ML20206T902

Forwards Responses to Sqrt/Pump & Valve Operability Review Team (Pvort) 860723 Meeting Re Pvort Audit & FSAR

ML20206T902
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	09/23/1986
From:	Carey J DUQUESNE LIGHT CO.
To:	Harold Denton, Tam P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
2NRC-6-100, TAC-62895, TAC-62896, NUDOCS 8610070221
Download: ML20206T902 (28)

Text

e

$R

'Af 2NRC-6-100 Beaver Valley No. 2 Unit Project Organization S.E.G. Building Telecopy 2 Ext.160 P.O. Box 328 Sept. 23, 1986 6 Shippingport, PA 15077 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Mr. Peter Tam, Project Manager Division cf PWR Licensing - A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

3eaver Valley Power Station - Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-412 Seismic and Dynamic Qualification Program for Safety Related Equipment Gentlemen:

At the Seismic Qualification Review Team / Pump and Valve Operability Review Team (SQRT/PV0RT) premeeting on July 23, 1986, several questions relating to the BVPS-2 PVORT Audit and FSAR were received by the applicant. Please find enclosed Duquesne Light Company's responses to these questions.

Should you have any questions, please contact our Mr. E. T. Eilmann at 412/643-5200, extension 219.

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY By /'

J . J . C afey Senior Vice President TJZ/ lam NR/SRE Attachment '

, cc: Mr. P. Tam, Project Manager - w/ attachment Mr. G. Bagchi, Engineering Branch - w/ attachment Mr. C. Kido, EG&G Idaho - w/ attachment Mr. J. Singh, EG&G Idaho - w/ attachment l INP0 Records Center - w/ attachment NRC Document Control Desk - w/o/ attachment 8610070221 860923 0 l PDR ADOCK 05000412 A PDR l 1

United States Nuclear R:gulatory Commission Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Seismic and Dynamic Qualification Program for Safety Related Equipment Page 2 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA )

) SS:

COUNTY OF BEAVER )

On this dayfjMday of __ M N , /((4, before me, a Notary Public in and for said Commonweal 1Ih and County,' personally appeared J. J. Carey, who being duly sworn, deposed and said that (1) he is Senior Vice President of the Duquesne Light Company, (2) he is duly authorized to execute and file the foregoing Submittal on behalf of said Company, and (3) the state-ments setforth in the Submittal are true and correct to the best of his knowledge.

.I -

/ .

otaryfublic /

ELVA G. LESONCAK NOTARY PUBUC 110 BIN 50N TOWN 3 HIP, ALLEGHENY COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPlRES OCTOBER 20,1986

e FSAR QUESTION The following comments are the result of reviewing the Beaver Valley 2 FSAR (Amendment 11, January 1986).

1. The 80P active pumps and valves are listed in the PV0RT master list, but are not identified in the FSAR. The applicant shall list the B0P pumps and valves in the FSAR in a manner similar to Tables 3.9N-9 and -10 for NSSS equipment.

(See FSAR Section 3.o.B.3.2, page 3.9-10)

Response: The 80P active pumps and valves have been incorporated into the

" Seismic and Dynamic Qualification Program for Safety Related Equip-ment" Revision 1 as Attachments V and VI (ref, letter 2NRC-6-076).

FSAR QUESTION

2. _ Valves with operators having significant extended structures are qualified using static equivalent seismic loads. Valves without significant extended structure are qualified by the seismic analysis of the piping. The applicant shall describe the basis for assessing "significant extended structure". Provide examples of each method of qualification. (See FSAR Section 3.9.8.3.2.2, page 3.9.12).

Response: Valves with significant extended structures are defined as follows:

Those valves which are provided with additional and extended mass beyond the pressure boundary (or body) of the valve (i .e. motor operators, pneumatic and hydraulic actuators, etc.). The method of qualification for valves is analysis and static deflection testing.

However, full scale dynamic testing has been employed where practical.

Examples of each method of qualification shall be available at the seismic qualification review team (SQRT) and pump and valve oper-ability review team (PV0RT) site audit.

s l

i FSAR QUESTION

3. The FSAR indicates that the qualification of non-ASME and ASME Class 2/3 equipment is sumarized in Tables 3.98-4 and -12. (See Section 3.9B.2.2  !

page 3.9-6, Amendment 7, July 1984 and section 3.98.3.2.2, page 3.9-15, Amendment 10, May 1985). However, both tables have been deleted by Amendment 11, January 1986. The applicant shall amend the appropriate FSAR sections to address this discrepancy.

Response The FSAR tables 2.98-4 and 3.98-12 were deleted based on a convers-ation with the NRC on June 13, 1984. (Response to Questions 271.1, 271.2, 271.3 and 271.4).

