ML20205E290
| ML20205E290 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 08/13/1986 |
| From: | Sears P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Thadani A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-46, REF-GTECI-SC, TASK-A-46, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8608180302 | |
| Download: ML20205E290 (36) | |
Text
- i August 13, 1986 MEMORANDUM FOR: Ashok C. Thadani, Director
. PWR Project Directorate #8 Division of PWR Licensing-B FROM: Patrick M. Sears, Project Manager PWR Project Directorate #8 Division of PWR Licensing-B
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD ON JULY 21 THRU 25, 1986 CONCERNING MAINE YANKEE SEISMIC DESIGN MARGIN PROGRAM The meeting was at Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station. Those attending are listed on Enclosure 1. The agenda for the first day's session is shown on Enclosure 2. On the second day, a radiological protection briefing was held for all attendees followed by a plant walkdown after which a debriefing session was held in which technical issues raised during the walkdown were discussed. On each of the following days a walkdown of various areas was conducted followed by a debriefing session.
The minutes of the meeting are presented as numerically ordered topics as follows:
- 1) The first session began with a briefing by Robert Murray of LLNL, who presented the background of the project. Murray discussed the purpose of the trial margin review, the development of the methodology by the NRC's .,
" Expert Panel of Seismic Margins", the schedule of the review, its structure, and the relationship among the parties. During the course of Murray's presentation, an important comment by A. Thadani of NRC was made in which Thadani pointed out that any licensing action that might result from this study would occur only after its completion. NRC, according to Thadani, was awaiting the results because there are methodological issues as well as technical issues about the Maine Yankee plant that are being studied in this trial review.
- 2) Robert Budnitz discussed the interactions that have occurred so far between this study effort and a parallel effort being undertaken by the Electric Power Research Institute, which is studying the seismic margin at Duke Power's Catawba station. Budnitz pointed out that recent discussions have assisted both study teams to understand in what ways their respective methodologies are similar or different. Continuing interactions will be encouraged.
- 3) James Thomas discussed the importance of interactions between this study and related technical work being done under the NRC's A-46 program and under the industry's SQUG (Seismic Qualifications Utility Group) effort. Taking cognizance of these other efforts will be important for the study team.
Othh P P
A
-g-
- 4) William Henries of Yankee Atomic then discussed the current status of the Maine Yankee plant in terms of its seismic capacity. He provided background on the history of the seismic design of the plant, recent utility-sponsored studies that provided information to assist them in understanding their plant, and recent actions taken to modify the plant's seismic performance.
- 5) David Moore of Energy Incorporated, who is leading the systems-analysis team performing this review under LLNL subcontract, made a presentation that provided information on the approach being taken. Moore's viewgraphs are attached to these minutes as Enclosure 3. He pointed out that there were a few key issues that must be addressed, and asked for discussion and guidance from the group on how best to approach them. For example, because a walkdown inside the containment would not be possible, it would be necessary to make some assumptions about the presence of small LOCAs, and the approach being taken to this issue was covered. Also, the handling of the possible sequences in which control rod function might be compromised was discussed, and Moore's review approach to reactor internals and boric-acid safety injection was covered.
- 6) A lunch-time break was taken so that the Peer Review Group could go into executive session. After that executive session, the Peer Review Group (PRG) suggested that minor modifications to the draft PRG charter should be made to reflect more accurately the actual approach being taken. The revised charter,
, which was discussed by the PRG with those present, is shown as Enclosure 4.
l The differences between this version and the earlier draft are a more explicit i
statement of the fact that the Peer Review Group is an independent group reporting to NRC and Maine Yankee, and a clarification of the Group's role vis-a-vis assuring that the methodology is being followed.
- 7) M. K. Ravindra of EQE Inc. made a presentation in which he discussed his group's approach, as the fragilities subcontractor for this effort, in carrying out their work. His viewgraphs are attached as Enclosure 5. Technical topics covered included Ravindra's approach to High Confidence of a low Probability of Failure (HCLPF) determinations using the fragilities method and the conser-
- vative deterministic fragilities method (CDFM) for analyzing capacities. The handling of seismic capacities for those numerous components (valves, etc.)
which can only be studied in a sampling way rather than in a 100%-analysis way was covered. Also, a discussion took place on how the study will examine those
" Group B" components that require study to assure that there are not unusual issues involved in their capacities.
