ML20235M040

1 Sqrt Rept, Informal Rept

ML20235M040
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	03/31/1987
From:	Rahl R, Singh J EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20235M032	List: ML20235M030 ML20235M040
References
CON-FIN-A-6415 EGG-EA-7640, NUDOCS 8707170032
Download: ML20235M040 (52)

Text

c, ,

I> g . * ) ,k 'II ,j j g' '{[

i f ry - Dc . : '3y ,,, J d) i j. ' .' .,;y '.

, , j -

fi ng , , ~

F:- ' '

EGG-EA-7640

, March 1987 9, m e

'1yt d). f . 3 3

o.

INFORMAL REPORT e$

j . .. -l.~.-

9.'

> 4

s. <

4 .j SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT-1 SQRT REPORT J /, ,

"Idahob n ,  ::Na. tional?

Engineenng

! Lab' oratory! s . ,

f' i' J. N. Singh

, ..o , fManagedf- R. G. Rahl i by; the U.S.

B. L. Harris Department ^-

8 of En&gy _,. ,

I

,) ,

e l

i

+ .

s 4

t r,

o

$. -g Prepared for the '

. M ""*8 "**- U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Work performed under ;

DOE Contract .

' No. DE,AC07 76lD01570 ':

!. , " ., #m 8707170032 870610, _ .

PDR ADOCK 05000490 .

A PDR y

%'__-._ .- --__2_ __.L__2L_.___ -____ :_____ - - _ - - _ _ _ - . - - - _ - . - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ - _ - _ _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ - - _ _

k I i  !

l l

o o

e <

DISCLAIMER This book was prepared as an account of work Lponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither dhe Unned States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their ernployees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any logal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness cf any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, Or represents that its use would .j' not infnnge privately owned nghts. References herein to any specific cummercial l product, process, or ser.' ice by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessanly constitute or imply its endorssrnent, recommendation, or favonng by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessanly stata or reflect those of the Urated States Government or any agency thereof, j

i i

i i

l l

• k a

l l

)

i l

EGG-EA-7640

. SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT - 1 SQRT REPORT  !

J. N. Singh R. G. Rahl B. L. Harris Published May 1987 EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the

. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570

- FIN No. A6415

J ABSTRACT EG&G Idaho is assisting the. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in evaluating Houston Lighting and Power Company's program for the dynamic qualification of safety related electrical ~and mechanical equipment for the South Texas Project Nuclear Generating Station,. Unit 1. Applicants are. .

required-to use test or analysis or a combination of both to qualify equipment, such that its safety' function will be insured during~and after ,

the dynamic event, and provide documentation. The review, when~ completed, willl indicate whether an . appropriate qualification program has been:

defined'and -implemented.for seismic categcry I mechanical and electrical' equipment which will' provide reasonable assurance that such equipment will function properly-during and after the excitation due to vibratory forces L of the dynamic event.

i o

e (ii)

]

l 1

q j

SUMMARY

l A seismic qualification review team (SQRT) consisting of engineers ]

from the Engineering Branch PWR-A of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory made a site visit to the South Texas

{

Project Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 of Houston Lightirg and Power Company located in Palacios, Texas. They observed the field installation

= and reviewed the qualification reports for twenty-five'. selected pieces of seismic category.I electrical and mechanical equipment and their supporting structures. Two' generic.and four equipment specific concerns were identified for which additional information is needed in order for-the SQRT to complete the review. These are referred to as open items.

Although the open items need to be resolved, the review indicated that the .j l

equipment was adequately qualified for the dynamic environment at- the l South Texas Project site, f i

j i

i 6

.e -

(iii)

i l

I CONTENTS l ABSTRACT ......................................................... ii i i

l

SUMMARY

.......................................................... iii

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................ 1  !

i

2. NUCLEAR STEAM SUPPLY SYSTEM (NSSS) EQUIPMENT ................ 2 I i

2.1 QDPS Electronics Cabinet (NSSS-1) ..................... 2 .

l l

4 2.2 3-Bay 7300 Process Protection Cabinet (NSSS-2) ........ 3 2.3 8-In. Special Check Valve (NSSS-4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.4 Operator Interface Module (NSSS-5) .................... 6 2.5 Fast Response Well Type RTO (NSSS-6) .................. 8 I 2.6 MSIV Solenoid Valve (NSSS-7) .......................... 9 2.7 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Pump (NSSS-8S) ................ 11 2.8 Control Rod Drive Mechanism and Capped Latch Housing (NSSS-9) ...................................... 14 i

2.9 Radioactive Waste Cleanup Isolation Valve (NSSS-10) ... 15 {

i 2.10 High Head Safety Injection Pump (NSSS-11) ............. 16 l l

2.11 Residual Heat Removal Pump and Motor (NSSS-12) ........ 18 i I

2.12 Refuelling Water Purification Pump (NSSS-13) .......... 19 2.13 Thermocouple Reference Junction Box (NSSS-14) ......... 20

3. BALANCE OF PLANT (BOP) EQUIPMENT ............................ 22 1

3.1 Isolation / Termination Cabinet (80P-1) ................. 22 j.

3.2 24-Inch Butterfly Motor Operated Valve (BOP-2) . . . . . . . . 25 1 3.3 Centrifugal Water Chiller (80P-3) ..................... 26 1

3.4 Isolation Relay Panel (BOP-4) ............ ............ 29 3.5 Safety Class Air Handling Unit (B0P-5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 (iv)

3.6 Steam Generator Main Steam Safety Valve (BOP-6) ....... 33 3.7 Single Module Termination Cabinet (80P-7) ............. 35 3.8 Reactor Coolant Hot Leg Sample Isolation Valve (BOP-8). 36 3.9 Reactor Makeup Water Pump (80P-10) .................... 38

- 3.10 Instrument Control Room Panel (80P-11) ................ 39 3.11 Class 1E Terminal Blocks (BOP-12) ..................... 42 3.12 4-In. 900# Mark I Globe Valve (80P-13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

4. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS .................................... 44 4.1 Generic Issues ........................................ 44 4.2 Equipment Specific Issues ............................. 44 4.3 Conclusion ............................................ 45 5

e (v)

I i

l I

1

1. INTRODUCTION l1 The Engineering Branch (EB) of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

I has the lead responsibility in reviewing and evaluating the dynamic I

qualification of safety related electrical and mechanical equipment. This equipment may be subjected to vibration from earthquakes and/or ] '

hydrodynamic forces. Applicants are required to use test or analysis or a

- combination of both to qualify equipment essential to plant safety, such that its safety function will be ensured during and after the dynamic event. These pieces of equipment and how they meet the required criteria are described by the applicant in a Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).

On completion of the FSAR review, evaluation and approval, the applicant receives an Operating License (0L) for commercial plant operation, j A Seismic Qualification Review Team (SQRT) consisting of engineers 4 from the EB of NRC and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL), made a site visit to tne South Texas Project Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 of Houston Lighting and Power Company, Palacios, Texas, from December 16 through December 20, 1986. The purpose of the visit was to observe the field installation, review the equipment qualification methods, procedures (including modeling techniques and adequacy), and documented results for a list of selected seismic category I mechanical and electrical equipment and their supporting structures. This report, containing the review findings, indicates which of the items are qualified and require no additional documentation. It also identifies some equipment and certain general concerns for which additional information is needed in order for the SQRT to complete the review. These are referred to as open items. The applicant is to further investigate and provide additional documentation l to resolve these isstes.

1 h

f 1

2. NUCLEAR STEAM SUPPLY SYSTEM (NSSS) EQUIPMENT' 2.1 00PS Electronics Cabinet (NSSS-1)

The qualified display processing system (QDPS)' electronic cabinet

~

APC-Al was supplied by Westinghouse with Model No. 1775E63 (APC-A1). It-was purchased to specification 956098. It is vertically floor mounted'in l the QDPS system in the electrical auxiliary building at the'10-ft-elevation. This system is used for post-accident monitor _ing for the reactor vessel level instrumentation system, core subcooling monitoring system and fire protection system displays. The QDPS also performs SG' (steam generator) narrow range water level compensation for the effect of temperature changes in the reference leg fluid and safety grade control j and position indication for several safety-related valves.

Sinct this is a redundant system the consequence of failure is the loss of one i instrument channel.

The cabinet and printed circuit cards were qualified by separate-testing. First, 0.2 g resonance-search tests,were performed on a fully  !

loaded cabinet, as reported in Westinghouse report WCAP-8687, Supplement 2-E53A, Rev. O, Equipment Qualification Test Report--plant Safety Monitoring System, dated March 1983. Natural frequencies of 12-13 Hz l side-to-side and 14-15 Hz front to-back were'found. No vertical natural i frequencies were found below 33 Hz. Multifrequency pseudo triaxial testing was then performed as reported in Westinghouse report WCAP-8587, EQDP-ESE-53, Rev. '1, Equipment Qualification Data Package--Plant Safety-Monitoring System, dated April 1984. Six OBE and four Level 1 SSE (Level 1 is 0.7 g) were run on the cabinet. Generic TRS for.each of these tests enveloped the South Texas Plant RRS. The damping for the spectra 1 was 5%. The field mounting attachment strength _was greater than or equal _.

to that used for the qualification unit. Although weld cracking occurred in the horizontal door jam, this did not affect ~ operability or overall- -

structural. integrity. Some fraying of wires caused intermittent losses of 15V power. Modifications were made to the unit prior to shipping to.

protect these wires and eliminate the problem.

2

1 l

Accelerometers were mounted at the device location in the cabinet tests described above. The output of these accelerometers was used to establish RRS for testing of the printed circuit (PC) cards and blower assembly to be mounted in the cabinet. The testing of these items is l reported in Westinghouse report WCAP-8587, EQDP-ESE-5SB, Rev. O, dated l

, June 1985. The in-cabinet generic RRS was developed by enveloping the response spectra generatea from the accelerometer data genersted durir.g l cabinet testing. Five OBE and six SSE tests were performed for these 1 components. The TRS enveloped the RRS for all tests except one SSE test.

Since this test was not needed for qualification (it nearly enveloped it anyway) this is not a concern. Operability of the components was monitored during the testing.

Supplemental calculations were performed to evaluate the following i plant specific modifications to the cabinet: (1) additional plates and junction boxes, (2) top cable entry, and (3) slotted cabinet base bracket i for bottom cabling. The calculations showed that the modifications would not negate the testing qualification. The cabinet is presently being qualified in the Westinghouse aging evaluation program. This would dictate the qualified life.

Based on the observation of the field installation, review of the qualification documents, and the applicant's response to questions. the QOPS electrical cabinet and its components are adequately qualified for the prescribed loads.

