ML20234F540
| ML20234F540 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, 05000531 |
| Issue date: | 09/27/1974 |
| From: | Maccary R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Moore V US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20234C970 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-40 NUDOCS 8707080250 | |
| Download: ML20234F540 (8) | |
Text
- _ - - _ - _
~ s. : ; :6 e
a~
SEE-f f 7374 '
V. A. Moore, Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors, Group 2 Directorate of Licensing PRELIMINARY REVIEW EVALUATION Plant Name: NSSS GESSAR (GESSAR-251)
Licensing Stage: Acceptance Review of PSAR Project No.: $
Respoasibic Branch and Project Manager:
LWR.2-1, D. Crutchfield Responsible TR Branch and Technical Reviewer: MEB, H. Brar.aner Requested Completion Date:
9/25/74 Description of Response: Acceptance Review of PSAR
~
Review Status: Complete j
I 1.
. Areas of Review-The memorandum from D. M. Crutchfield dated 9/3/74 requested evaluation of the completeness of the application material'for the NSSS GESSAR (CESSAR-2$1). The Mechanical Engineering Branch, Directorate of Licensing, has reviewed Sections 3.6, 3.5, 3.10, 4.2, 5.2 and 5.5 of the PSAR., The batis used to determine complete-ness of these sections was the " Standard Pormat and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants" dated October 1972 (Revision 1).
2.
Assessment of PSAR Material As measured against the Standard Format the applicant has supplied approximately 100% of the information necessary for the MEB review.
There are no significant deficiencies in the PSAR relative to the MEB review.
3.
H view Conclusion We have concluded that the applicant has provided a PSAR sufficiently complete to proceed with the detail review.
4.
Technfeal Acceptability - Preliminary Assessment In a few instance's, while the applicant has clearly stated his position, the criteria specified is not in full accord with the l
a-l l
OF FIC s &
sunwa us &
oan >
~
l
~~576Y600250 B70527
- c '*
'***'a*a*
4 d.-
~
'V. A. Moore 2-criteria set forth in recent Regulatory staff positions, and accepted for recently licensed plants. Attach:nent I identifies the edditional information that vill be required during the initial question phase after the PSAR has been accepted and docketed. This assessment is based on a preliminary review of the'PSAR. An indepth review to be conducted during the initial question phase may result in additional requests for information.
ggggiedby g,g,Maccary R. R. Maccary, Assists:2t Director for Engineering Directorate of Licensing 1 cc w/ enc 1:
S. H. Hanauer, DRTA F. Schroeder, L J. F. Stols, L J. P. Knight, L D. M. Crutchfield, L R.)!artin, L' H. L. Braceer, L
~
ec w/o encl:
A. Giambusso, L L G. Mcdonald, L -
Project File 538 l
L, Reading File L:MEB File i
l
\\
/
i or rec s >
HL3 rammer:jm JP
[ght ccary
.o m..
__24/74 9 Q )74 9/V//74 9/:
DATE >
Form AEC 318 (Re. 9 53) AECM 0240 ero ces se s e een.e see-e sa U.
1
.fl c
a lT "N
' MECHANICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH'
~
DIRECTORATE OF. LICENSING E
NSSS GESSAR - (CESSAR-251) 7 7
~
PROJECT NO. 538 ATTACHMENI'I
'I i
The following pages contain a preliminary technical assessment of :the-information presented in the NSSS GESSAR (GESSAR-251)~ PSAR. Unless.
the.PSAR is revised prior to acceptance, the following items are representative of the minimum amount of information1 that will be
, requested by the Mechanical Engineering Branch,' Directorate of Licensing during the evaluation of the PSAR.
The paragraph numbers refer to the sections in the: " Standard Format and Content of Safety.
Analysis' Reports for Nuclear Power Plants" dated' October 1972.
3.6.2 1.
In Section 3.6.1.2~of the PSAR, the statenent is made that it is recognized by the industry that the definition of exact forces, movements, etc. in the subject pipe whip analysis is beyond the capabilities of existing techniques of analysis. Verify that none of the computer programs listed in Appendix 5A is capable of performing such an analysis.