- 8) The structure of the Final Report was covered, so that all parties present could understand r-)w it will be structured, who will write which sections, and its schedule. The process whereby the Peer Review Group will be able to review a draft version of this report toward the end of the project was discussed. It is anticipated that there will be a meeting of the participants to enable the Peer Reviewers to interact.
/
- 9) The Peer Review Group reporting was discussed. It was agreed here, as in earlier meetings, that a letter from the Peer Review Group Chairman would pro-vide the Group's final comments on the study. Concurrence by the other members, with the opportunity for any individual Peer Review Group member to provide individual comments as a minority report if desired, would be the method used.
- 10) An extensive discussion took place on how the systems analysis team would handle "non-seismic induced failures" in their systems analysis, when a poten-tial accident sequence might involve both these and seismic-induced failures.
The Energy Incorporated study team will do an analysis which will incorporate these non-seismic-induced failures where their presence will make a significant difference in the overall risk profile of the plant.
- 11) The Monday session ended just after 5:00 p.m.
- 12) On Tuesday (July 22) a radiological briefing and a plant walkdown in small groups took most of the day. A debriefing session from 4:30 to 7:00 p.m. ended the day. At that session, various technical issues uncovered during the day's walkdown were discussed, to allow the next day's walkdown to be more effective.
An extensive discussion of the capacity of the DC batteries took place, along with discussions of the capacities and functions of several tanks. Some of the walkdown teams had not completed their entire first pass tours, so this discussion was partly of the character of assuring that these teams looked at and studied plant features that some of the other groups had highlighted.
- 13) During this session late on Tuesday afternoon, the role of the Peer Review Group in interacting with the study participants was discussed. The indepen-I dence of the Peer Review Group must be assured, but it is also important that technical issues of concern to the Peer Review Group be provided to the study team rather than "kept to the end". The handling of this aspect of the project l was covered.
- 14) On Wednesday morning (July 23) the plant walkdown continued, until 11:00 when the meeting of the Peer Review Group continued for just over 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />. In this final session, Peer Review Group members discussed again the issue of assuring that independence for their work would be a fact as well as perception.
Also, the interactions between the NRC-sponsored study team and the utility staff were discussed, to assure that there would not be improper influence by the utility over the project outcome.
- 15) The Peer Review Group's final discussion and comments prior to adjournment were of the character that the study seems to be "on track" in a technical sense so far, although of course this is a very preliminary observation, and was made by only three of the Peer Review Group members (Budnitz, Reed, and Wyllie), the other two (Thomas and Bohn) being absent.
1
4-
- 16) The Peer Review Group meeting adjourned just after noon on Wednesday, July 23.
- 17) The next meeting of the Peer Retiew Group will be held on September 30, at a location in the San Francisco Bay area that will soon be identified by the LLNL team. The subsequent meeting of the Peer Review Group will be held in November in conjunction with the second plant walkdown. It will be held at the Maine Yankee plant site. While dates have not been firmly set, the dates of November 17, 18 and 19 were written down tentatively, and are being held by all participants pending further developments.
i
- 18) The Peer Review Groups's interpretation of NRC's requirement on the input spectrum to be used in this review is that a NUREG/CR-0098 spectrum, using 50th percentile amplification factors, and anchored to 0.30 g zero period acceleration, is the proper ground motion to use. No variability in this input spectrum is to be used. Reference for NRC's guidance is the memorandum from D. M. Crutchfield to P. M. Sears, dated May 7, 1986.