2.2 3-Bay 7300 Process protection Cabinet (NSSS-2)

The 7300 series process protection cabinet (Model No. 8820013),

supplied by Westinghouse, is located in the electrical auxiliary building

- at the 35-ft elevation. Electronics in the cabinet process the safety grade signals for plant protection.

The cabinet, printed circuit cards, and power supplies and circuit breakers were qualified by separate testing. First, 0.2 g resonance i search tests were performed on a fully loaded 3-bay cabinet, as reported in Westinghouse report WCAP-8687, Supplement 2-E13A, Rev. 1, Eauipment l

l'

-Qualification Test Report--Process Protection System (Seismic Testing),

dated July 1981. Natural frequencies of 10 Hz side-to-side and 7 Hz fro'nt-to-back were found. No vertical natural frequencies below 33 Hz l were found Multifrequency pseudo triaxial qualification testing was then performed as reported in Westinghouse report WCAP-8587, EQDP-ESE-13, Rev. 5, Ecuipment Qualification Data Package--Process Protection' System, .

dated June 1985. Five OBE and four SSE tests were run on the cabinet.

The TRS for each of these tests ~ enveloped the South Texas Plant specific RRS. The damping was 4 percent. The test mounting was the same as the actual in-plant mounting. No damage to the cabinet occurred during testing. -l f

The cabinet tested had a different model number (2441A72) than the  !

one in the plant. The drawings showing that the South Texas Plant specific cabinet (Model No. 8820013) referred to the.same. cabinet as the one tested. Traceability was established.

1 Accelerometers were mounted at the device locations in the fully loaded cabinet tests described above. The output of these accelerometers was used to establish RRS for testing of the printed circuit cards to be mounted in the cabinet. The testing of the PC cards is contained in Westinghouse report WCAP-8687, Supplement 2-E13C, Rev. 1, Equipment

' Qualification Test Report--Process Protection-System (Seismic and Environmental Testing of Printed Circuit' Cards),_ dated June 1985. The 4

in-cabinet generic RRS for the PC cards was developed by enveloping the response spectra generated from the accelerometer output from the cabinet testing. Five OBE and two SSE tests were performed on each card. The TRS enveloped the RRS for all tests. Operability of the PC cards was ] 1 monitored during the testing.

The PC cards were not bolted into place in the cabinet at the time of_ '

the audit due to-circuit testing in the-cabinet. South Texas Plant personnel showed documentation of these removed screws demonstrating that j i

they were tracking the status of this cabinet. {

l l

Thermal aging of the PC cards was performed as reported in Westinghouse report WCAP-8687, Supolement 2, Appendix 1, Short Term 4

-J

Component Aging Test and Appendix 2 (of the same report) Material Aging.

l' The qualified life of each PC card is five years.

The power supplies and circuit breakers were qualified by testing as reported in Westinghouse report WCAP-8687, Supplement 2-E13D, Rev. 1, Eouipment Qualification Test Report--Process Protection System (Supplemental Testing of Power Supplies and Circuit Breakers), dated April 1985. Three model G01 and three model G03 power supplies were

~

tested.Model G02 and Model G04 power supplies were not tested but are the same as the G01 and G03 supplies except for the position of the voltage taps. The power se plies and circuit breakers were mounted to a rigid test fixture with the same number and size of bolts as in the field mounting. The RRS for SSE was generated using the largest accelerometer output from the cabinet testing. The RRS for OBE was taken as two-thirds of the RRS for SSE. The TRS enveloped the RRS for all tests. The time history waveforms for the TRS were comprised of 14 different single frequency sine beat inputs summed together and then applied to a biaxid test table. The sine beat frequencies ranged from 1 Hz to 33 Hz. The test item was mounted at a forty-five degree angle to simulate biaxial motion. Tests were run in two different horizontal orientations. Five OBE and two SSE tests were performed. The line voltage, frequency, output voltage, and output current were monitored before and during the testing.

No anomalies were recorded.

Abnormal environment testing was also performed on the power supplies. The tests were run for 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> at the maximum ambient temperature and 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> at the maximum humidity. The power supplies were required to maintain power output of 22 to 27 VDC in order to operate electrical equipment in the cabinet. Abnormal environment testing was also performed for the circuit breakers but that report was not reviewed.

Based on the observation of the field installation, review of the qualification documents, and the applicant's response to questions, the process protection cabinet is adequately qualified for the prescribed loads.

1 i

5

'2.3 8-In. Special Check Valve (NSSS-4)

]

I I

The 8-in. special check valve (ID=8C74 and Tag No. 2N101X-CS-0004) was supplied by Westinghouse. This valve was purchased to specification No. 952851. It is line mounted in the containment spray system (CSS) in room 112 of the containment building at elevation (-2) feet. Failure of ,

the velve to open will reduce the containment spray flow delivered by the "B" CSS pump. .

This valve was qualified by analysis. The analysis was performed by Westinghouse and reported in Stress Report for Westinghouse Class 1 Nuclear Valves 6 Inch and Larger Swing Check Valves for W PWRSD, No.

EM-5093, Rev. 1, dated May 27, 1980. The valve was analyzed in accordance with the requirements of the ASME Code Section III for class 2 valves.

This analysis included an evaluation of bonnet and flange bolt stresses due to pressure and seismic nozzle loads. Seismic loads were based on piping accelerations and were applied statically since the analysis determined all natural frequencies to be greater than 33 Hz. The total flange bolt stress was 94% of the allowable and the total bonnet stress i l

was 50% of the allowable.

Based on our inspection of the field installation, review of the qualification documents, and the applicant's response to questions, the 8-in. special check valve is adequately qualified for the prescribed loads.

2.4 Operator Interface Module (NSSS-5)

Several operator interface modules are mounted to various panels in the main control room. The panel is located in the electrical auxiliary building at the 35-ft elevation. Those modules consist of two meter -

l and/or switch assemblies mounted in a common housing. This housing is

~

then attached to a panel in the main control room. This particular operator interface module consisted of a 1.5-in. meter with push button subassembly (Model No. 1660D05G01) and a 3.5-in. flexmeter subassembly l

(Model No. 1660D05G36). The corresponding model numbers shown on the long i l

form were 5868C55A57 and 5868C55A58. These numbers were said to be on the 6

actual subassemblies inside the housing. Therefore, the model numbers could not be verified in the plant. However, several drawings and a purchase order change notice were reviewed and traceability between the two sets of model numbers, i.e., 1660D05 and 586SC55, was established.

The safety function of this module is to control the essential cooling water flow to the essential chiller condenser.

The operator interface module was qualified by testing as reported in Westinghouse report WCAP-8687, Supplement 2-E12A, Rev. 1, Equipment Qualification Test Report--Operator Interface Modules (Environmental and Seismic Testing), dated February 1985. A 0.2 g sine sweep was performed from 1 Hz to 50 Hz and back to 1 Hz at a rate of one octave / min. No resonances below 33 Hz were identified. Five SSE and five OBE qualification tests were then run. The RRS for OBE and SSE were taken as three times the floor spectra at the panel location plus 10 percent margin. This is not exactly correct since the shape of the acceleration spectra at points in the panel may be quite different from the shape of the floor spectra due to the dynamic response characteristics of the panel. The actual spectra generated from the panel testing was not examined. However, some extra margin between the RRS used for instrument testing and the panel response has been added. Bechtel Specification <

3Z349ZS0120, Rev. 9, Specification for Main Control Panels for the Houston Lighting and power Company South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, dated June 23, 1986 states that seismic category 1 control panels shall be qualified in accordance with Bechtel Specification 4A479ES1027, Rev. 1, Specification for Seismic Qualification Requirements for Class 1E Control Panel Assemblies for the Houston Lighting and power Company South Texas project Electric Generatir.g Station, dated March 3, 1983. This  ;

latter specification calls out a maximum panel amplification factor of 2.5 times the floor spectra. The RRS was, therefore, judged to be adequate. )

Functional operability was monitored during and after the testing. The current meters did not meet the acceptance criteria during the first cycle of testing. They were modified and then they passed the operability tests. The field unit has the modifications.

i 7

The operator interface moduies did not require thermal or radiation aging as discussed in Westinghouse report WCAP-8587, EQDP-ESE-12A, Rev. 1, Equipment Qualification Data Package--Operator Interface Modules, dated February 1985. The modules were shown to be operable in the range of environmental conditions specified. The qualified life of the operator ,

interface modules.is five years.

< Based on the observation of the field installation, review of the qualification documents, and the applicant's response to questions, the operator interface module is adequately qualified for the prescribed ,

loads.

2.5 Fast Response Well Type RTD (NSSS-61 The fast response well type resistance temperature detector (Model No. 21232-1) was supplied by Westinghouse accor' ding to purchase specification no. 953297. This RTD is located along with three others in-the reactor coolant system. It is intended to send a trip signal for an over temperature condition. Two out of four signals are required to trip the plant. It was mounted within the RTD thermowell in the reactor containment building at approximately the 35 ft. elevation. This device was qualified by test. Seismic loads were considered in-the test.

l The qualification test for this item was performed by Westinghouse and recorted in WCAP 8687, Supplement 2-E07A, Rev. 3 and WOAP-8587, EQDP-ESE-7, Rev. 5 both dated March 1983 and titled Eauipment Qualification Data Package--Resistance Temperature Detectors: Fast Response Well Mounted. Pluck testing and multi-axis single frequency sinusoidal dwell tests were used to demonstrate operability and structural integrity. Testing levels were greater than the required accelerations -

i based on piping accelerations.

p During the qualification phase the RTD connection head was eliminated and RTD cable armor was replaced to ensure the' unit would pass HELB (high energy line break) testing. Prior to the HELB test, the cabling was subjected to pipe vibration and seismic testing.

8

J The qualif,ied life is 20 years based on the weakest link or appendage in the equipment. The surveillance and maintenance program is based on f

WCAP-8687, Supplement 2-E07A, dated March 1983.

l Based on the observation of the field installation, review of the 3

qualification documents, and the applicant's response to our questions the j

. fast response well type RTD is qualified for the prescribed loads.

2.6 MSIV Solenoid Valve (NSSS-7) l The MSIV (main steam isolation valve) (solenoid: Model No.

CFP-2233-A, Tag Nos. AIMS-FSV-7444 for the valve, A1MS-FY-7414A, B, &C for the inlet and dump and CFP-304-A for test inlet solenoids) was 1 1

manufactured and supplied by Chicago Fluid Power according to purchase

]

spec. no. 952881. The model number could not be verified in the field as it needed opening the box. It was located in bay D, room 504 at the 50 ft elevation of the MSIVC building. The MSIV is butt welded into the piping and the solenoid is bolted using standard bracket to the operator.