The FSAR will be revised in the next amendment to delete the references to these tables.

4 FSAR QUESTION

4. Many of the preoperational tests in FSAR Table 3.98-1 are to be monitored visually rather than by calibrated instrumentation. Visual monitoring alone may not be adequate to detect subtle system responses that may differ from the responses predicted by qualification analysis. The applicant shall provide justification that the preoperational test results will validate the qualification of the systems, components, and supports. (See FSAR Section 2.98.2, Table 3.9.B-1 and NUREG-1057 Section 3.10.2).

Response: Table 3.98-1 refers to visual monitoring of piping systems only. In accordance with FSAR Section 3.98.3.2.1 (pump operability assurance program) instrumented monitoring of pumps is done to ensure vibration levels are maintained below manufacturer's requirements.

The responses to FSAR Questions 210.2, 210.21, 210.22, 210.23, 210.24 and 210.41 provide additional input in this area.

l

. I i FSAR QUESTION

5. The environmental qualification of the 80P pump motors is not specifically mentioned in FSAR 3.98.3.2.1, as compared to the B0P valve operator discussion in FSAR 3.98.3.2.2 item 5. The applicant shall amend the FSAR as needed to confirm that the operability qualification of each pump motor considered all environmental conditions over its qualified life (aging, radiation, accident environment, etc.). (See FSAR Section 3.98.3.2.1, page 3.9-10a and NUREG-1057 Section 3.10.2)

Response: This confirmation is provided in the environmental qualification program and documentation submitted separately. Response to FSAR question 270.2 and 270.3 provides additional information in this area.

The FSAR will be revised to include this information in the next amendment.

t

MASTER LIST QUESTIONS The following questions are the result of reviewing the Beaver Valley Master Equipment List. (Letter from Duquesne Light Company to P. Tam, Project Manager, Division of PWR Licenisng-A, NRR, USNRC, letter number 2 NRC-6-057, June 4, 1985.)

1. The status of the Master List is only 31% verified. The applicant shall submit a revised Master List which verifies that at least 85% of the equip-ment have been completely qualified and installed.

Response: A revised Master List was submitted to the NRC on August 4,1985.

This revised list indicated the equipment to be 91 percent qualified and ready for audit (A and B SQ status).

The following reiterates the discussion held at the July 23, 1986 pre-audit meeting on the use of the Equipment Master List (SQT-1).

SQ Status Seismic qualification status "A"; all qualification documentation is complete. Eight-five percent of the mark numbers are "A" status.

Seismic qualification status "B"; qualification is complete except resolution of minor items. If a piece of equipment is "B" status it may be chosen with the assurance that it will be "A" status at audit.

INS Status The installation status column is the status of the "as-installed" reconcilliation review. Any item of A, B or C status has been installed. For A and B status, reconcilliation of "as installed" with "as qualified" is complete. All "C" status items will be completed by audit. The total of A+B+C status is 85 percent. The reconcilliation status is 73 percent, l

l i

t

MASTER LIST QUESTIONS

2. The format of the Master List does not identify active versus nonactive equipment nor the sizes and types (butterfly, globe, gate, etc.) of safety-related valves. The applicant shall provide this information to enable the staff to select equipment for the audit.

Response: The DLC submittal on August 4,1986 revised the " Seismic and Dynamic Qualification Program for Safety Related Equipment" to include active pumps and valves in Attachment V and VI.

COMMENTS ON BEAVER VALLEY - 2 FSAR SECTIONS 3.7, 3.9, AND 3.10

1. On page 3.7-7 it states that " floors are treated as rigid diaphragms".

~ This may be nonconservative if equipment or piping supports are attached away from vertical supports such as walls or columns on what is really a flexible diaphragm which can amplify vertical seismic accelerations.

Response: The floors are not thin, long span, flexible elements. Refining the structure models to the floors as " secondary" systems is not necessary.

Treating floors as rigid diaphragms is consistent with state-of-the-art methods of analysis for this class of structures.

Additionally, there are -inherent conservatisms within the analysis procedures; artifical time histo the design response spectra, ( {)tes having spectra conservative whichofenvelop spreading the amplified response spectra, and conservative damping values (Ref.

2.3).

REFERENCES

1. NUREG/CR-1161, " Recommended Revisions to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seismic Design Data".

2. NUREG/LR-0098, " Development of Criteria for Seismic Review of Selected-Nuclear Power Plants".

3. NUREG/CR-1161, " Variability of dynamic Characteristics of Nuclear Power Plant Structures".

COMMENTS ON BEAVER VALLEY - 2 FSAR SECTIONS 3.7, 3.9, AND 3.10

2. In Paragraph 3.78.2.15.1 indications are that structural damping used in analyses was based on formulas from Biggs and Roesset et al. and the values up to 10% may have been used. The regulatory guide position (R.G. 1.61) is that test data is necessary to justify values greater than those specified in R.G. 1.61.