/S/
Patrick M. Sears, Project Manager PWR Project Directorate #8 Division of PSR Licensing-B
Enclosures:
As stated cc: w/ enclosures See next page l
Q 1R 5 PBD-8: PBD-8: PBD-8:
PKf PSears:jch AThadan[i)jr f(
8/jestzer
/86 8/j3/86 8/[v/86 l
l l
Mr. J. B. Randazza '
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station cc: ,
Charles E. Monty, President '
Mr. P. L. Anderson, Project Manager Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Yankee Atomic Electric Company 83 Edison Drive 1671 Worchester Road Augusta, Maine 04336 Framingham, Massachusetts 07101 Mr. Charles B. Brinkman Mr. G. D. Whittier Manager - Washington Nuclear Licensing Section Head Operations '
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Combustion Engineering, Inc. 83 Edison Drive 7910 Woodmont Avenue Augusta, Maine 04336 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 ,
John A. Ritsher, Esquire Mr. J. B. Randazza Ropes & Gray Executive Vice President 225 Franklin Street Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Boston, Massachusetts 02110 i 83 Edison Drive Augusta, Maine 04336 State Planning Officer Executive Department 189 State Street Augusta, Maine 04330 I Mr. John H. Garrity, Plant Manager Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company P. O. Box 408 Wiscasset, Maine 04578 .
Regional Administrator, Region,I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue l King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
( First Selectman of Wiscasset ,
Municipal Building U.S. Route 1 Wiscasset, Maine 04578 Mr. Cornelius F. Holden ~
Resident Inspector c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box E Wiscasset, Maine 04578
Meeting Summary Distribution Licensee: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company
- Copies also sent to those people on service (cc)-list for subject plant (s).
- c Q Q'i-}{1[ 9 i
- NRC PDR ' "
Local PDR PBD-8 Reading FMiraglia
- PSears OGC-Bethesda EJordan BGrimes 4
ACRS (10)
NAnderson
~LReiter JRichardson Gray File 3.4c NRC Participants AThadani
-DGazy NChokshi CHolden - Resident Inspector
- ~ g .- , , -. . , , _ _ _ - . _ - . - . , , , .e----,.,, ,- .--,-,--,w,,-. - . . --_ ,,..,,-,_ ,-. -,-n,, ., . - . . , ,.,_ , . . . , , , ,- ,,.
n' Enclosure 1 Attendees of Meeting on July 21, 1986 at Maine Yankee Name Affiliation Telephone Robert Budnitz Future Research Associates (415) 526-5111 Ashok Thadani NRC/NRR (301) 492-4553 Garth Cummings LLNL (415) 422-4949 Bob Murray LLNL (415) 422-0308 Bob Kennedy SMC (714) 777-2163 Jim Thomas Duke Power Co. (704) 373-4612 Loring Wyllie Degenkolb Associates (415) 392-6952 John Reed JBA (415) 969-8212 David Moore Energy, Inc. (206) 854-0080 Marc Quilici Energy, Inc. (206) 854-0080 M. K. Ravindra EQE, Inc. (714) 852-9299 Dan Guzy NRC (301) 443-7710 Jon Young Energy, Inc. (206) 854-0080 8111 Henries Yankee Atomic (617) 872-8100 Nilesh Chokshi NRC (301) 492-8347 Pete Prassinos LLNL (415) 423-6758 Greg Hardy EQE, Inc. (714) 852-9299 Stephen Evans Maine Yankee (207) 623-3521 Sam Swan EQE, Inc. (415) 495-5500 William J. Metevia Yankee Atomic (617) 872-8100 Patrick Sears NRC/NRR (301) 492-8006 Joe McCumber Yankee Atomic (617) 872-8810 Cornelius Holden NRC/ Resident (207) 882-7519 Phil Hashimoto EQE, Inc. (714) 852-9299
Enclosure 2 Monday Meeting Agenda Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station matt sunding July 11,1986 l
9:00 Project Overview /R. C. Murray
! 9:15 Yankee Atomic / Maine Yankee Plant Overview 9:45 Systems Status /Diergy Inc.
10:30 Break 10:45 Fragility Status /EQE, Inc.