Oper: tor is at 450 to the vertical. It is a part of the main steam system. There are two inlet and two dump solenoids on each MSIV. The seismic loads are considered in the qualification.

i The qualification of the solenoid valve is based on tests performed )

on a similar unit. The details of the tests are in the report: Equipment l Qualification Test Report--South Texas Project Units 1 and 2 MSIV Solenoid l Valves (Environmental & Seismic Testino), No. WCAP-11160, Rev. O, dated October 1986, prepared by Westinghouse. The test mounting consisted of solenoid valve assembly attached to a test fixture with four 1/2 inch 13 SAE grade 2 bolts. The fixture in turn was bolted to the test table.

. Mounting on the test table simulated the 450 inclination of the valve operator. The test mounting was similar to the field mounting.

A resonance search test with 0.2 g magnitude and a sweep rate of one octave per minute was performed from 1 to 50 and back down to 1 Hz. No resonance was found below 33 Hz. Subsequently a series of pseudo biaxial 9

RIM (required input motion) tests with sine beat input were performed for 0

qualification. The direction of piston motion was at 35 (in the 1 vertical plane) from the horizontal and the test specimen was at 400 (in the horizontal plane) with respect to the control accelerometer direction. For the OBE and SSE input in the piston direction was 6.10 g  ;

and 7.60 g respectively. The resulting inputs in the three principal , I directions were:

s/s f/b v 1

OBE 3.50 g 3.5 g 3.5 g SSE 4.4 g 4.4 g 4.4 9 This compares to the required input in the three principal directions of:

I s/s f/b v OBE 0.15 g 0.19 9 0.476 g SSE 0.29 g 0.31 g 0.482 g.

The sine beat tests were performed at 1.0, 1.2, 1.5, 1.8, 2.2, 2.7, 3.3, 4.0, 4.8, 5.9, 7.3, 9.0, 11.1, 13.7, 17.0, 21.0, 26.0 and 32.0 Hz with a dwell of 15 seconds. There were a total of five CBE and four SSE level tests performed. The tests were performed on an aged specimen.

Operability was verified.

The tests performed are adequate. The functionality was verified.

There were no anomalies detected. However, during the field observation, it was detected that the lock nut for the adjusting screw on the speed control solenoid was missing. In response to an inquiry, the applicant stated that the in-process work per CCP-1-N-WN-0149 replaced the solenoids -

and limit switches on the valve. QC inspection was not complete at the time of tne audit. The (C inspection would find the fault and require the locknut to be installed. Further, startup prerequisite testing of the valve will require the installation of the locknut prior to acceptance.

The work is being tracked per SWR 08295, MCL #49014.

10

i i

Based on the observation of the field installation, review of the qualification documents and the applicant response to our inquiries, the MSIV solenoid valve is adequately qualified for the South Texas plant.

2.7 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Pump-(NSSS-85)

The refueling water purification pump (Model No. 3405, Tag No.

2R211NPA101A) was manufactured and supplied by'Goulds Pumps ac' cording to j purchase order nos. 546-AAG-259480-BEP, dated December 8, 1976 (mother) and 546-CAG-259481-BEP dated December 11, 1986 (STP specific). The s

- equipment specification number is 678910, Rev. 1, dated May 16, 1973.

This pump was located in room 107 at the 21.0 ft elevation of the fuel handling building. It was mounted horizontally on the floor with ten 1 inch diameter bolts of A-36 material. It is a part of the spent fuel system and removes decay heat. Seismic loads are considered in the analysis.

l The qualification of the unit (pump and the motor) is based on a l combination of test and analysis. The motor was tested and analyzed whereas the pump was only analyzed. The details of the test and analysis for the motor are contained in the reports: Equipment Qualification Test Report, No. WCAP-8687, Rev. 2, dated March 1983 and Seismic Analysis--Pump __

Motor, No. S.O. 77C12627, Rev. O, dated September 26, 1977, prepared by Westinghouse. The details of the pump analysis are in the report Seismic Stress Analysis, No. ME-416 including Adendum I, Rev. O, dated May 6, 1977, prepared by. Mcdonald Engineering Analysis Company and reviewed by  ;

Westinghouse.

The motor was tested for resonances and qualification. The

, laboratory mounting for the tests consisted of fcur 3/4 inch bolts. It  !

was subjected to a sine sweep input of 0.1 g from 1 to 70 to 1 Hz at a rate of one octave per minute. No resonance was detected below 35'Hz.

Subsequently, the specimen was subjected to a pseudo triaxial random input for qualification. The required 73A for the motor was:

11

s/s f/b v OBE 1.05/0.16 g 1.05/0.08 g 1.05/0.12 g (generic / plant specific)

SSE 2.1/0.30 g 2.1/0.15 g 2.1/0.25 g (generic / plant specific)

The ZPA for tests exceeds the required. TRS were generated with five .

percent damping. It was compared to a RRS with five percent damping. The enveloping was adequate. -

A two dimensional static analysis with a load of 3 g horizontal and 2 g vertical was performed on the motor. The critical stresses and deflection are as follows.

Total Calculated Allowable Stresses Stresses Source of Identification Loads (psi) (psi) Allowables Shaft SSE+DW+ 8275 36,000 design operating standard Motor feet SSE+0Wt 1433 20,000 design operating standard Bearing load SSE+0W+ 1674 12,500 bearing operating manufacturer I

Deflection I Total Allowable  !

Deflection Deflection Source of Identification l Loads (in.) (in.) Allowable Rotor SSE+DW+ 0.00249 0.0342 clearance, operating A Gould pump, model 3405L size 10 x 12-17G (similar to the one in the field), was analyzed by Mcdonald Engineering Analysis Company. It was a _

two dimensional finite element, static analysis with 3 g horizontal and 2 g vertical load.

Static analysis was adopted since frequency analysis indicated that the pump was relatively rigid. The boundary condition for i the model was rigidly mounted to the floor with anchor bolts.

12

i l

ICES-STRUDL computer' code was used in the analysis. .The responses are combined absolutely. The results are as given below.

? Total i Calculated < Allowable Stresses' ' Stresses Source of Identification l Loads (psi) (psi) Allowables 1 Suction nozzle ._ operating 14,849 19,800 ASME Code

., flange +SSE+DW Pump holddown operating 27,377 33,880 ASME Code bolts (tension) +SSE+DW Shaft operating 22,087 26,250 design .  !

+SSE+DW standard i l

i Deflection Total Allowable Source of j Identification Loads , Deflection Deflection Allowable 1 Coupling operating 0.00069 0.017 radian coupling-misalignment +SSE+DW- radian manufacturer The operability of the pump is' assured by' keeping the allowable  !

stresses below th'e yield to avoid any permanent deformation. The I qualified life of the components have been evaluated. The response to the

]

question of allowable (higher than usual) stresses is satisfactory considering low total calculated stresses.

There were two problems detected during the field walkdown of the unit. These are:

(i) Constant level oiler was very loose and not in proper-position, and-(ii) It was also leaking.

In response to an inquiry, the applicant stated that the problem was -}

identified on the Np00 squawk list dated December 16, 1986. The squawk j list was controlled by a desk' top instruction DG-002. The item would b'e completed. It would be confirmed by the letter of completion'of  ;

qualification program. ~

l 13

Based on the observation of the field installation, review of the qualification document and specially the responses by the applicant to our questions, the spent fuel pool cooling pump is adequately qualified for the South Texas site.

2.8 Cytrol Rod Drive Mechanisin and Capped Latch Housings (NSSS-9)

• The control rod drive mechanisms (CRDMs) and capped latch housings (CLHs) was supplied by Westinghouse. The Model No. is L106RL and the purchase specification no is 546-NPK-221585-BN/G.0. Ilu-80505-AR6ARI. It is located in the containment building at the top of the reactor vessel head at elevation 07 feet. The safety function is to maintain integrity of the reactor coolant system pressure boundary and insert control rods when

~

desired.

The CRDMs and CLHs were qualified by analysis. The analysis was performed by Westinghouse and is reported in L106A-1 CRDM Generic Desic.n_

Report Stress and Thermal Analysis--Hot Leg Transients, No. EM5622, Rev. 1, dated October 29, 1984. The analysis was perfortned according to the ASME Code Class 1 requirements. The analysis of the CRDMs was performed in four parts. A generic stress and thermal analysis was performed to determine maximum allowable moment loadings on the CRDMs (Report EM5622). Secondly, plant specific seismic response spectrum analysis and a plant specific LOCA time history analysis was performed.

The results of the plant specific seismic and LOCA analyses were summarized in MED-RPV-747. The third part of the analysis involved a generic analysis of the seistnic sleeve (EM5396). Finally a plant specific comparison (EM5235) was performed between the generic CRDM report and the specified as-built South Texas configuration to assure that all loads were acceptable. OBE with deadweight (DW) was considered an upset condition and LOCA was combined with SSE by the SRSS method and then coubined with l

DW for the faulted condition. .

The analysis demonstrates structural integrity for the specified loads. Although operability is not required for a safe shutdown of the

)

plant, the design and analysis indicate that operability would continue through and following the design seismic event.

14 j

a Based on the observation of the field installation, review of the' l

-a

. qualification documents, and the applicant's response to questions the CRDMs and CLHs are adequately qualified for.the prescribed loads.

. 2.9 Radioactive Waste Cleanup Isolation Valve (NSSS-10)'

l The 3-in, radioactive waste cleanup isolation l valve was supplied.by ]

Ametek. .The Westinghouse identification number.is 3IA76R. The valve is i line mounted at the 10-ft' elevation in the:MEB (mechanica1' auxiliary  ;

building). The actuator is also supported laterally. The valve ensures H isolation of the' radioactive waste from the'r'efueling water purification system following an accident.

The valve was qualified by a combination.of test and analysis. 1 i

Structural. integrity of several valves was shown using the allowable

{

stresses from the ASME Code Section III, Class 2 and Class'3 as reported {

in Ametek report TR-31, Rev. 1, Class 2 and 3 Desion' Report for Westinghouse Nuclear Energy Systems Equipment Specification _ i i

G-952853--Valve Sizes 3/8. 3/4,~ l', 2, and 3 Inch, dated June 22, 1977.

{

! Class 2 and Class 3 of the ASME Code require only minimum thickness calculations but the above report also investigates' fatigue and seismic j j conditions. It also shows natural frequencies of the. valves. The l calculated minimum thickness required was much smaller than the actual wall thickness. The fatigue damage of the valve was evaluated for'several pressure and thermal cycles. The damage fact'or was 0.447 compared to-.an allowable value of 1.0. However, the applicability of these cycles to the South Texas Plant was not evaluated by the reviewer. No' natural  ;

frequencies below 33 Hz were reported.

AstaticdeflectiontestofasimilarvalvewasreportedinAmetek$ >

report TR-46, Rev. A, Test Report for Fa~ulted Condition Qualification dated December 5, 1978. Leakage rates during-the test were judged i

acceptable.