Response: The 10 percent damping was used for soil-structure interaction on BVPS-2, and is not addressed in R.G. 1.61.

FSAR Section 3.7B.2.15 presents the procedure used to evaluate the equivalent modal system damping for the combined soil-structure model. Regulatory Guide 1.61 presents viscous modal damping values for structural systems representative of the energy dissipation associated with material and type of construction used for the structure. Values of damping used in the seismic analysis of BVPS-2 structures, to represent the damping associated with the type of material and construction, are presented in FSAR Table 3.78-1 and are less than or equal to those specified by R.G. 1.61. When calculating the equivalent modal system damping a value of 10 percent damping was used to represent the damping associated with the soil element. This value thus represented the radiational and internal material damping not addressed within R.G.1.61.

_g_

COMMENTS ON BEAVER VALLEY - 2 FSAR SECTIONS 3.7, 3.9, AND 3.10

3. Paragraph 3.78.3.1.1.3 states that "For equipment exhibiting multiple re-sponse modes, single frequency input may be used, providing the input has sufficient intensity to envelop the floor response spectra of the individual modes of the equipment." This is not an acceptable alternative to multi-frequency testing.

Response: FSAR Section 3.78.3 provides additional requirements beyond envelop-ing of the required floor response spectra (i.e. pg 3.7-18 under

" General testing guidance criteria for equipment include the following:"). In addition, single frequency input may be applicable provided one of the following conditions are met:

1. The characteristics of the required input motion indicate that the notion is dominated by one frequency (i.e. by structural filtering effects).

2. The anticipated response of the equipment is adequately represented by one mode.

3. The test input has sufficient intensity and duration to excite all modes to the required magnitude, such that the test response spectra envelope the corresponding response spectra of the individual modes.

Also, FSAR pg 3.7-14 provides assurance of acceptable qualification programs and results in accordance with specification requirements.

Further requirements for accepting single frequency testing are addressed in attachment 2BVM 166A10 " Checklist for Reviewing Seismic Test Reports". This attachment is part of the " Seismic and Dynamic Qualification Program for Safety Related Equipment" (Attachment I thereof) submitted to the NRC on June 4,1986,(2NRC-6-057).

COMMENTS ON BEAVER VALLEY - 2 FSAR SECTIONS 3.7, 3.9, AND 3.10

4. On page 3.7-21 it is implied that "significant dynamic modes" in an analysis are sometimes defined as the first 50 modes regardless of the upper limit of these first fifty. This will not necessarily include all significant modes and cases where the "first 50" criteria controlled should be reviewed.

Response: All significant modes of interest are adequately addressed based on the following:

Since OVPS-2 is a soil founded site, the above stated approach pro-vides a conservative design on the basis that all significant modes are read:ly identifiable within these boundaries. Also, during piping recanciliation the pipe analysis is completely reviewed (for confirmation purposes) for completeness and accurancy of results.

Part of this review includes the frequency results and modeling accuracy. 01 this basis identification of all "significant dynamic modes" of interest is assured.

COMMENTS ON BEAVER VALLEY - 2 FSAR SECTIONS 3.7, 3.9, AND 3.10

5. Note 7 for Table 3.98-14 and Note 6 for Table 3.98-15 specify a 1/3 in-crease in allowables for dynamic type loads. What is the justification for this?

Response: The 1/3 increase in allowables is an accepted practice as defined by the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) manual. AISC is an industry accepted code to which piping systems may be qualified including this increased allowable. Additional information is pro-vided in the response to FSAR question 210.34.

COMMENTS ON BEAVER VALLEY - 2 FSAR SECTIONS 3.7, 3.9, AND 3.10

6. On page 3.10-3 in the last paragraph a report is referenced as

" Westinghouse (1975)". A WCAP report number should be supplied with this reference.

Response: FSAR Section 3.10N.1.2 will be revised in the next FSAR amendment to incude Westinghouse WCAP-8634 (1975) as the correct reference (attached).

4 I

i l

I t

i

P"ts-2 15An ATTAC H N T of this standard, by either dncomented type test, anal).is, or an appropriate combination of these methods. Westinghouse meets this commitment either under the Westinghouse Supplemental Qualification Program (Westinghouse 1975) or as defined in the final version of WCAP 8587 (Butterworth and Miller 1979). Regulatory Guide 1.100 Seismic Qualification of Electrical Equipment for Nuclear Fower Flants does not directly arP lY to Beaver Valley rower Station-Unit-2 (BVPS-2) due to its docket date being before July, 1974.