11:30 Open Discussion ,
(collect Health Physic paperwork)
O 12:00 Junch (at paant) .
l l 1:00 Peer Review Group Discussion /R. J. Budnitz i
1 5:00 Adjourn
-- - - ~--------,,,,,-w, , , , . , , _ , ,, ..-- -, . ,, - - . . - -,, - - - - - - - _ . - - - - - - - . . - -,,e
Enclosure 3 SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ENH GV INCORPORATED TEAM:
DAVID MOORE JON YOUNG MARC QUILICI e
O oo ifn t
jg.
i h-
SYSTEMS ANALYSIS PROCEDURES STEP 2 -
Initial Systems Review STEP 4 -
First Plant Walkdown STEP 5 -
System Modeling STEP 6 -
Second Plant Walkdown STEP 7 -
System Modeling Analysis STEP 8 -
Margin Evaluation of Components and Plant l
lQ S
}.
et
- N .
3, i, .
~
GRDUP A SYSTEMS HPSI HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION AFW AUXILIARY FEEDWATER(includes EMERGENCY FEEDWATER)
ASDHR ALTERNATE SHUTDOWN DECAY HEAT REMOVAL BAT BO'!C ACID TRANSFER PPC PRIMARY PRESSURE. CONTROL SPC SECONDARY PRESSURE CONTROL -
ACP AC POWER DG DIESEL GENERATORS DCP DC POWER
, PCC PRIMARY COMPONENT COOLING WATER SCC SECONDARY COMPONENT COOLING WATER l
SWS SERVICE WATER SYSTEM ACTUATION (includes RPS, SIAS, and maybe RAS, CSAS, CIS)
?
l .
\
- r. _
i e$
1
f S YSTEM: HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION (HPSI)
SAFETY FUNCTION: injec- borated water into the reactor vessel immediately after a LOCA. Also for feed and bleed, post-accident core cooling and additional shutdown -
capability during rapid cooldown of RCS.
SYSTEM COMPONENTS:
Tanks: TK-a Refueling Cavity Water Storage Tank Pumps: P ' 4 A (N.O.) Charging (HPSI) Pump
, P-!cB (S) Charging (HPSI) Pump P-lh5 (Spare) Charging (HPSI) Pump Heat Exchangers: E-3A Residualliest Exchanger E-3B Residual Heat Exchanger SUPPORT SYSTEMS:
AC Power: al60V Emergency Bus 5 a!60V Emergency Bus 6 DC Power:
Air:
HVAC:
w Pump Cooling: PCC P-14 A-2, 3 Lube Oil Pumps l SCC P-14B-2,3 P-l &S-2, 3 Actuation: SIAS Low ?ressurizer Pressure High Containment Pressure t
i i
e 1/I' .
O
. - _ N M
.- =
. g g,
- g. .
- C' G O O O J -.J l
f 1: 0 1R v l-
} 4 + ? ?
, 7 t t.
e I I-e - e 4 O ' [' d " [ e b
=l -
=l - -
m z l
i j h i
Ee c -
W m bd Y I T T EE
$sE c t I A
E A
r
<E ci v- A e m m
.A ,,
&D s
K &e L => \* =' '= s o d d IL E E 01 M t> v 4r@ia J
S'ieh
,c n L - - -- .___J 2
^
c d M M s E5 53
- b
'- dE* ci $o W y b_
P <-
i . mso g F3 Ji g i E. g) r, -
t .e O A e E I m
( i W GC x x A-M a U r -
x
- ,mc wsx tg e' i g$
3 b Y i
e, ,
t - ex y m
{_b ' W j T
C
. . - , I a .
_ - . _ _ _ _ ____ . . _ . . - . - , . . . . - - - , _ . , _ . _ . - . . - - - . , , , __ , ,,r. - _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ . ,
11
, n l
o il i.
- l l
- ai 0 0 0 C C A A F s o
P_
)
g n n n o in ) ) ) ) ) ) J )
) ) ) )
i R R R R S S S S t
i t R. R A A N N A a t a L L L t L L A A A S S S S S S I C I M M I I ris u ( ( ( ( ( ( S S S S e o t C C C C C C ( (
( (
( (
p c C C O O C O P A C 1
n '
l o ai mt 0 0 0 0 0 ri 0 C O C C C 0 0 os No P
A) 1 A) A) A A A 1 l 3) 3) 3) r) l 1 1 A !