15

The field mounting of the valve included a lateral support on the actuator. 'An examination of the valve operability and integrity considering this support is contained in Westinghouse report EQ&T-EQT-4104.

The' qualified lives of the main valve,. solenoid valve, and limit .

switches are 40 years, 8 years,.and 10 years, respectively.

Based on the observation of.the field installation, review of the i qualification documents, and the applicant's response to questions, the radioactive waste isolation valve.is adequately qualified.for the prescribed loads.

2.10 High Head Safety Injection Pumo (NSSS-11)

The high head safety injection pump, Model No. WYRF6x10, was supplied by Pacific Pumps. The pump is driven by a Westinghouse 1000 HP motor <

(5810 frame). The pump and motor are installed in the fuel handling building at'the ft elevation. The pump supplies water for emergency core cooling following a loss of coolant or a steam line break accident.

The motor was qualified by'a combination of test and analysis.as l r

discussed in Westinghouse shop order 76F52943, Seismic Analysis of High 1 Head Safety Injection pump Motors for Unit 1 and 2 Nuclear Station South I Texas Project, dated August 17, 1978. An electromagnetic shaker was used to excite the motor from 2 Hz to 120 Hz. The lowest natural frequency was 29 Hz. Bump tests were also done to confirm the lowest natural frequency. A static analysis was used to calculate stresses in the motor. All stresses were well below the allowable values except the bending stress in the motor frame and flange. That stress was 27,274 psi t compared to an allowable value of 30,000 psi. No amplification of load -

I was done even.though the lowest natural frequency was below 32 Hz. The accelerations used to calculate seismic stresses, however,.were much larger than-the actual accelerations found from the analysis of the building. The accelerations used were 3 g horizontal and 2 g vertical compared to the South Texas Plant required accelerations of 0.175 g l

1 16 1

i horizontal and 0.25 g vertical. Therefore large margins exist and the analysis was considered adequate. The maximum rotor deflection was 0.0072 in. compared to a gap of 0.043 in. Therefore operability of the motor was shown. Thermal, irradiation, and humidity aging and multifrequency OBE and SSE tests were also pseformed on a similar motor as reported in Westinghouse report WCAP-8687, Supplement A-02A, Rev. 2, Equipment Qualification Test Report Westinghouse LMD Motor Insulation, dated March

. 1983.

Structural integrity calculations for the high head safety injection pump are contained in Pacific Pumps report K-441, Rev. 2, Nuclear Seryice pumo Design Calculations, Class 2, dated January 4,1979. All stresses appear to be small although allowable stresses were not specifically shown for most portions of the pump.

t A response spectrum seismic analysis of the pump is contained in j Nickerson Engineering report, Seismic Analysis of high Head Safety J

Injection Pumos, no date given. This report showed low stresses and very j small (10-6 in.) end deflections dus to seismic ' loading. However, the report was too complex to be reviewed in the allotted time. Several computer codes were run in succession to reach the final result. Details of the analysis were not presented clearly. Because of this, Westinghouse was asked to prepare an auditable summary of the method of analysis performed and the results obtained in the Nickerson analysis report for staff review. This is a confirmatory item.

The qualified life of the pump was 40 years and the life of the motor was five years.

As a result of the audit, Westinghouse has agreed to prepare the

- above mentioned summary. It will be submitted for staff review.

Qualification of this item is incomplete pending review of the summary report and the results confirmed.

17

l 2.11 Residual Heat Removal Pump and, Motor (NSSS-12)

The residual heat removal pump was supplied by Pacific Pumps with Model No. SPF 8x24. It was purchased to specification nos. 678815, , ;

Rev. 2; 952455, Rev. 1; 677474, Rev. 0; 952472, Rev. I and 953149, Rev. l

1. It is located in the reactor containment building at elevation (-2) feet in room no. 109. The safety function of the pump is for long term cooling during recovery from a small break LOCA. The pump was qualified by analysis and the associated motor was qualified by testing and analysis.

Qualification testing of the motor was performed as reported by Westinghouse in Eouipment Qualification Test Report on Vertical TEFC Motors for S. Texas RHR pumps, No. WCAP-11216, Rev. O, dated August 12, 1986. A sine sweep resonance search test was performed which found resonances for all three directions to be higher than 33 Hz. Single axis sine dwell tests were performed in each of the three directions at the 0.42 g level. Two vertical tests and five horizontal tests for each of the horizontal directions were run. The simulated motor enclosure buckled during testing; however, this anomaly was determined to be a test fixture design problem and not associated with qualification of the test specimen.

The pump was qualified by analysis. A modal analysis to determine resonances is reported in Pacific Pumps report 8x24 RHR pumo Design Calculations, No. K-443, Rev. O, dated January 6, 1978. The above report also included a one dimensional (horizontal) response spectrum analysis.

Vertical seismic loads, nozzle loads and operating loads were added absolutely with the horizontal seismic loads. Stresses were within ASME Code allowables and actual clearances were greater than calculated

• deflections.

A static hand calculation was performed on pump seal cooler. This is reported in Pacific Pumps report Nuclear Service pumo Seal Cooler Design Analvsis Report, No. K-475, Rev. O, dated July 26, 1977. Calculated stresses were less than ASME Code allowables.

18

1 I

i In addition to the motor testing, Mcdonald Engineering Company performed an analysis on the motor reported in Seismic Stress Analysis of In-Containment RHR Pump Motor, No. ME-365, Rev. 1, dated July 8, 1977. z This was 2-dimensional finite element analysis. A dynamic analysis

• calculated natural frequencies greater than 45 Hz and a static analysis was used to calculate maximum stresses. Loadings used were 3 g horizontal and 2 g vertical for SSE accelerations. Stresses were within allowables. f During inspection of the field installation leaking of the seal l i

coolant water was noted. This was explained to be a result of in-process l work governed by SWR 10168. It is also being tracked via MCL #078420.

I i

Based on observation of the field installation, review of the qualification documents, and the applicant's response to questions, the residual heat removal pump (along with the associated motor) is qualified  ;

for the prescribed loads.

2.12 Refuelling Water Purification pump (NSSS-13)

The refuelling water purification pump (Model No. 3065 Size A50, Tag.

No. 9R211NPA103A) was manufactured and suoplied by Crane Deming according  !

1 to purchase order no. 546-AAG-248010-BE (Base), and 546-CAG-248011 l (project). The design specifications are in Nos. 678910, Rev. 1 (pumps in general), 677474, Rev. 0 (motor in general), and 952576, Rev. 1 (specific pump and motor). It was located in room M064 at the 10-ft elevation of I the MAB. It was mounted on the floor with four 5/8 inch diameter A-307 bolts. This is a passive pump in the spent fuel system. Its safety function is to maintain the pressure boundary.

The seismic qualification of the unit is based on analysis performed by Mcdonald Engineering Analysis Company as detailed in the report:

Certified Seismic Analysis Report, No. ME-369, Rev. O, dated January 7, 1977 and reviewed by Westinghouse.

19

The refuelling water purification pump was a surprise item specifically chosen to assess the time required for recovery of a complete documentation package. The documentation was, therefore, only examined 4 for completeness. It appeared complete, and the time taken to retrieve it was reasonable. .

2.13 Thermocouple Reference Junction Box (NSSS-14)

• The thermocouple reference junction box (Model No. WX-34794, Tag No.

4Z131ETB0002) was manufactured and supplied by Westinghouse according to design specification no. 955521, Rev. 3, dated February 18, 1982. The generic and specific purchase order numbers of the item are:

546-GLJ-506080-BN dated July 17, 1984 and 546-GLJ-508429-BN dated August 2, 1984 respectively. It was located in room C305 at the 43-ft elevation of the reactor containment building. The unit was wall mounted with four 1/2 inch bolts on the upper side and two 3/4 inch bolts on the lower side. It is a part of the incore instrumentation system and monitors core exit temperature for reactor vessel level instrumentation and core subcooling. This is a TMI-based modification. Seismic loads are considered in the qualification.

The qualification of this thermocouple reference junction box is based on the tests performed on a similar one (Model No. WX-3a794A). The details of the tests are in the reports: Equipment Qualification Test Report--Incore Thermocouple Reference Junction Box (Seismic &

Environmental Testing},, No. WCAP-8687, Supplement 2-E44A, Rev. O, dated December 1984 and Eouipment Qualification Data Package--Incore J Thermocouple Reference Junction Box, No. WCAP-8587, EQDP-ESE-44A, Rev. O, dated December 1984, prepared and reviewed by Westinghouse. l

- \

l The laboratory mounting consisted of two brackets each having two 1/2 ,

inch 304 stainless steel bolts on top side and one 3/4 inch bolt on the l bottom side attaching it to a rigid test fixture. This simulates the I field mounting adequately. A multi-axis sine sweep from 1 to 50 to 1 Hz at one octave per minute with a magnitude of 0.2 g was performed for .

resonance. None was detected below 33 Hz. Subsequently, a qualification I

20 l 1

. test series with pseudo-triaxial input was performed with sine beat

' input. TR$ were generated for each case and compared to a generic RRS.

The TRS adequately enveloped the geteric RRS and the generic RRS enveloped the South Texas RRS for'the location. The ZPA for the TRS exceeded the: .;

ZPA for the RRS. There were a total of five OBE and five SSE level tests l performed. Sequential testing was performed. Operability was verified.

In response to a question about the tested and field models, the applicant

, stated that there was no difference between the two as "A" denoted the first train in the test set-up.

The field walkdown detected two problems. They are:

1. There was no identification on the unit, and i

2. The junction box. cover was open. It was supposed to be closed _

and maintained pressure tight. 1 i

In response to these questions -the applicant responded in writing that '

identification tag would be put on and the junction box was open due to  ;

work being. performed for replacing certain missing parts. Further, that.

these would be tracked by MCLs (master completion list) nos. 82450 and

)

79108 respectively. These are being tracked and would be taken care of l when the program is complete. This is satisfactory.

Based on our observation of the field installation, review of the qualification documents and the responses to our questions, the thermocouple reference junction box is adequately qualified for seismic loads for 20 years at South Texas project.

i 4

I 5

l 21

3. BALANCE OF PLANT (BOP) 3.1 Isolation / Termination Cabinet (BOP-1)

The isolation / termination cabinet (Model No. 01150-1, Tag No.

4Z551ZLP660A-02) was manufactured and supplied by Energy Incorporated ,

according to purchase specification no. 4Z559ZS1049, Rev. 4, dated January 28, 1986 of purchase order no. 14926-4331, Rev. 4, dated -

January 4, 1985. It was located at the 35 ft elevation of the electrical l auxiliary building. The floor mounting consisted of 1/4 inch fillet welds, 2-1/2 inches long at eighc places. It was in the vertical position. It is a part of the AM02 system. Its function is to provide 1E to non-1E digital and analog signal conversion while maintaining isolation and separation. Its failure will imply the loss of the primary safety parameter display system (SPDS). There are four channels and each channel is in a different bay. Seismic loads are considered in its qualification.

