ML20203H217

Submits Comments Re Independent Action Verification Program Tier 1 Sampling Criteria

ML20203H217
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	02/24/1998
From:	Imbro E NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Schopfer D SARGENT & LUNDY, INC.
References
NUDOCS 9803030175
Download: ML20203H217 (7)

Text

__

$* flQ

.,9 mnacg UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

i o

WASHINGTON, o.C. sosewooi February 24, 1998 Mr. Don Schopfer Verification Team Manager Sargent & Lundy SS E. Monroe Street Chicago,IL 60603

(

l Dear Mr. Schopfer; The staff of the Special Projects Office (SPO) of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has l

reviewed the Independent Corrective Action Verification Program (ICAVP) Tier 1 sampling l

criteria that you provided in your December 30,1997, submittal for reviewing various calculations. The sampling criteria provided in your submittal relate to (1) motor operated valves (MOVs) calculations; (2) pipe support calculations for the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, designated HVX, and diesel generator systems, designated DGX; (3) duct and duct support qualification calculations for the HVX systems; (4) conduit and cable tray support calculations for all of the Tier 1 systems; (5) calculations for structural components of the HVX and DGX systems; and (6) pipe stress calculations for the HVX and DGX systems.

The SPO staff's understanding and comments are provided below.

1. MOTOR OPERATED VALVES (MOVa) CALCULATIONS Your submittalindicated that there are 38 MOVs associated with the Tier i systems (14 for the recirculation spray system RSS,2 for the quench spray system - QSS, and 22 for the service water system SWP) within the scope of the Generic Letter (GL) 8910 program. You proposed to review all of the design basis system calculations that provide operating conditions (e g., ddferential pressures and flows) for the tubject MOVs, one for each of the ICAVP Tier 1 systems that have MOVs associated with the GL 89-10 program (total of three calculations).

1 Also included within the scope of your MOV calculation reviews is the methodology calculation k{\\

that provides general information for performing the specific valve calculations that includes the j

definitions and general references to be used. The SPO staff finds the scope of your review regarding the design basis system calculations and the methodology calculation f stated to MOVs acceptable and approves it for use during your Tier 1 reviews at Millstone Jnit 3.

For calculations related to specific MOVs, you proposed the following: (1) for thrust / torque calculations, you propose to review three calculations from the total population of twelve calculations, one for each type of MOV (butterfly, gste, and plug) because the calculations are similar and repetitive; (2) for electrical calculations, you propose to review three calculations from the total population of six calculations, one for each type of MOV since these calculations are similar and utilize the same methodology for all types of MOVs; and (3) for weak link calculations, your propose to review three calculations from the total population of ten calculations, one for each type of MOV due to the repetitive nature of the calculations for a given type of vahe. The staff finds the methodology for sampling the thrust / torque, electrical, and weak link MOV calculations acceptable and approves them for use during your Tier 3 review at Millstone Unit 3 with the following comments:-

W D p g n @~ %jd QQpy

'LW L Ud. b 9003030175 900224 PDR ADOCK 05000423 P

PDR l

1 s

l..

D. Schopfer 2-

a. The design bases information used as input to the calculations is verified to have been accurately translated into all of the calculations,

b. Based on the engineering judgment of the responsible S&L technical staff that performed the detailed rev;ew of the calculations within the sample, the results of the remaining calculations are reasonable.

2.- PIPE / TUBING SUPPORT CALCULATIONS

- As indicated in your submittal, you proposed to review 100% of the master support calculations and to select a 10% sample for the (1) nonstandard pipe support calculations: (2) nonstandard tubing support calculations; (3) standard pipe support calculations; and (4) standard tubing support calculations for th1 HVX and DGX systems. To select your 10% sample of each calculation type you proposed to (1) review and group by component type the total population of support calculations; (2) select a 10% sample of the total population of each component type, with a minimum sample size of three samples for any population greater than two; and (3) select a sample based on consideration of the magnitude of the loads, thermal movements resulting in additional friction loads, and the configuration types to ensure that potentially highly stressed conditions are selected.