C
) ) A A 1) 1 C A C 0 C C -)
t eV 1 C5 C5 C5 Z Y 8 7 5
w0 A 0 A 0 1
A 0 1
A0 A0 A0 0 0 T 5 T45 o5 V V 2 V 2 V2 V2 V2 1 1 C C T T P( 0 2 C 0 1 01 01 01 2 2 C C A 2 A 2 2(
1 1
2 (1 2( 2( 2( 2(
( ( M M D( D(
1 1 1 1 1 E
L B '
A T -
E V
L A
V
) ) ) r r 1
0 1 1 e e e 1
0 0 v d d 2
3 l a a a e e
. A A A v h h
- - - e e W W W n v v g g F
A F F o l l n n A A i a a i i
( ( ( e t v v g g v a e r r e e e l l v n n a a v v v a o l o o h h l l l v s a i i c c a a a i v t t 1
2 3 v v v n a a o o
- - o ) l l l t t 1
1 1 n n n i m o o o E E
- o o o t o r s s e e E i i i a t t i i g g G G G t t t l t n r r S S a a a o o o n n a a S l l l s b c o o h h o o o o i ( i i c c t
o o s s s , w t t s s t t i i i T T o a a i i C C l r r d d n
l o
l o
l o
l l l V V f o o o r o o o b b B A r r r r r d d d i t t t t t t i i i y y p p t n n n n n n c c c c c m m p o o o o o o a a a n n u u i c c c c c c e e p p r '
c c c g g c w w w w w w i i i r r I I s o o o o o o r r r e e S S e l l l l l l o o o m m P P D F F F F F F B D B E E I I
I I
1 1 1 8 9 0 0 0 0 3 3 4 1 2 3 3 3 3 2 0 0 6 7 2 3 e A A" 3 8 3 3 3 3 3 A A A A - - - - - - -
v - - - - - - A A F M M- A A l W W W W W - - - - - -
V a F N F F F F A A A A A l l A A A A A A B U R 9 B i
C l
C s, 1
/
' g. 2 C
C
~ - . . . . _ _,
l J'[ e el 2
?.
A e E gPu b
- 4 c- r-P-
M d Y t-8 7
e r- 3a % %
C l .
N I W I
.EC % % % %
l 4 U X W n <n
.5 0
c)
X Vt a.
g Y o E e* X t
~~
N g 3a
( 0o
<) Og X X X A X X X a l E_a f e- :eq d LJJa
~ I # X W N X K
) +-)- w e-E Y % % % i X y
}& A T- .- Pt g
4 -- l + S g l(I se p 2rf g J . .c g)c 7.- - p.-
+ e e a w (n o -
e e J ,- -r o . w> em
<d
~. gd.9
- <~- a a a + + .a .s .s ue *= o-*
d 5 r~ ' a a- *3, A- A- 0- y d 6-. A 4-r-
},
- c. '
- a- *-
g .._
+ vM .
r5
&l
@ ] ?
b ' w m) s: A
= = 2 8 .
fI .
*5
. . g. . 1
r , v i j l i I . l l l 8
, j i ! ;
I i , i, I. si MW T Y M l m3'
<m: ;;. v i i 44l h l e,t l . l
@ l l l
g i i ! i e j ' Xli 8 3 *s . ! l l s i I j i l Ol' E I l l l# . l t i i l l l ! j i'! ! #! , x !E x x x l x xl x g!.si ld h x e2 , 5d N
. *5 b!I t l I
2. y'>'s !