The qualification of this unit is based on a combination of test and analysis. However, the testing was limited to a generic cabinet of the same general shape (but different size members) for resonances only. This was used for verification of analytical model of the generic cabinet. It was done to gain some confidence in the modelling of similar cabinets.

The details of the resonance search on the generic cabinet are in the report: Vibration Test on One Isolator Termination Cabinet, No. 58880, Rev. O, dated October 31, 1983. In reality, the seismic qualification of the isolation / termination cabinet (excluding internals, as they are qualified separately) in the field at South Texas Project Unit 1 is based on analysis alone, the details of which are in the report: Energy Incorporated Calculation, No. EIP-1-805, Rev. O, dated June 11, 1984. The separate qualifications of the internals, i.e., isolator chassis assembly and IE power supply are given in the reports: Seismic Testing of IE__

Isolator Chassis Assembly Part No. 00645 (pROTO), No. 58729, Rev. C, dated May 26, 1982 and Seismic Testing of Two power Supplies, No. 58955, dated August 20, 1984 prepared by Wyle Laboratories and reviewed by Energy Incorporated and Bechtel. All these above reports are part of an overall report: Seismic Qualification Report for Engineered Safety Isolation 22 j

Devices, No.,STP-072, Rev. 2,-dated March 7, 1985. prepared by Energy Incorporated and reviewed by.Bechtel. Energy Corporation. 9 The cabinet'is qualified based on analysis performed.by' Energy Incorporated. A three dimensional finite element model of the: cabinet was

. ' created. The model consisted of beams, plates and springs. The calculated fundamental frequencies for this model were:

s/s f/b v 41.6 Hz 40.3 Hz 59.4 Hz.

Due to the above calculated frequencies,:this cabinet was. judged to be-rigid. A response spectrum analysis, using location response spectra, was then performed for stresses. .The dynamic analysis used the frequencies of 40.3,.41.6, 59.4, 69.2, 80.4, 97.8, 106.1, 176.8, 179.7 and 198.8 Hz'in the stress calculations. The resulting stresses and deflections are as follows.

Total Calculated Allowable Source Stresses Stresses of Identification Location loads (psi) (psi) Allowables Axial stress base SSE 919 18,500 AISC

-Bending element SSE 775 27,'600 AISC Shear mounting SSE 357 400 manufacturer bolts requirements Tension mounting SSE 1262 1,700 manufacturer bolts requirements Deflection top of SSE 0.018 in. 1.0 in. spacing cabinet between cabinets Further, based on the frequency analysis, the internals were-then tested to the location spectra assuming no amplification through the cabinet.

23

l The following question arose'in the. course of the review of this cabinet and its internals.

- The functional. requirement needed a prevailing temperature of 900 F whereas the location environment was to be at 1040F. On:

inquiry, the applicant's response included the removal of the -

incompatibility and providing evidence (document no. 4331-00153-CZY) that the unit was.indeed qualified for the environment of 104 F. 0

• This is satisfactory.

In response to the question as to why Emergency Response Facilities Data Acquisition Display System (ERF-DADS) was not a safety related item, the applicant stated the following. That the.

' Safety. Parameter Display System (SPDS) implemented on the South Texas i

Project as the ERF-DADS was used as an aid to the operator in transient and accident conditions, as required by NUREG-0737 and 0696. The Qualified Display Processing System (QDPS) was the safety-related, qualified system upon which R.G. 1.97 variables are .

displayed. This is used as the primary means of indication. referenced by the Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPS). Thus the ERF-DADS met the regulatory function of aiding the operator as a nonsafety device. This is satisfactory.

The qualification of the internals is based on the premise of the cabinet being rigid since no magnification through the cabinet is assumed. However, no direct substantiation of this assumption is provided. Only analytical frequency calculation based on mathematical model is made. The model-is not authenticated.

Based on our observation of the field installation, review of the

~

qualification documentation and responses to our inquiries, the isolation / termination cabinet is qualified for STP application pending resolution of the issue of substantiation of the assumption of no I magnification through the cabinet.  !

24

l 3.2 24-Inch Butterfly Motor Operated Valve (80P-2)

The 24-in. motor operated butterfly valve was manufactured and supplied by Rockwell International to purchase specification no.

2L529TS103, Rev. D. There are nine of these valves in the various safety i systems. The worst one with respect to seismic loading is located in the mechanical auxiliary building at elevation 28 feet 9 inches. Its safety

, function is to isolate a component cooling water (CCW) individual train l from a common header. There are three CCW trains for safe shutdown.

l The valve was qualified using a combination of test and analysis.

Testing was performed on 8 and 18 inches butterfly valve assemblies and a similarity analysis was used to qualify the 24-in. valve being audited.

The model testing is documented in Dynamic Evaluation Test program on an 8" Butterfly and an 18" Butterfly Valve Assembly, No. 45116-1 dated July 23, 1980. The field and test mounting were the same. It used 20, i 1-1/4", SA-320 GR. L7 bolts. Resonances for the 18-in. valve were found 1

to be 58.4 Hz (s/s), 51.9 Hz (f/b), and 51.9 Hz (v) using single axis sine !

sweep tests. A static deflection test for the 18-in. valve was documented in a test report by Hills McCanna Product Development Testing titled 18" L151-CI-Z-S6 Butterfly Valve with limitoroue Actuator Model SMB-00-15-H3BC (Aopendix D of OR-65407-36), No. 1042-BFV51 dated September 22, 1981.

This consisted of an 8.07 g resultant static load applied at the actuator

{

C.G. in addition to other loads. In addition, the Acton Company performed j pseudo biaxial, both random and sine dwell vibration testing on the )l actuator. Four tests were performed at the SSE level of 6.0 g. This j testing was more than equivalent to five OBE and one SSE. The Acton report is Seismic Vibration Testing of Limitorque SMB-1/H3BC Actuators, No. 14801-1, Rev. 1, dated June 11, 1979.

The analysis portion, wnich includes the similarity analysis and demonstrates structural integrity, is reported in a Rockwell International Report, Design Report-65407-36, No. OR-65407-36, Rev. A, dated November 13, 1981.

25

Based on observation of the field installation, review of the qualification documents, and the applicant's response to questions the 24-in. butterfly valve motor operated is adequately qualified for the  !

prescribed loads, i

3.3 Centrifugal Water Chiller (BOP-3) .

The centrifugal water chiller (Model No. HTH4B1-BBCS, Tag No.

3V111VCH003) was supplied by York, Borg-Warner Corporation according to purchase specification no. 3V249VS0004, Rev. 1, dated September 9, 1985 of purchase order no. 35-1197-4102. It was located at the 10 ft elevation of the MEAB. It was floor mounted with 30 1 inch A193 Gr. B7 bolts. This electrical auxiliary building chiller is a part of the essential chilled ,

water system. It provides chilled water to safety class air handling unit  !

(AHU). Loss of chilled water to AHU would result in failure of maintaining the required temperature.

The South Texas Project (STP) water chiller is qualified based on a combination of test and analysis. The tests were performed on a dynamically similar chiller (Model HTJ3B2-BCBS). The details of the qualification of this unit are discussed in the following reports.

1. Report No. 20109.2- prepared by Farwell and Hendricks, Inc.

(F&H). This is an overall qualification report prepared by Farwell and Hendricks Inc., who reviewed and verified the adequacy of the total qualification and documentation. To verify that the test response spectra (compared to a generic RRS) were adequate for STP requirements, F&H performed an in-situ resonance search test on the water chiller. The lowest frequency was shown to be 36.1 Hz. This showed that it was l relatively rigid and therefore, the floor response spectra could be used for testing devices mounted on the chiller unit. The details of this test are in the report given below. .

1

2. Modal Data Report on a York Division Borg-Warner Corp. Safety {

Caiss Refrigeration Units Model #HTH4B1-BBCS, No'. 20109.3, Rev. O, dated l November 5, 1985. In order to establish the adequacy of the qualification l F&H also reviewed the following reports.

26 l 1

i

3. Seismic Simulation Test Program on a Centrifugal Liquid Chiller, No. 43841-2, Rev. A, dated August 22, 1979, prepared by Wyle Laboratories. This had a cover report entitled: Safety Class Refrigeration Units, York Model HTH481-BBCS-R11 Hermatic Turbopak Centrifugal Liquid Chilling Unit, No. STP-2 dated February 11, 1980, prepared by York, Division Borg-Warner Corp. This documented the test of the similar chiller assembly and qualified 15 out of 48 devices.

4. Qualification Test Report for 18 Electrical Components for Centrifugal Chiller Units, No. 44144-1, Rev. A, dated November 20, 1978, prepared by Wyle Laboratories. This had a cover report entitled:

Nuclear Environmental and Seismic Qualification Test Report for 18 Electrical Devices, No. STP-3, dated February 11, 1980, prepared by-York, Borg-Warner Corp. This qualified a total of 4 devices used at STP.

l

5. Seismic Simulation Test Program on Two Differential (Flow)

Pressure Switches, No. 44144-2, dated December 12, 1978, prepared by Wyle l i

Laboratories. This had a cover report entitled: Seismic Qualification Test Report on Two Differential Pressure Switches, No. STP-4, dated February 11, 1980, prepared by York, Borg-Warner Corporation. This was a retest for the switches which were modified after the test, described in report no. 44144-1, resulted in unacceptable level of contact chatter.

6. Seismic Simulation Test Program on an Electronic Control Panel l and Auxiliary Panel, no. 44568-1, Rev. A, dated August 24, 1979, prepared by Wyle Laboratories and reviewed by Bechtel Energy Corporation and i Farwell and Hendricks, Inc. This had a cover report: Seismic Qualification Test Report on an Electronic Control Panel and Auxiliary Panel, No. STP-5, dated February 11, 1980. This test qualified 27 devices.

The chiller was tested at Wyle Laboratories as described in report 3 above. The test mounting was equivalent to the field mounting. There were five OBE and one SSE level tests performed. The inputs were random and independent biaxial. TRS were generated using two percent damping in 27

each case and compared to RRS with the same damping. Enveloping was adequate. Structural integrity and operability were verified. Sequential testing was performed. The required accelerations (ZPA) in each direction were:

s/s f/b v .

OBE 0.085 g 0.075 g 0.15 g SSE 0.17 g 0.15 g 0.25 g.

• The ZPA of the TRS exceeds these values. There were additional in-situ testing for resonances performed in the field by Farwell and Hendricks, Inc. The resonances detected were: )

s/s f/b v 36.1 Hz 36.3 Hz 56.9 Hz.

