby assuring that the pump operability is main-tained in the faulted loading conditions.
INSERT B All motor stresses are limited to the region of elastic deformation of the material stress-strain relationship and thereby provides assurance that operability is maintained in the faulted condition.
INSERT C The response of equipment at the resonant frequency'at 5% damping for a continuous sinusoidal input is amplified approximately ten (10) times, compared with an amplification of three (3) times for a random motion input. By applying a factor of 1.5 to the sinusoidal input, the compara-tive response is M x 1.5 = 5 to I, which is conservative.
3 4
l
INSERT D in the following manner:
1.
Safety Valve Piping System A static analysis was performed for the safety valve piping system in which the peak transient loads obtained from a RELAP 5 analysis and multiplied by a dynamic load factor (DLF) were applied. The pressur-rizer safety valve piping system contains no water seals nor is sub-jected to water slugs.
2.
Pressurizer Relief Valve Piping System A static analysis was performed for the pressurizer relief valve pip-ing system in which the peak transient loads obtained from a RELAP 5 analysis and multiplied by a dynamic load f actor were applied. Al-though the pressurizer relief valve piping system contains water seals and is subjected to water slugs, the effects of these two items were fully accounted for in the RELAP 5 analysis.
In each of the above analyses, the RELAP 5 computer code, Ref. (1), was used to generate thermal hydraulic characteristics of the flow along the piping system, f rom which tables of the wave force versus time for each leg have been derived. To evaluate piping stresses and support loads, the maximum force for each leg has been selected and applied statically to the piping system in the most conservative fashion using a dynamic load factor (DLF) based on the valve opening time and the system dynamic characteristics or a DLF of 2.0 was used.
The developed stresses and loads on nozzles were combined with the other applicable loads from Tables 3.9(B)-6 and 3.9(B)-7.
These were compared with the allowable stresses and allowable nozzle loads. The simultaneous discharge from all valves has been assumed in the thrust analyses.
... _,,