.:a i ai i
= J. f ;j
, e. 1 llj
,1. l x x X l
1..i x x x pq l
~ ~ ~
jai 4 l, V 5,I l IJ'i
- x ~ l' t ld'm!= cslaimlr i. .sig n al 1, e i l *p i o o
. e i e, e f : .; < l tt ; ti .i t a u * , a cl, 5 i
l lJ, l c I tC d i c;l > l > ! "j "' $ $ #-8 ' t- a N * , N l
. . 3
( h* h' l I' 3 01 3>ee 3 v i l i !! ! l
,a, s . . c4 w i me i= ;
e
Se'smi-/
,ns._e R?! E N/A N RCS Integ. HPSi/T&3 Status OK DK CD OK I
I CD Transfer-AWS
/
w l A g I SRVs l,f AWS
~
BAT E W/A W HPSI Status Doen/Peclose
~
OK I OK
.i ,-
CD , i CD CD I 1 1 1 i S?fImic l'et' gin Event Irees (.orelininary) i
. i l
i 4 A
. - . . - . , _ ----....--._,-,..,,,,....-----,,---.n... . , - - - , , . . - - , . . . . , . ,
Enclosure 4 PEER REVIEW GROUP CHARTER (21 July 1986) The objective of the Peer Review Group is to assure that the trial seismic margins review, following the guidance established in NUREG/CR-4334 and NUREG/CR-4482, is executed in a fully competent and professional manner, uses methods that are at the state-of-the-art, and tckes cognizance of all relevant information. The sponsors of the study (Lawrence Livermore National Labora-tory for the NRC and Maine Yankee as the plant owner) desire to utilize the results of the study, and require the Peer Review Group's assurance that the study is technically sound. To accomplish its objective, the Peer Review Group will be provided full access to all materials, information, and methodologies that are inputs to and used by the study team. Access to the study team itself will occur through sche-duled meetings to follow the study's progress. The Peer Review Group will also review draft reports and participate in walkdowns of the plant. A formal report for the Peer Review Group will.be made by the Group's chairman to NRC and Maine Yankee. It is understood that the Peer Review Group's report will be a public document.
l Enclosure 5 l NRC SEISMIC MARGINS PROGRAM TRIAL PLANT REVIE'N FRAGILITY ASPECTS STATUS REPORT
)
i PRESENTED BY M.K. Ravindra G.S. Hardy - P.S. Hashimoto S.W. Swan EQE incorporated Newport Beach, CA PRESENTED TO PEER REVIEW GROUP JULY 21,1986 i DE',$ 9 "h b
OUTLINE e initial Screening e identify Target Areas for Walkdown e Walkdown Procedures e Documentation o Outstanding issues IN_Dh
.m
1 INITIAL SCREENING e Categorize Maine Yankee Components into Generic Component Categories identified by Panel e Pre-screen Components Lq or.Qut Based on Panels Recommended Guidelines e identify Areas of Concentrated Effort for Each Generic Component Class m
MAINE YANKEE SEISMIC MARGINS REVIEW SYSTEM: HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION (HPSI) COMPONENT INITIAL SCREENING 13 OUT TK-4 Refueling Cavity Water Storage X Tank P-14A Charging (HPSI) Pump X1 P-14B Charging (HPSI) Pump X1 P-14S Charging (HPSI) Pump X1 E-3A Residual Heat Exchanger X E-3B Residual Heat Exchanger X , Bus 5 4160V Emergency Bus X2 Bus 6 4160V Emergency Bus X2 P-14A-2,3 Lube Oil Pumps (Pump cooling) X1 P-14B-2,3 Lube Oil Pumps (Pump cooling) X1 P-14S-2,3 Lube Oil Pumps (Pump cooling) X1 l Actuations X3 l 1 Anchorage must be inspected during walkdown and verified adequate. 2 Cabinet anchorage & attached component anchorage must be inspected during walkdown and verified adequate. 3 Actual components yet to be identified. i, m,
MAINE YANKEE SEISMIC MARGINS REVIEW SYSTEM: Auxiliary Feed Water (AFW) COMPONENT INITIAL SCREENING IH OUT TK-21 Demineralized Water Storage Tank X P-25A Emergency Feed Pump X1 P-258 Emergency Feed Pump X1 P-25C Emergency Feed Pump X1 T-1 Turbine for P-25B (Powered from X Main Steam) Bus 5 4160V Emergency Bus X2 ' Bus 6 4160V Emergency Bus X2 E-86A 011 Cooler X E-86B Oil Cooler X E-86C Oil Cooler X ! Actuations X3 l Instrumentation X3 1 Anchorage must be inspected during walkdown and verified adequate. l 2 Cabinet anchorage & attached component anchorage must be inspected during walkdown and verified adequate. 3 ctual components yet to be identified. . l
IDENTIFY TARGET AREAS FOR WALKDOWN e Locate All Components for Walkdown on Plant Layout Drawings e identify Buildings and Areas Requiring Access for Walkdown e Based on initial Screening-Identify Specific Component Areas for Concentrated Review, je (Anchorage, Lateral Restraints, etc.)