This indicated that the unit was rigid. Based on this, the devices mounted on it were qualified separately to the base spectra in four j

separate tests. They were qualified in groups of 25, 4, 2 end 27 '

respectively. There were some anomalies detected during these tests.

However, they were all resolved. The resolution in each case was satisfactory:. The unit is qualified for 40 years based on replacement of limited li'e components when required The anomaly of the switches when subjected to 25.4 psig was I acceptable because the operating pressure at STP is only 18.9 psig.

Based on the observation of the field installation, review of 1 qualification documentation and responses of the applicant to our )

questions, the centrifugal water chiller is adequately qualified for STP

~

site. i 28

3.4 Isolation Relay Panel (80P-4)

The isolation relay panel was supplied by Mercu"y Company of Norwood according to purchase spec. SE259ES1082, Rev. 5. One of these panels is located in each of 16 safety systems. The worst one with respect to seismic loading was chosen to be the mechanical & electrical auxiliary  !

. building (MEAB) at the 10 feet elevation. The intended safety function is to provide means to supply cooling water to the steam generator and provide emergency core cooling following a LOCA.

The panel itself was qualified by a combination of test and analysis. Structural integrity was demonstrated by analysis in the report by Nuclear Qualification Services (NQS) entitled Seismic Qualification of the Mercury Company Isolation Relay Panels, No. 1240-2, Rev. 3, dated September 21, 1985. This analysis was a combination of static and response spectra loading. The lowest natural frequency was calculated to be 21.4 Hz and stresses were very low (<2000 psi). Another analysis was performed by Bechtel and reported in Supplementary Seismic Qualification Report for Mercury Panel (P.O.s 4366 and 4367), No. S-4366-1, Rev. O, dated November 1986. In this analysis the NQS report 1240-2 model was l

refined and a time history analysis was performed to generate in-cabinet response snectra used to determine test levels for separate cabinet devices testing.

The various cabinet devices were tested separately. Four test programs were used to qualify the devices. Those tests and results are described in the following reports:

1

1. Farwell and Hendricks, Inc., Seismic Qualification Report on

. Auxiliary Relay, Auxiliary Shutdown, Isolation Relay, and Transfer Switch Panel Components, No. 10299, Rev. 1, June 8, 1985.

2. Franklin Research Center, Qualification Test of Terminal and Fuse Blocks, No. F-C5143, July 17, 1980 and Patel Engineers, Final Assessment Report of Buchanan Type 358 Fused Disconnect Switches, No. l PEI-TR-843201-5, Rev. B, June 26, 1985.

29

3. General Electric Company, Qualific.ation Report for CR151B Terminal Boards, November 19, 1981.

4. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Seismic Test of Westinghouse )

Beaver Breakers, No. XAL72133, March 1978 and Patel Engineers, Final Assessment Report of Westinghouse Type HFB (for D.P.) and Type EHB (for -

E.P.) Circuit Breakers, Nos. PEI-TR-843201-9 and PEI-TR-843E01-8, Rev. A, June 27, 1986.

Test Details (of above reports)

1. The Farwell and Hendricks tests were triaxial, random input, j and phase incoherent. TRS enveloped RRS and no anomalies occurred.

Structural integrity and operability were verified for the components tested. Five OBE and one SSE tests were run.

2, The Franklin tests were random input, pseudo biaxial, phase coherent. TRS enveloped RRS and no anomalies occurred. The tested components included a Buchanan Type 0351 switch whereas the field installation was type 358. The Franklin tests verified the structural integrity and operability of the components tested and the Patel Engineers report qualified the Buchanan Type 358 switch by similarity to the tested Type 0351 switch.

3. The General Electric tests qualified the CR151B terminal boards for structural integrity and operability. The tests were random input single axis tests for which the TRS enveloped the RRS by a large margin.

4. The Westinghouse tests on the Beaver Breakers included both pseudo, randem, triaxial and sine sweep testing. The sine sweep tests were 1 Hz to 35 Hz at 0.5 g peak and the random input testing included '

four low level (OBE) and 13 high level (SSE) tests. Structural integrity _l and operability of the breakers were verified.  !

30 L__._ _._ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _

Based on'the' observation of the; field installation, review of the.

qualification documents,-and the applicant's respon'se to questions the isolation relay panel and its components'are qualified for the prescribed loads.

. 3.5 Safety Class Air Handling Unit (BOP-5)

• The safety class air handling unit (Tag No. 3V121VAH012) was supplied by American Air Filter and the motor was. supplied by; Reliance Electric.

The unit was mounted to a grid floor at the -13 ft elevation in the. fuel handling building. The safety' function of'the air handling' unit is to maintain cubicle design temperature.

The air _ handling unit was. qualified by a combination of test-and analysis. 'The seismic testing of the motor is' discussed in Acton-Environmental Testing Corporation' report 14263 (and revisions..and.

addenda), Report of a Test for Seismic Vibration Testing of One-3 HP_  ;

Reliance Motor fo'r Reliance Electric Co., dated May 10, 1979. The motor

'was bolted to a test fixture which was securely attached to a 45. degree.

biaxial test table. A 0.4 g biaxial resonance search survey was performed' from 1 Hz to 35 Hz with a sweep rate of one octave / minute. The tests were .

run with the vertical direction combined with each horizontal. direction ]

separately. No resonances were identified. Biaxial multifrequency qualification tests were run using 14 different sine beats which were 3 recorded with a 14 channel tape recorder. The 14' channels were then mixed and input to the test table. The TRS enveloped the RRS for all .of the qualification tests. The damping was 5 percent. Five OBE and one SSE. j test were run in each of four biaxial orientations. Some' anomalies occurred during the testing. The RRS for OBE and SSE were lowered and the testing was repeated as reported in Acton. Environmental Testing Corporation report 17125-82N, Rev. 1, Seismic Vibration Testing of One 3 l HP Reliance Motor for Reliance Electric Co., dated January 18, 1984. The TRS enveloped the RRS for all tests and.no anomalies occurred. The motor was operated during the tests.

i 31 l

The RRS specified for the air handling unit were at the floor elevation near the unit. However, the unit is. mounted on a grid structure above the floor. The-TRS peak was greater than the floor RRS peak by a factor of 18.2 for OBE and 16.3 for SSE. The maximum amplification possible for-5% damping is 10. -Therefore, a significant margin exists.

Also, no resonances below 32 Hz were observed. The ratio of TRS to RRS ,

above 32 Hz is greater than 10. This procedure is not exactly correct because the. shape of the spectrum on the grid structure may be quite .

.different from the shape of floor spectrum. But since the unit is rigid the method.is adequate.

The fan and housing were qualified by a type' test of.a similar but larger unit (South Texas Plant Tag No. 3V102VAH018). The testing is discussed in Wyle Laboratories Test Report No. 47374-1, Rev. A, Seismic-Simulation Test Report for American Air Filter, January 12, 1985. A 0.2 g resonance search identified modes at about 14 Hz and 20 Hz.

Multifrequency biaxial random motion input was applied to the table. The-specimen was bolted to a test fixture which was welded to the table. Five OBE and one SSE tests were run with all TRS enveloping the RRS. The damping was 5 percent. No anomalies occurred during the testing.

The air handling unit included an integral nozzle support bracket for the attached piping. The above report specified the piping loads applied to the bracket. However, this bracket was not used in the' South Texas Plant. The piping was supported by a bracket Rttached to the grid structure instead. Differential motion between the air handling unit and the support bracket was possible. Therefore, Bechtel performed a piping analysis to demonstrate that the piping loads can be supported by the pipe to coil connection. This analysis is contained in Bechtel calculation 3 sheet no. S-4315-2 for the South Texas Project, Cooling Coil Nozzle Load Analysis, dated December 10, 1986. All loadings on the nozzle were -

applied simultaneously. The piping stresses were combined using the

-]

equations of the ASME Code. All stresses were below the allowable values. _ .!

I i

32 1 i

-i

h# ' -

M ,' .-

~

?

The qualified life of the air handling unit was 40 years plus 30 days. No necessary maintenance was specified. It was asked if the bearings had to be changed out at a specified time. The response was that vibration monitoring of all rotating equipment in the plant was done every six weeks. If an upward trend of vibration was observed then monitoring

. was done more often. The bearings may then be replaced but there is no specified bearing life.

i Based on the observation of the field installation, review of the qualification documents, and the applicant's response to questions, the safety class air handling unit is adequately qualified for the prescribed loads.

3.6 Steam Generator Main Steam Safety Valve (B0p 6)

The steam generator main steam safety valve, supplied by Dresser Industries (Model No. 3707RA), is located in the isolation valve cubicle at the 55 feet 6 inches elevation. The valve provides overpressure protection for the steam generator.

The valve was qualified by a combination of test and analysis.

Resonance search and required input motion tests performed are contained in Wyle Laboratories report 47609-3, Seismic Simulation Test Report for a Dresser Mode,1 3707RA Safety Valve, dated July 24, 1985. The valve was mounted to a test table in a manner adequately simulating the field mounting. A 0.2 g singla axis sine sweep test from 1 to 50 and back to 1 Hz with a sweep rate.of 1 octave / minute was performed in each direction. Resonances were found at 30 Hz and 31 Hz. Large amplification factors, between 7 and 10, were recorded at the valve yoke. It was decided to reinforce the test fixture since resonances identified in the testing were for the whole system, not only for the specimen. Further resonance search testing was performed using a 30-lb exciter. The lowest mode found from this testing was 49.2 Hz. The additional testing was reported in Wy % Laboratories Test Procedure No. 541/2112/WB, Rev. C, Seismic Test procedure for a Model 3707RA Safety Valve for Dresser Industries, Apr'.1 23, 1984. A single axis required input motion test was performed for OBE using an input ac:eleration of 1.65 g in each direction.

33

\

~A' single axis' sine sweep qualification test from 2 Hz to 35 Hz to 2 Hz with a sweep rate of'1 octave / minute was performed. The test' table was not'able to" produce the required acceleration in the frequency range of 2'Hz to 6 Hz. Since the first mode is at'least 30 Hz the test table limitation had no effect on the conclusions drawn'from the test. A

~

biaxial. sine beat test from'1 Hz to 33 Hz at 1/3 octave points was performed for'SSE with 10 oscillations per beat or a duration of 30- .

seconds,'whichever was longer. Sine beats were also performed at 30 Hz and'31 Hz. The horizontal acceleration was 3.2 g and was combined'with a vertical acceleration of 2.4 g.

The operability of the valve was monitored during one OBE sine sweep.

test and during all single. frequency tests at the. resonances. The inlet pressure to the valve was ramped up to cause valve actuation during.the tests. Audible seat leakage which caused fluctuations in the' set pressure was detected after the OBE tests. This leakage was attributed to pits in the valve seat caused by impurities in tne. test fluid. After the seat was relapped the testing was resumed and successfully completed.

