ML20213E576
| ML20213E576 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 08/25/1983 |
| From: | Noonan V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0644, CON-WNP-644, CON-WNP-64415 NUDOCS 8308300815 | |
| Download: ML20213E576 (6) | |
Text
_
7e
"....,2
.s
.,. e
~.a5
... c_ r)
As z.
u,s h,.21 rye EQB Rdg. File AUG 2 51983 MEMORANDUM FOR: Albert Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing FROM:
Vincent S. Noonan, Chief Equipment Qualification Branch Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM WNP-2 REGARDING OPEN ITEft FROM SQRT AUDIT The enclosed letter from the Technical Assistant contractor to EQB is a request for additional information that should be forwarded to the applicant.
WNP-2. The issue of the effect of hydrodynamic loads on safety related equipment and piping outside containment needs to be resolved as expe-ditiously as possible, f wf Vincent S. Noonan, Chief yEquipmentQualificationBranch Division of Engineering cc:
J. P. Knight R. AuTuck J. Singh, INEL G. Bagchi R. Wright i
- _ ~ _
N b'p7>
8308300815 830825 M
ADOCK 05000397 e
l CONT @ R. Wright, NRR
. 9.E...h...B.......(yf.. ele,?,Q}g,.,
, v,s, yn.ooa.[B a
u.
uw 95E c"'=>
m.e.i.9ntz w....G ni.......
e a..
M./.ea.. E /..W...la.3......at..M.../83 8/.
ce ro. u va no so,sacu o24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- v 5-
""-4 247
U EGsG...n O
P.O. BOX 1625, IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO 83415 August 9, 1983 Mr. J. H. Sako, Acting Chief Reactor Research and Technology Branch Reactor Operations and Programs Division Idaho Operations Office - DOE Idaho Falls, ID 83401 REVIEW 0F OYNAMIC QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY RELATED ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT FOR WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 2 - RESPONSE EVALUATION (A6415) - Saff-306-83
References:
(a)
G. E. Marx ltr to S. B. Milam, Marx-86-82, Transmittal of NRC Form 189 for Equipment Qualification Case Reviews (A6415), March 12, 1982 (b)
- 8. F. Saffell, Jr., ltr to J. E. Solecki, Saff-30-83, Review of Dynamic Qualification of Safety Related Electri-cal and Mechanical Equipment for Washington Nuclear 2 (A6415), January 25, 1983
Dear Mr. Sako:
The Reference (a) above describes in detail the task being performed by EG&G Idaho, Inc., in support of the Equipment Qualification Branch (EQB) of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
The EQB has the lead respon-sibility for reviewing and evaluating the dynamic qualification of safety related electrical and mechanical equipment which may be subjected to vibration from earthquakes in additicn to normal operating loads.
The details of this equipment and how it meets the design criteria are described by the applicants in a Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
On completion of the FSAR review, evaluation, and approval, the applicant receives an Operating License (OL) for commercial plant operation.
Applicants are required to use test, analysis, or a combination of both to qualify equipment essential to plant safety, such that its safety function will be ensured during and after a dynamic event.
During the period of November 15 through November 19, 1982, EG&G personnel assisted the NRC in the review of seismic qualification of a sample of selected equipment.
The audit, which was performed at the plant sita, consisted of field inspection of the equipment, review of the qualification i
~
J. H. Sako August 9, 1983 Saff-306-83 Page 2 reports, resolution of the issues and identification of the action items encountered during the review.
The attached pages contain the results of the review of a submittal from the utility in response to one of the issues raised in Reference (b).
This completes part of the requirements of Task f, Project I of FIN No.
A6415.
Very truly yours, B. F. Saffell, Jr.,
nager Reactor Evaluation Programs JNS:jb
Attachment:
As Stated cc:d.Bagchi,NRC/EQB R. W. Kiehn, EG&G Idaho, Inc. (w/o Attach.)
"a
~
Attachment j
J. H. Sako
~
i e
I i
s..
TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF WASHINGTON NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 SUBMITTAL EFFECT OF HYDRODYNAMIC l
LOADS ON SAFETY RELATED EQUIPMENT AND PIPING OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT t
i i
i t
I i
i i
i l
i i
I i
I I
i b
e 1
1 i
O
=
EG&G Idaho has performed an evaluation of the Washington Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP2) submittal entitled "EFFECT OF HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS ON SAFETY RELATED EQUIPMENT AND PIPING OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT".
This report was submitted to provide technical justification to the open issue of qualifying safety related equipment in the reactor building outside the containment for dynamic loading resulting from the combination of seismic and hydro-dynamic events. The equipment was originally qualified for seismic loading only.
The submittal contains results of subsequent analysis performed for the reactor building considering the combination of seismic and hydro-dynamic loading.
Floor spectra were developed for some elevations of the reactor building from the results of this new analysis.
These spectra were shown to be significantly lower than the original seismic spectra for which the safety related equipment and piping was qualified.
Included in the submittal was some discussion of in-plant Safety Relief Valve (SRV) actuation test results from two foreign Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) plants.
They are the Caorso plant in Italy and the Tokai-2 plant in Japan.
It was concluded in the submittal that response of the reactor building outside the contain-ment due to SRV actuation was not considered to be significant with regard to design of safety related equipment and piping.
The reviewed submittal lacks sufficient technical detail to close the open issue regarding qualification of safety related equipment for seismic plus hydrodynamic loading.
The applicant is requested to provide response to the following concerns in order to resolve this issue:
1.
Describe in detail the manner in which the floor acceleration spectra were developed for combined seismic and hydrodynamic loading.
This should include description of models, input, and methods of combining responses to obtain composite spectra.
2.
Assuming a separate time history analysis was performed for the i
hydrodynamic loading using the same model as for the seismic analysis, were the structural and soil damping values properly selected for the stress levels which occurred for these dynamic events.
2
3.
For the new analysis provide separate floor acceleration spectra for the. seismic and hydrodynamic loading with the same damping values.
4.
Compare the combined spectra for the new analysis to the old analysis for the same damping value so a meaningful comparison can be made for the amplified portion of the spectra.
5.
Provide reference 1 for review so the magnitude of responses of the Tokai-2 plant reactor building to hydrodynamic loading can be confirmed.
6.
If possible, provide floor acceleration spectra from Tokai-2 plant SRV actuation test results for comparison with hydrodynamic spectra developed for WNP-2.
Identify any major differences in these two plants which would cause the two plants to respond differently.
3