This sample approach la consistent with the ' approach for the previous ICAVP Tier 1 systems as described in your August 5,1997, letter as modified and approved by the SPO staff in its August 21,1997, response. As such, the pipe / tubing support calculation sampling criteria, as described in your December 30,1997, letter, for the HVX and DGX systems are approved for your use during your ICAVP Tier 1 review.

3. DUCT AND DUCT SUPPORT CALCULATIONS

^ As indicated in your submittal, you proposed to review 100% of the duct qualifirc. tion, master duct suppon, nr.d standard duct calculations and to select a 10% sample for %e nonstandard duct support calculations for the HVX system. The bases for your sampling criteria were similar to those provided for sampling pipe support calculations.-

This sample approach is consistent with the approach that the staff has approved for reviewing

- pipe support calculations for all of the other ICAVP Tier 1 systeme at Millstone Unit 3. As such, the duct and duct support calculation sampling criteria, as described in your December 30, 1997, letter, for the HVX system, are approved for your use during your ICAVP Tier 1 review.

4. CONDUlf AND CABLE TRAY SUPPORT CALCULATIONS The SPO staff understands that you are proposing a 10% random sample (16 calculations) of the calculations that provide the bases for the 15g standard conduit support configuration details shown on the licensee's BE-52 series drawings,. Your submittal indicates that conduit -

support configurations typically used at Millstone Unit 3 are based on these standard

~ : configuration details. Further, your review of the BE 52 series drawings and calculations revealed the repetitive nature of most of the calculations based on the similarity of the support configurations.

x J

D. Schopfer The 10% sample size for conduit support calculations is consistent with the scope of other calculational reviews approved by the SPO staff for repetitive type calculations. As such, the scope of the conduit support configurations based on the licensee's BE.52 series drawings is j

acceptable to the SPO staff. However, in addition to the 10% sample of the BE 52 drawing

{

supporting calculations, you are requested to include in your ICAVP Tier 1 review all conduit l

support calculations, for each of the conduits associated with all ICAVP Tier 1 systems, whose installation is not in accordance with the details provided in the series BE 52 drawings. As modified by the additional sample criteria provided above, the SPO staff finds the sample method you proposed in your December 30,1997, letter for conduit supports acceptable and approved for use.

For cable tray support calculations, you proposed to select one frame structure for each elevation within each building that contains cable trays associated with OSS, RSS, or SWP cables. You lndicated that support frames would be selected at applicable elevations in the containment building, auxiliary building, emergency safeguards features (ESF) building, service l

building, control building, and fuel building. Your bases for proposing this sample criteria was that this level of review was sufficient to provide a representative sample and capture all relevant aspects of the design as related to the selection of seismic excitation coefficients, design load inputs, frame modeling, and evaluation of stresses in auxiliary steel rr, embers and welded connections.

The sample methodology you proposed for review of cable tray support calculations is acceptable to the SPO staff provided that a frame structure is selected for all elevations of the specified buildings through which safety related cable trays are routed, except as noted below, if necessary to increase the scope of the reviews to include each elevation of the specified buildings, the remaining ICAVP Tier 1 systems re to be used to identify the support frame (s) to Include in the sample. If an elevation of a specihd building through which safety related cable l

trays are routed does not contain any cable trays associated with any of the ICAVP Tier 1 systems, this elevation may be excluded from the scope of this review.

5, CALCULATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS For equipment mounting calculations that provide the equipment anchorage qualification, you proposed to review the entire population (25 calculations) of calculations. The SPO staff finds the scope of your equipment mounting calculations acceptable and approves it for use during your Tier 1 review of the HVX and DGX systems.

You proposed to include within the scope ed your Tier i review of the HVX and DGX systems those embedded plate calculations and structural steel calculations that are applicable to the pipehubing supports, duct supports, and conduit and tray supports that were previously selected for the Tier i review. The scope of your proposed sample of embedded plate and structural steel calculations differs slightly from the scope previously approved for the RSS/QSS and SWP systems. The previously approved scope for these type of calculations was the same as described for pipehubing support calculations (a 10% sample of the embedded plate calculations and a 10% sample of the structural steel cakulations that were not necessarily applicable to any other supports selected for the Tier i review). While this approach differs slightly from the previously approved approach, the SPO staff finds tnat this methodology will

D. Schopfer provide an adequate method for selecting the embedded plate and structural steel calculations.

As such, the structural component calculation samp'ing criteria, as described in your December 30,1997, letter, for the HVX and DGX systems, are approved for your use during your ICAVP Tier i review.