The valve was structurally analyzed for pressure boundary integrity as discussed'in Dresser Industries report SR-370-15, Rev. 3, Design Report for Consolidated 3707RA Safety Valve, dated March 21, 1986. All stresses were below the allowable from 1974 ASME Code,Section III, Class 2 (Winter 1975 Addendum).

The qualified life is 40 years plus 30 days. There are no age sensitive parts.

Based on the observation of the field installation, review of the qualification documents, and the applicant's response to questions, the ,

steam generator main steam safety valve is adequately qualified fo'r the prescribed loads. _

'34

i l

3.7 Single Module Termination cabinet (B0P-7)

The single module termination cabinet, custom built by Hatch, Inc.,

is located in the mechanical and electrical auxiliary building at the )

1 21-ft elevation. The cabinet provides and maintains electrical ccnnection  !

between field devices and the control room. l l

The cabinet was qualified by a combination of test and analysis. A triple module cabinet was tested as reported in Wyle Laboratories report 58386, Seismic Testing of One Triole Module Termination Cabinet Assembly 1 for Hatch Inc., dated March 9, 1979. The triple module cabinet was welded to the test table. The mounting of the triple module cabinet adequately simulated the mounting of the single module cabinet in the plant. A low ,

level (0.1 g) sine sweep was performed from 5 Hz to 25 Hz with a sweep rate of 1 octave / minute in the front -to-back direction. One natural j frequency was identified at 7 Hz. Biaxial qualification tests were 1 performed with each horizontal axis excited separately, each in 4 i

combination with a vertical excitation. The damping was 2 percent. Five '

OBE and one SSE tests were run with all TRS enveloping the RRS. The doors on the cabinet were open and closed during various tests. Open doors did not fall off and closed doors remained closed. No structural damage occurred. Aging was performed on the fuse blocks and terminal boards before the testing. Electrical continuity was maintained during the I tests.

A seismic analysis of the single module cabinet was presented in Wyle i Laboratories report 57676, Seismic Analysis of Single and Double Module Termination Cabinet Assemblies for Hatch, Inc., dated May 25, 1984. A finite element model of the cabinet was constructed. The first i .

front-to-back mode was 8.3 Hz which matched the triple module test results quite well. The second and third modes of the single module cabinet were l

10.77 Hz (twisting of the cabinet) and 15.93 Hz (side-to-side vibration).

Neither of these modes were present in the triple module cabinet. These results appeared to be reasonable.

l Stresses were found from a response spectrum analysis using spectra 35

l generated for OBE and SSE using 2 and 3 percent damping, respectively.

1 Spectra were applied to the model in all three directions simultaneously.

The stresses caused by seismic loading were-combined with stresses from dead weight by square root of sum of squares. The allowable stresses for A36 steel were taken as 0.9 Sy (yield stress) for the SSE (32,400 psi) and 0.6 Sy 'for the OBE (21,600 psi). The highest stresses in the -

cabinet were 30,030 psi and 20,350 poi for SSE and OBE, respectively. The highest stresses in the cable support elements were 34,820 psi and 22,470

• psi, respectively. These stresses are 5.8 and 4.0 percent above the allowables. However, the response spectra used in the analysis was for a-higher elevation in the building than the actual cabinet location so they most probably.have higher acceleration values. Also, the cable support elements are actually connected to the shelf in the cabinet and also to the outer sheet metal of the cabinet. The sheet metal is not included in the model and hence the additional stiffness of the cable support elements could not be included. Therefore, the stresses in the cable support elements were considered satisfactory.

Based on the observation of the field installation, review of the qualification documents, and the applicant's response to questions, the single module termination cabinet is adequately qualified for the prescribed loads.

3.8 Reactor Coolant Hot Leo Sample Isolation Valve (BOP-8)

The reactor coolant hot leg sample isolation valve and actuator j supplied by WKM (Model No. 70-18-9), are located in the mechanical auxiliary building at the 29-ft elevation. The valve provides containment isolation.

The qualification of the valve and actuator was performed by required

• input motion (RIM) testing as discussed in Farwell and Hendricks, Inc. _

report- 10282.8, Rev. 1, Seismic Otalification Report by RIM Testing--ASME Section III Control Valves Identified on Data Sheets 18 and 19 of Control Document 4Z019244712, Rev. 5, dated April 21, 1986. The WKM valve to be i tested was supplied with 5-1/2 inch of pipe welded to each end. These  !

pipe stubs were then welded to lin. thick steel plates. These plates were 36 .

j l

attached to'special fixtures which allowed nozzle loads to be applied to the valve during the testing. The plates were then welded.to a test fixture . The test fixture was then welded to the test table. The valve i was also pressurized to 2200 psi prior to testing. This pressure was a little less than the specified operating pressure of.2485 psi as the test pressure supply was not capable of providing any higher pressure. South j Texas Plant personnel also found that the actual maximum operating

. pressure should have been 2235 psi. Therefore, the test pressure was satisfactory.

}

1 Resonance search tests (0.2 g) were run in each principal direction from i Hz to 50 Hz with a sweep rate of 2 octaves / minute with the valve j open and also with the valve closed. Natural frequencies were identified at 9.3 Hz and 19 Hz. OBE qualification tests in each of the three principal directions were performed using 0.75 g sine sweeps from 2 Hz to j 35 Hz with a sweep rate of 1 octave / minute. The valve was tested in bnth the open and closed positions. SSE qualification tests were run by l subjecting the valve to sine beats from 1 Hz to 35 Hz at 1/3 octave j intervals and also at all natural frequencies identified in the resonance I l search testing. The sine beats consisted of 10 cycles / beat. The tests l were allowed to run for a minimum of five beats and at least 15 seconds of i table motion. During each SSE test the valve was stroked to show that it remained functional. The NAMC0 limit switches and the ASCO solenoid were also shown to be functional during seismic motion. Some screws became loose during the testing and the report recommended a post seismic maintenance check. Modifications to the valve to prevent the loosening of these screws was also discussed.

The reviewer asked South Texas Plant personnel if the post seismic

)

check of the screws was included in the maintenance book. That particular i 1

. valve was not yet included in the book but the plant has an ongoing 1 program to include all seismic and environmental requirements in the maintenance book. Further search by South Texas personnel showed that the l

modifications discussed in the above report had been completed.

l I l

37

l 1

Bechtel has identified that nozzle loads present on this valve exceed those used in the testing. Bechtel has a program in place that requires verification that the end loads on the valves do not invalidate the valve qualification. If the loads exceed the allowable limits, additional analysis or testing may be required. Confirmation of the completion of this program has been identified as'a generic issue as a result of the . i seismic qualification review at the South Texas Plant.

The qualified life of the valve is 40 years plus 30 days. The NAMCO limit switch life is 20.5 years.

Based on the observation of the field installation, review of the qualification documents., and the applicant's response to quescions, the reactor coolant hot leg sample isolation valve is adequately qualified for the prescribed loads pending confirmation of the end loads applied to the valve. ,

3.9 Reactor Makeup Water Pumo (BOP-10)

The reactor makeup water pump, supplied by Hayward Tyler Pump Company I (Model No. N3-3X4X8) is located in the MEAB building at 10 feet elevation. It was purchased to specification no. 3Q089NS0001, Rev. 1 and SCN #2, SCN #3. Its safety function is to provide a seismic category I source of maka.up water to the component cooling water surge tank and the spent fuel pool cooling system.

The pump was aualified by analysis in Hayward Tyler Pump Company l report Seismic Analysis Report, no. 01-007-021, Rev. A, September 5, 1984. The pump was modeled using beams. For pump frequency the pump was  ;

modeled as a cantilever. For shaft analysis, the shaft was modeled as a simple beam. The pump natural frequencies were found to be greater than 33 Hz in each of the three orthogonal axes. The pump was analyzed ,

statically using accelerations in each of the three directions greater than the absolute sum of the required accelerations for all three ,

directions. l 1

1 38 i l

i Stresses were found to be less than allowables and deflections were l small enough to preclude shaft binding and pump-motor coupling misalignment.

Based on observation of the field installation, review of the qualification documents, and the applicant's response to questions the reactor makeup water pump is qualified for the prescribed loads.

3.10 Instrument Control Room Panel.(B0P-11)

The instrument control room panol CP003 (no Model Number, Tag No.

5Z341ZCP003) was supplied by Spang according to equipment specification no. 3Z349ZS0120, Rev. 9, SCN No. 13 .and 14 of perchase order no 14926-4304, Rev. 2, dated February 23, 1983. It was located at the 35 ft l elevation of the mechanical electrical auxiliary building. The floor mounting in the field consisted of 3/16 inch size, 2-1/4 inches long at 7.0 inches centers, E70XX welds. For the mounting of the devices on the panel, manufacture's instructions were followed. This is a part of the diesel generator system which monitors and controls the stanoby diesel generators. Seismic loads are considered in its qualification.

The qualification of this unit is based on a combination of test and analysis. Panel structural integrity qualification and the generation of l in-cabinet spectra for devices qualification are based on.two analyses.

They are described in the reports: Seismic Qualification of Main Control Panel CP003, No. Q84-001, Rev. B, dated May 29, 1984 and Multi-Bay Seismic Analysis of Main Control Panels CP001 Through CP003, No. Q84-002, Rev. A, dated October 12, 1984. Both of these reports are prepared by Q-TECH Engineering Inc. and reviewed by Bechtel Energy Corporation. In the first analysis, a three-dimensional finite element model of the CP003 panel  ;

. alone is used. Beams, plates and trusses co.' prise the model. It is hinged at the weld between the A-frames and floor beams. E3 SAP, a l

~

Boeing Services computer code is used in the analysis. This is a response f spectra analysis for the structural integrity and in-panel spectra f generation. The second analysis, a coarser finite element model is made  !

and CP003 is modeled as assembled with panels CP001 and CP002. The 39 l

authentication of the model is based on the analysis and a resonance search test on a similar panel CP010 as documented in the following j reports.

1. Modal Survey on a Main Control Panel CP010, No. 46771-1, Rev. 8, dated October 25, 1983 prepared by Wyle Laboratories and reviewed , {

by Bechtel Energy Corporation.