. e Develop walkdown Data Sheets for Each Generic Component Class Defining Areas of Concentrated Walkdown Effort i
5
WALKDOWN PROCEDURES l e Perform Walkdown for identified Components e Address Areas identified in initial Screening Requiring Concentrated Review e Confirm Screening Criteria of Panelis Satisfied for Each Component l l e identify Areas That May Require Additional Review e tem;5 P:=[O
STRUCTURES SCREENING PROCEDURE i l Component Screenine Comments Structures Out Structures housing Group A components are typically categorized as Class I in the FSAR. Class I structures were designed for the 0.1g hypothetical earthquake using the ACI 318-63 and AISC codes. Any gross structural deficiencies will be identified by review of the design drawings and walkdown. Structure Out Class I structures are either cast impact integral with each other or are separated by three inch gaps. This will.be confirmed by walkdown. Block Walls in A comprehensive screening procedure i has been developed. Yard tanks in information from drawings will be supplemented by walkdown. Soil Liquefaction Out Structures and yard tanks are founded on rock. Control and in Presence and adequacy of safety wiring Battery Room will be confirmed by walkdown Ceilings
- Dams, Levees, in Nearby dike will be reviewed in and Dikes walkdown l
232
BLOCK WALL EVALUATION PROCEDURE REVIEW AVAILABLE INFORMATION. 4 IDENTIFY ALL BLOCK WALLS USING MAINE YANKEE
SUMMARY
TABLE. I LOCATE BLOCKWALLS ON EQUIPMENT , LAYOUT DRAWINGS. WALKDOWN. i i I WALLS SUPPORTING WALLS WHOSE WALLS SUPPORTING WALLS WHOSE GROUP A COLLAPSE COMPONENTS LIFELINES (I.E. COLLAPSE COULD RESULT CABLE TRAYS, COULD RESULT i IN IMPACT PIPING,ETC.) IN IMPACT ONTO GROUP ONTO LIFELINES A COMPONENTS (I.E. CABLE - i TRAYS, PIPING, ETC.) SCREENED IN WILL IMPACT ARE THESE ARE THESE CAUSE DAMAGE LIFELINES LIFELINES TO GROUP A PART OF PART OF COMPONENTS? GROUP A GROUP A l SYSTEMS? SYSTEMS? BY SYSTEMS BY SYSTEMS ANALYST ANALYST I Y N " I
- i N ISCREENED INlISCREENED OUTI WILL IMPACT ISCREENED OUTl CAUSE DAMAGE TO GROUP A LIFELINES?