6. PlPE STRESS CALCULATIONS lt is the SPO staffs understanding that you are proposing a two-level approach for reviewing pipe stress calculations for those areas where you do not plan to perform a 100% review. The two-level approach for review of pipe stress calculation involves (1) a review of 100% of the calculations to verify that the design information as stated in the calculation is consistent with the syrtem design package, applicable design criteria, and other references provided in the calcultaons; and (2) a 10% sample of the population c,f pipe stress calculations to be subject to a review that will verify that the design information was correctly and accurately entered into the NUPIPE computer code and that the resultant computer output supports the conclusions of the calculations. You propose to apply inis two level process to your review of the large and small bore stress calculations, tubing stress calculations, and vent and drain stress calculations. You indicated that there were no time history calculations identified for the DGX and HVX systems.

l This sample approach is consistent with the approach for the previous ICAVP Tier i systems as i

described in your August 5,1997, letter as modified and approved by the SPO staff in its August 21,1997, response. As such, the pipe stress calculation sampling criteria, as d6 scribed in your December 30,1997, letter, for the HVX and DGX systems, are apprvved for your use during your ICAVP Tier i review.

Identification of significant issues associated with the calculations reviewed during your Tier i review will be evaluated by the SPO staff to determine whether the scope of these reviews need to be modified. If you have any questions or comments regarding the NRC's approval of your proposed sample methodology, as commented on by the SPO staff, please contact me at (301)415 2951.

Sincerely, h

Eugene Imbro, Deputy Director ICAVP Oversight Spedal Projects Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ec: See next page i

D. Schopfer 4

February 24, 1998 provide an adequate method for selecting the embedded pla'e and structural steel calculations.

As such, the structural component calculation sampling critem, as described in your December 30,1997, letter, for the HVX and DGX systems, are approved for your use during your ICAVP Tier i review.

6. PIPE STRESS CALCULATIONS lt is the SPO staff's understanding that you are proposing a two level approach for reviewing pipe stress calculations for those areas where you do not plan to perform a 100% review. The two-level approach for review of pipe stress calculation involves (1) a review of 100% of the calculations to venfy that the design informa' ion as stated in the calculation is consistent with the system design package, applicable design criteria, and other references provided in the calculations; and (2) a 10% sample of the population of pipe stress calculations to be subject to i

a review that will verify that the design information was corretly and accurately entered into the NUPIPE computer code and that the resultant computer output supports the conclusions of the calculations. You propose to apply this two-level procecs to your review of the large and small bore stress calculations, tubing stress calculations, and vent and drain stress calculations. You indicated that there were no time history calculations identified for the DGX and MVX systems.

l This sample approach is consistent with the approach for the previous ICAVP Tier 1 systems as described in your August 5,1997, letter as modified and approved by the SPO staff in its August 21,1997, response. As such, the pipe stress calculation sampling criteria, as described in your December 30,1997, letter, for the HVX and DGX systems, are approved for your use during your ICAVP Tier 1 review.

identification of significant issues associated with the calculations reviewed during your Tier 1 review will be evaluated by the SPO staff to determine whether the scope of these reviews need to be modified if you have any questions or comments regarding the NRC's ap,,al of your proposed sample meihodology, as commented on by the SPO staff, please contact me at (301)415 2951.

Sincerely, Orip,inal sig nl by:

Eugene Imbro, Deputy Director ICAVP Oversight Special Projects Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ec: See next page Docket 50-423 DISTRIBUILQtt

' Docket Files

• PUBLIC SPO R/F WTravers PMcKee Elmbro WLanning SReynolds PKoltay JNakoski HEichenhuz JAndersen

'See previous concurrence page DOCUMENT NAME: C:\\MYFILES\\lCAVP\\S&L\\SAMPL4.S&L t.