2.
In Section 3.6.1.2 of the PSAR,,the rationale for assuming a pinned'or built-in hinge at the second change in direction is not completely acceptable. An ideceptable statement on this subject can s
.c be found in Section 3.6.1.2 of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 PSAR, ' Amendment 18, pg. 3.6-3.
1:
).
r
F-
)
j o
i 4
,s
. )
3.6.4 9
I With respect to Section 3.6.4.1.'2 in the PSAR, an acceptable basis to j
. remove _ rebound c, consideration from this specific pipe whip restraint
?
design when the total gap size (initial clearance plus deformation) is approximately 6" or larger is provided.
However, rebound effects may become more severe when the gap size'is small. Verify that all the pipe whip restraints in GESSAR-251 related plants do not have gap size less I
than 6".
In the event of, smaller gap size, either provide additional 3
justification or commit to use a thrust force amplification factor of 1.2.
3.9.1.3 4
Complete the information presented in Sections 3.9.1.3 and 4.2.2 of the PSAR by providing a detailed description of the methods and procedures which will be used in the dynamic system analysis which will be performed-to confirm the structural design adequacy of the reactor internals t
l (including fuel element assemblies, control rod assemblies and drives) to withstand dynamic effects under a simultaneous occurrence of steam line break and SSE.'
3.9.2.2 3.9.2.3 The loading combinations and strees limits.which are presented in Section 3.9.2.2.1 of the PSAR are not completely acceptable. Acceptable criteria may be found in Regulatory Guide 1.48, "Desi'gn Limits and Loading Combin-ations for Seismic Category 1 Fluid System Compenents." The response to i
l G
1
N
' l 4
. I $ f.s,
=
. Question 5.2, Amendment 19 to RI GESSAR also contains acceptable criteria with the. exception of the loading combination for the upset condition. -An
' acceptable load ng combination for the upset condition is upset plant
?
i condition' loadings plus OBE unless it can be justified by. methods such
' as a time history analysis that such a combination is not required.
Revise
~
Section 3.9.2.2.1 in the PSAR accordingly.
~
3.9.2.4
'In Section 3.9.4'.1 pg. 3.9-20 of the PSAR, IEEE Standard 344, 1971 is referenced. Verify that the seismic qualification procedures which will be used for the subject components'will meet the criteria outlined in Attachment A, " Electrical and: Mechanical Equipment Seismic Qualification
. j
~ Program."
3.9.2.7
.5.2.1.19.
Provide the criteria for any Clacs 1, 2 and 3 field run piping systems supplied by G.E. as a part of NSSS GESSAR. Revise Sections 3.9.2.7 and l
5.2.1.19 in the PSAR accordingly, l
l 3.9.3 I
The loading combinations for anchor bolts presented in Section 3.9.3.4.2 of 1
the PSAR are not completely acceptable. To be acceptable, the combinations should be modified as follows:
I Upset Condition - add dynamic system loads asso'ciated with the upset condition to the existing loads.
s
)
7
-J4.- '
fej. '
?
Faulted' Condition - add-dynamic' system loads associat'ed with~the faulted:
M condition to the existing loads.1 v-l3 -
- [
. Revise Sectiony3.9.3..,~accordingly'.,
?
42 4 1 o
k 3.10 t
The.information presented in Section.3.10 of'the PSAR is no't completely:
~
acceptableb'An acceptable progrhm for the. seismic qualification of?
electrical equipment.and, instrumentation is outlined in' Attachment A.
Provide a program'which is. consistent with Attachment A.a t-5.2.1.5
..The. loading combinations and stress limits which~are presented in Table 5.2.5 of the PSAR'are not completely acceptable. Acceptable criteria may
' lie found.in Regulatory Guide'l.48,." Design Limits and. Loading Combinations-
'for Seismic Category I Fluid System Components." The. response to Question:
t 5.2, Amendment 19 to RI GESSAR also contains acceptable criteria'with the s
exception of the ' loading combination for the upset : condition. An accept-able loading combination for the upset condition is-upset plant condition loadings plus OBE unless it_ can be justified. by methods such as a time '
history analysis that such a combination is not required. Revise Table t
5.2.5 in the PSAR;accordingly.