Y N ISCREENED INl ISCREENED OVE Y N g l SCREENED INJ ISCREENED OUh PERFORM FRAGILITY ANALYSIS TO CALCULATE HCLPP. i
- , - - - , - - - ,,,,,~,-------,---n,,,,--- - - - - , - . . , . , _ _ , - - , . , , , . , , _ - . - - - - - - . - , - . - - -
DOCUMENTATION e Review of Design Calculation / Qualification Test Reports - e Conclusions of Previous Studies e Walkdown Data Sheet e Walkdown Photographs e HCLPF Calculations
- - - ^
OUTSTANDING ISSUES 4 e Lack of Qualification Data e Extent of Review for Components identified as _C e CDFM Method Requires Site Specinc Spectrum e Reactor Internals
. 1 i; '. % -
Y . . ENGINEERING, PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 1/ 8227-09 LLNL Seismic Margin Review BY DATE CUENT LLNL SUBJECT Plant Walkdown Data Sheet CHKD DATE a FACILITY: M3neYankeeAtomicPowehStation 1 COMPONENT: Line Number & Diameter LOCATION: Building - Elevation - Room = 1.0 CONCENTRATED AREAS OF REVIEW: 1.1 Pipe Flexibility: m Piping run - a Piping to equipment - a Building penetrations - Ik Note: Provide details on building penetrations if low capacity is observed. Indicate dimensions and details in Section 4 sheet 2. Photograph Roll No. Frame No.s 1.2 Pipe Condition:
=
a Corrosion =
= Brittle connections -
a Cast iron - l.3 Support Details: a Type of anchor point Directional - Full restraint - a Spans between supports - a Support anchorage details = Photograph Roll No. Frame No.s 1.4 Joints and Connections: a Threaded - a Socket welded - Photograph Roll No. Frame No.s
J N ENGINEE2NG. PLANN!NG AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS pj 8227-09 g LLNL Seismic Hargin Review BY DATE CUENT LLNL SUBJECT Plant Walkdown Data Sheet CHKD DATE - 3.0 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR OBSERVATIONS: .i 4.0 Sketch details of building penetrations if low capacity is observed. e
- - - - - - - - - - - . ,- - - - - , , - , ,-w,.--,_. , .,, , , -.,- -
1 ENGINEERING PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 1/ 8227-09 g LLNL Seismic Margin Review By DATE I CUENT LLNL SUBJECT Plant Walkdown Data Sheet cHKD DATE l FACILITY: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station COMPONENT: LOCATION: Building - Elevation - I.0 COMPONENT DATA: Plant ID Number - Manufacturer - Model - Function - Photograph (overall) Roll No. Frame No.s 2.0 AREAS REQUIRING DETAILED REVIEW: 2.1 Battery Rack Anchorage: Number and size of anchor bolts = Type of anchor bolts - Description of foundation - Photograph Roll No. Frame No.s Note: Provide a sketch of anchorage plan with dimensions and indicate - any foundation deficiencies observed in space provided under Section 4 sheet 2. 2.2 Battery Rack Support: Type of support = Overall dimensions - Lateral Restraints - Type of member connections = Photograph Roll No. Frame No.s Note: Provide a sketch of the rack indicating lateral restraints and dimensions in Section 5 sheet 3.
2.3 Batteries
Type of batteries - Description of battery spacers = Photograph Roll No. Frame No.s
Wi$i ENGINEERING. PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 2/ 8227-09 LLNL Seismic Margin Review g BY DATE LLNL Plant Walkdown Data Sheet
- CUENT SUBJECT CHKD DATE 3.0 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR OBSERVATIONS:
( 4.0 Sketch anchorage plan with dimensions and note any foundation deficiencies observed.
. j, . . g ENGINEERING. PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS SHEETNO 3/
g no 8227-09 a LLNL Seismic Hargin Review BY DATE-LLNL CLIENT . SUBJECT Plant Walkefnwn nata h et CHK~D DATE - 5.0 Sketch battery rack indicating lateral restraints and dimensions. O 4
. , . 's . e:
ENGINEERING. PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS SHEETNO I/ JOBNO 8227-09 JOB LLNL Seismic Margin Raviaw BY DATE CLIENT LLNL SUBJECT o!;nt u;1kg.;; n;t; g,;;; CHK'D DATE FACILITY: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station COMPONENT: LOCATION: Building - Elevation - I.0 COMPONENT DATA: Plant ID Number - Manufacturer - Model - Function - Photograph (overall) Roll No. Frame No.s ( 2.0 AREAS REQUIRING DETAILED REVIEW:
2.1 Anchorage
Number and size of anchor bolts - Type of anchor bolts - Description of foundation = l Photograph Roll No. Frame No.s Note: Provide a sketch of anchorage plan with dimensions and indicate any foundation deficiencies observed in space provided below.
I *
'IstA, ENGINEERING, PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 2/
gg 8227-09 g LLNL Seismic Margin Review BY DATE CUENT LLNL SUBJEcr Plant Walkdown Data Sheet CHKD DATE 3.0 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR OBSERVATIONS: Note any system interactions. M b}}