<..... con om. e cwn.nuaa.w in me wi c. con ew suew.nci r. con e.=cw.aei nr. w con OFFICE ICAVP/SPO C.

LA ICAVP/SPO ICAVP/SPO NAME JANakoski LBerry*

SReynolds' EVimbro Ib

1. 0 98 1 [ 19 8 4 /17SS Z47//98

/ /98 DATE f

/

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

t Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Millst:ne Nuclear P:wer Station Unit 3 cc:

I l

Lillian M. Cuoco. Esquire Mr. William D. Meinert Senior Nuclear Counsel Nuclear Engineer Northeast Utilities Service Company Hassachusetts MunicipalWholesale P. O. Box 270 Ekddc Company Hartford, CT 061410270 P.O. Box 426 Ludlow, MA 01056 Mr. Kevin T. A. McCarthy, Director Monitoring and Radiation Division Joseph R. Egan, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Egan & Associates, P.C.

79 Elm Street 2300 N Street, NW Hartford, CT 06106 5127 Washington, DC 20037 Regional Adminletrator, Region l Mr. F. C. Rothen U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Vice President Work Services 475 Allendale Road Northeast Utilities Service Company l

King of Prussia, PA 19406 P. O. Box 128 Water" 4, CT 06385 First Selectmen Town of Waterford Ernest C. Hadley, Esquire Hall of Records 1040 B Main Street 200 Boston Post Road P.O. Box 54g Waterford, CT 06385 West Wareham, MA 02576 Mr. Wayne D. Lanning Mr. John Buckingham Deputy Director of Inspections Department of Public Utility Control Special Projects Office Electric Unit 475 Allendale Road 10 Liberty Square King of Prussia, PA 19406 1415 New Britain, CT 06051 Mr. M. H. Brothers Mr. James S. Robinson, Manager Vice Prerldent Operations Nuclear Investments and.%dministration Northeast Nuclear Energy Company New England Power Company P.O. Box 128 25 Research Drive Waterford, CT 06385 Westborough, MA 01582 Mr. M. R. Scully, Executive Director Mr. D. M. Goebel Connecticut Mun!cipal Electric Vice President Nuclear Oversight Energy Cooperative Northeast Utilities Service Company 30 Stott Avenue P. O. Box 128 Norwich, CT 06360 Waterford, CT 06385 Mr. David Amerine Deborah Katz, President Vice President Nuclear Engineering Citizens Awareness Network and Support P.O. Box 83 Northeast Utilities Service Company Shelburne Falls, MA 03170 P. O. Box 128 Waterford, CT 06385

N:rthe:st Nuctr Energy Company Millst:ne Nucle:r Power Station 4

Unit 3 CC:

Mr. Allan Johanson, Assistant Director Mr. J. P. McElwain Office of Policy and Management Vice President (Acting)- Millstone 3 Policy Development and Planning Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Division P.O. Box 128 450 Capitol Avenue. MS# 52ERN Waterford, CT 06385 P. O. Box 341441 Hartford, CT 061341441 Mr. G. D. Hicks Unit Director Millstone Unit 3 Citizens Regulatory Commission Northeast Nuclear Energy Company ATTN: Ms. Susan Perry Luxton P.O. Box 128 180 Great Neck Road Waterford, CT 06385 Waterford, CT 06385 Senior Resident inspector The Honorable Terry Concannon Millstone Nuclear Power Station Nuclear Energy Advisory Council c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 4035 P. O. Box 513 Legislative Office Building Niantic, Connecticut 06357 Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT 06106 Legislative Office Building Captiol Avenue Hartford, CT 06106 Mr. Evan W. Woollacott t

Co-Chair Nuclear Energy Advisory Council 128 Terry's Plain Road Simsbury, CT 06070 Little Harbor Consultants, Inc.

Millstone -ITPOP Project Office P.O. Box 0630 Niantic, CT 06357-0630 Mr. B. D, Kenyon Chief Nuclear Officer - Millstone Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P.O. Box 128 Waterford, CT 06385 Mr. Daniel L. Curry Project D; rector Parsons Power Group Incc 2675 Morgantown Road Reading, PA 19607

, ~..

y

-