S o
a 4
k e
,=a
._.---,--y7-.-
7 r
, s
1J 12/5/73 y
Attcchment A
' ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SEISMIC QUALIFICATION PROGRAM I.
Seismic Test for Equipment Operability
- 1. -
A' test,. program.is required to confirm the functiona1' operability
- of all Seismic Category I electrical 'and mechanical equipment and instrumentation during and after an earthquake of magnitude up to and including the'SSE.
Analysis without testing may be acceptable only if structural integrity alone can assure the-design intended function.
When a complete seismic testing'is impracticable, a combination of test and analysis may be accept-able.
2.
The characteristics of' the required input motion should' be specified by one of the following:
(a) response spectrum (b) power spectral density function
.(c) time history Such characteristics, as derived from the structures or systems seismic analysis, should be representative of'the input motion at the equipment mounting locations.
3.
Equipment should be~ tested in the operational condition. Oper-ability should be verified during and after the testing.
4.
The actual input motion should be characterized in the same manner as the required input motion, and the conservatism in s.
amplitude and frequency content should be demonstrated.
5.
Seismic excitation generally have a broad frequency content.
Random vibration input motion should be used.
However, single frequency input, such as sine beats, may be applicable provided one of'<be following conditions are met:
(a) The characteristics of the required input motion indicate that the motion is dominated by one frequency (i.e., by structural filtering effects).
s (b) The anticipated response of the equipment is adequately represented by one mode.
(c) The input has sufficient intensity and duration to excite all modes to the required magnitude, such that the testing response spectra vill envelope the corresponding response spectra of the individual modes.
4 5
9 4
s W ', -
,(-
r-r w,
m
m'a 2_
o 6.
The input' motion should be applied to one vertical and one principal. (or two orthogonal) horizontal axes simultaneously unless it can be demonstrated that the equipment response along the vertical direction is not sensitive to the vibratory' motion along the horizontal direction, and vice versa.
The timegphasing of the inputs in the vertical and horizontal direc-tions must be such that a purely rectilinear resultant input is avoided.
The acceptable alternative is to have vertical and horizontal inputs in-phase, and then repeated with inputs 180 degrees out-of-phase.
In addition, the test must be repeated with the equipment rotated 90 degrees horizontally.
7.
The fixture design should meet the following requirements:
(a) Simulate the actual service mounting (b) Cause no dynamic coupling to the test item.
8.
The in-situ application of vibratory devices to superimpose the seismic vibratory loadings on the complex active device for operability testing is acceptable when application is justifiable.
9.
The test program may be based upon selectively testing a repre-sentative number of mechanical components according to type, load level, size, etc. on a prototype basis.
II.
Seismic Design Adequaev of Supports j
1.
Analyses or tests should be. performed for all supports of electrical and mechanical equipment and instrumentation to x
ensure their structural enpability to withstand seismic excitation.
s 2.
The analytical results must include the following:
(a) The required input motions to the mounted equipment should be obtained and characterized in the manner as stated in Section I.2.
l (b) The combined stresses of the support structures should be within the limits of ASME Section III, Subsection NF -
" Component Support Structures" (draf t version) or other comparable stress limits.
3.
Supports should be tested with equipment installed.
If the equipment is inoperative during the support test, the response at the equipment mounting locations should be monitored and characterized in the manner as stated in Section I.2.
In such a case, equipment should be tested separately and the actual input to the equipment should be more conse m tive in amplitude l
and frequency content than the monitored response.
I 1
4.
The requirements of Sections I.2, I.4, I.5, I.6 and I.7 are applicable when tests are conducted on the equipment supports.
4 l-l i
s--
[
i
,