. l

2. Finite Element Model--Natural Freauency Analysis of Modal Test Panel, No. Q85-026, Rev. A, dated January 20, 1984, prepared by Q-TECH ,

1 Engineering Inc. and reviewed by Bechtel Energy Corporation. I i

The analyses ana the test results for this panel (CP010) have reasonable agreement.

i The respense spectrum ; 'alysis for the CP003 panel alone, for its structural adequacy, had the lowest three frequencies of 25.7, 32.2 and 32.8 Hz. The coupled analysis had higher frequencies. The stresses calculated from the analysis were as follows:

Total Calculated Allowable Stresses Stresses Source of Identification Location Loads (ksi) (ksi) Allowables Tensile Bolts OL+SSE 1.19 3A7 AISC (A307) t

.Stiear Bolts DL+SSE 9.74 10.00 AISC The deflections were within allowables. Damping of 2 and 3 percent

{

respectively were used in CBE and SSE in each analysis. In-panel spectra were generated for each case for the devices. i i

From these generated spectra, it was noted that the maximum ,

i i

magnification at any device location did not exceed a ratio of 2.5.

Therefore, the devices were qualified to a generic spectra of three times  ;

the base spectra plus a margin of 10 percent. The base location ZPA was:

40

____R 1

i s/s f/b v OBE 0.13 g 0.13 g 0.15 g SSE- 0.25.g 0.25 g 0.25 g. i i

The devices were qualified separately by tests as described in the  ?

reports: Seismic 31mulation Test program on Safety Related Components for )

Main' Control panels, No'. 46770-1, dated June 24, 1985, and Seismic _

, Simulation Test Program on Safety Related Components for Main Control panels, No. 46770-2,- Rev. A,'ated d August 20, 1986.. These reports were' )

prepared by Wyle Laboratories and reviewed by Bechtel Energy Corporation.

In-these tests, the devices were mounted on test fixtures. A resonance search was done to determine the natural frequencies of the test fixture.-

It consisted of a single axia, 0.2 g with a sweep rate of one. octave per 'j minute from 1 Hz-to 50 Hz. input. It indicated a frequency of 28.Hz which f

had no impact on the devices. The subsequent qualific& tion consisted of, 1 l

independent triaxial tests with random inputs. The'ZPA were:

s/s _f/b v l OBE 1.1 9 1.0 g 1.1 g 1

SSE. 2.9 9 2.4 g 3.6 9 The devices were unaged. There were five OBE and one SSE level tests performed. . TRS were generated for each case. Dampings of two and five  :

1 percent were used in each case and compared to RRS with the same damping values. Enveloping'is adequate. Structural integrity as well as operability were verified. In this phase a 2175-ohm 7-watt resistor was wired in series with the lamp box rated for 28 volts. It did not light as i

the voltage was.not sufficient with a 125 VDC input. Procedure was revised '

to read " energize the circuit with 28 volts". The test was redone in the  !

second phase and.it-functioned properly. Phase II was a similar test and  !

1 was completed successfully. Most of the devices were qualified -in Phase I. Only two items were qualified in Phase II. There are two other device qualified, one each by GE certification no. 710-84-001 and Bussman report no. 470-7, Rev. B. I i

41

i l

.]

.The field. observation and'the review of the documentation generated

-l the following concerns.

1 g (a) There was no permanent identification tag on the unit. However, this item ir, on master completion list (MCL) no. 082781. Issue resolved.  !

I (b). Whether the ceiling of the room was seismically..quelified?. The applicant provided the necessary documentation to show that it was. Issue .

resolved.

'(5) The accept'ance criteria for magnification was. set at 2.5. In j some cases, magnification factor higher.than 2.5 was acceptable without l adequate justification. The issue was resolved based on satisfactory justification by the applicant at the time of.the audit. l (d) The safety related devices were qualified either based on separate tests or similarity to items tested. Similarity of all the devices in question has not been establi.shed yet. .However, this effort is in progress including the review of the total qualification package.

l (e) The qualified life of the limited life component has not yet i been established. This effort is also. .in progress. It is to be completed and the resulting requirement, if any, is to be incorporated in the maintenance and surveillance (M/S) program. 1 Based on.the observation of the field installation, review of the-qualification documentation and responses to our questions, the instrument control' room panel.is adequately qualified for STP pending resolution of the issues given above.

a 3.11 Class 1E Terminal Blocks (BOP-12) <

l The class 1E terminal blocks were supplied by the Marathon Company l with Model No. 1600 HUC. series. The purchase specification number is  ;

3E120ES1072. It is located in the mechanical auxiliary building at j i

i j

42

~1

the 29 feet elevation. Its safety function is to maintain circuit continuity. Failure would result in failure of the associated control '

circuit. l The blocks were qualified by testing performed by Wyle Laboratories.

The Wyle test report is Qualification Test Program for Terminal Blocks No.

45603-1, Rev. A, dated October 2, 1984. Testing consisted of a resonan:e

, search and random biaxial input testing for which the TRS enveloped a vendor generic RRS which was much greater than the South Texas Plant RRS.

Resonances were 15 Hz in each of the horizontal directions and 33 Hz in

]

the vertical. Required accelerations in each of the three directions'was {

0.3 g and .15 g for SSE and OBE respectively. Input level for random {

testing was 8 g and 4 g respectively. Tests included five OBE and one I SSE. No anomalies or failures occurred.

Based on observation of the field installation, review of the qualification document, and the applicant's response to questions the class 1E terminal blocks are qualified for the prescribed loads.

3.12 4-In.-900# Mark I Globe Valve (Bos-13) ,

The 4 inch - 900# mark I globe valve supplied by Valtek under specification no. 4Z439ZS1007, Rev. 8 was reviewed as a surprise item.

The review established that a complete qualification documentation package was in place but did not establish the merit of the qualification of the unit.

3 1

1 i

i I

\

l l

l 1

)

.)

d3 j i

__ - - - - I

4. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The review of the South Texas Project Nuclear. Generating Station, Unit 1 will be complete when the following open items are closed.

4.1 Generic Issues ,

i 4.1.1 The applicant.is to confirm the completion of the seismic -l qualification program with special emphasis on the in-progress or incomplete items.

4.1.2 The ccmoletion of verification of as-built loads for pumps and valves is to be confirmed.

4.2 Equipment Specific Issues 4.2.1 The review of the qualification document for the high head safety injection pump (NSSS-11) indicated that the report prepared by Nickerson Engineering was not reviewed by Westinghouse. Further, the details of the analysis and results were not in an auditable form within the time constraint cf a site review. The problem was discussed with the applicant.

Westinghouse will review the report and prepare an auditable summary. This summary will be forwarded to SQRT for review. This is an open issue.

4.2.2 The qualification of the isolation / termination cabinet (B0P-1) is bcssd on analysis. The analysis of this cabinet, reportedly, takes advantage of a resonance search test and analysis performed on another cabinet. This test cabinet wa: flexible. However, the isolation / termination cabinet at STP-is a modified and strengthened version of tne tested cabinet. The rigidity of the STP cabinet'was established through analysis.only. Neither a direct link between the field- >

cabinet and the model authenticated cabinet exists nor is the relative rigidity of the STP cabinet demonstrated independently by a test. All subsequent qualification and operability of'the internal devices are predicated on this cabinet being rigid.

Under the circumstance, the rigidity of the cabinet should be established and is required. This issue is open.

44

4.2.3 (a) The qualification review of the reactor coolant hot leg sample valve (B0P-8) indicated that the post seismic check of the screws found them loosened during the test. Modifications to the vs.lve to preclude the screws loosening were recommended. q Modifications have been made in the field. However, the

. maintenance requirements and confirmatory check to confirm that the screws remain tight after a seismic event is not yet j

~

incorporated in the surveillance and maintenance (M/S) manual.

The NRC should be informed that the requirements have been put in the M/S program.

(b) The as-built valve nozzlo loads exceed those used in the testing. However, this concern will be resolved under generic issue 2.

1 4.2.4 The review of the qualification for the instrument control room panel (BOP-11) indicates that the qualification and review of the j documents by the BOP vendor for the safety-related internal components is {

not complete. There are differences between devices tested and those installed and similarity for each piece has not yet been established. This I

deficiency may involve other panels. This also includes the evaluation of qualified life-span of limited life coinconents. Requalification efforts j are, however in progress. A satisfactory completion of these efforts including the incorporation of the resulting requirements in the M/S Program is required. This is confirmatory.. The confirmation should include a list of devices, if any, where a requalification was necessary.

4.3 Conclusion Based on our review, we conclude that, although the open issues need to be resolved, an appropriate qualification program has been defined and implemented for the seismic category I mechanical and electrical equipment which will provide reasonable assurance that such equipment will function-properly during and af ter the excitation due to the vibratory forces imposed by the safe shutdown earthquake in combination with normal operating loads.

45 l

l l

v s. NvC6 a muu.Trav couuiss oN i a tPoa r Nuuse a , Au.,a.n o, reoc .aa v No . ,< ,,.re

= geoc.u m ]

'"5*S[ BIBUOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET EGG-EA-7640 5th INSTRUCTIONS ON f E HEVtM54 J Lt AV E BL ANE

-4 Tit L t AND SU8ilTLE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT-1 SQRT REPORT . oAn anoni Co Puig wo~T. ,EAa l

, ,u, ,0, ,,,

March 1987 l e DAf E REPOr:TlasutD J. N. Singh, B. L. Harris, R. G. Rahl woNT-l vtAa May 1987

, 8 PROJECTiT AEK, WORK UN T NUMBER 7 P:tRPORMING ORC,A.,62 A f EON Naut AND MAILING ADORESS fJarsutele Coms l

EG&G Idaho, Inc. , ,,No G.A rNU..t. l P. O. Box 1625 Idaho Falls, ID 83415 A6415 i lie TvPt OF RtPONT 10 SPONSONING OHGANIZ ATION NAME AND M A' LING ADDRt3S itardv8e le Co887 I Division of Pressurized Water Reactor Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation *""'"""'"""'~'""" "

l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingten, D. C. 20555 12 $UPPL E MEN T AM, NOTil 1

o A..T Actan ,,,,,~,  ;

EG&G Idaho, Inc., is assisting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in evaluating Houston Lightinc & Power Company's program f?r dynamic qualification of safety related electrical and mechanical equipment for the South Texas Project Nuclear Generating I Station, Unit 1. Applicants are required to use test or analysis or a combination of both to qualify equipment, such that its safety function will be ensured during dnd after the dynamic event, and provide documentation. The review, when completed, l will indicate whether an appropriate qualification program has been defined and l implemented for seismic Category I mechanical and electrical eeuipnent which will provide reasonable assurance that such equipment will function properly during and after the excitation due to vibratory forces of the dynamic event.

Ds o. sc a.,, o s p,Aga. "Only 4

. . i ,.o l .. oocuo. 4 T A N A < , s..

- as specifically approved by NRC nrnnrm nm co

'6 SECi.,asTv CL AS5ssiC ATION t rewno o aN f-< as o"N eNoe o n==5 Unclassified 4Tnos encertl Unclassified o wu. a c. P. cts l

is Paics

-me