Morrone (1971) presents the Westinghouse. testing procedure used to qualify equipment by type testing. Seismic qualification testing of equipment to IEEE S t andar d 344-1971 is documented accor ding to Fotochnik (1971), Reid (1972), and Vogeding (1971a, 1971b, 1971c, 1974). Fisher and Jarecki (1974) present the theory, practice, and justification for the use of single axis sine beats test inputs used in seismic qualification.

In addition, it is noted that Westinghouse has conducted a seismic qualification Demonstration 7est Program to confirm equipment operability during a seismic (Westinghouse 1975). event For the seismic qualification of Westinghouse electrical equipment outside program, of the containment, the previously noted demonstration test in conjunction with the justification for the use of single-axis sine-beat tests (Figenbaum and vogeding 1974) and the original tests documented by Vogeding (1971a, 1971b, 19 71 c , 1974), Totochnik (1971), Reid (1972); and Tigenbaum and Vogeding (1974) meets or exceeds the requirements of IEEE Standard 344-1971.

Thus, since the Demonstration lest Program was successfully completed, the equipment's operability has been demonstrated to meet or exceed the requir ements of IEEF Standar d 344-1971.

The acceptability criteria for the SSE notes that there may be permanent deformation of the equipment, provided that the capability to perform its function is maintained.

The BOP instrumentation and electrical equipment which are designed to withstand the SSE horizontal and vertical accelerations at each floor level are discussed in Section 3.108.

3.10H.1.2 Performance Requirements for Seismic Qualification For HSSS instrumentation and ele trical equipment classified as Seismic Category I and covered under the supplemental qualification program, qualification requirements can be found in Westinghouse wc AP sc,34 (1975). WCAP B587 (Westinghouse 1978) contains an Equipment Qualification Data Fackage (EQDP) for that NSSS instrumentation and electrical the criteria Seismic Category I equipment which has been, upgraded to defined in WCAP-8587 (Butterworth and Hiller 1979).

Each EQDP in WCAP 8587 (Westinghouse 1978) contains a section entitled r'rformance specifications. 7his specification establishes the safety-related functional requirements of the equipment to be 3.10-3

^

Id k

4 .

BEAVER VALLEY ? - PV0RT AUDIT Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump (2FE-P22)

1. NUREG-1154 reported a partial loss of feedwater while the plant was operat-ing at 90 percent power. A contributing factor was excessive moisture content in the driving steam to the AFW pump turbine, as well as the difficulty of reestablishing steam flow following the turbine overspeed trip. The applicant should provide, the following information, describing the plant specific features ' and preventative measures in place at Beaver Valley 2.

a. Describe how the moisture content in the driving steam to the turbine will be controlled to prevent an overspeed trip.

Response: Pre-op test 2.248.02 will require personnel from the Thermal Expans-ion and Pipe Vibration team present at the pump when steam is initially admitted to the cold piping.

Operation Surveillance Test (OST) 2.24.4, Instructions, Step 4a, b, and c will verify or establish the positions of Turbine Casing Drains (SDS*211, 212 and 213) to provide a constant blowdown path during turbine operation.

4 NRC Inspection Report No. 50-412/86-11, dated July 3, 1986, Section

. 4.2; discussion, gave favorable comment to inspection of the steam supply . line to the turbine with regard to slope, flow transient analysis pertaining to drainpot design, drainpot locations and type, and piping configurations.

I f

l l

l

-14

BEAVER VALLEY 2 - PV0RT AUDIT Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump (2FWE-P22) 1.b Confirm that the maintenance procedures for the turbine driven auxiliary feedwater pump will satisfy the equipment manufacturer's recommendation.

Provide assurance that alI bolts for the pump and turbine assemblies will be regularly checked for their proper torque settings.

Response: Existing Maintenance and Operation Procedures will incorporate ven-dor recommendations with the exception of the 5 year tear down.

However, the tear down will be evaluated based on surveillance and trending. The assurance for bolt torque settings is incorporated in the Maintenance Procedures.

BEAVER VALLEY 2 - PVORT AUDIT Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump (2FWE-P22) 1.c Confirm that the trip and throttle valve can be operated easily when a maximum AP exists across the valve, such as a turbine overspeed condition.

(1) Describe the physical location of the valve, height above the floor, valve stem orientation, and the proximity Of adjacent equipment or structures that could interfere with the manual operation of the valve.

Response: The trip / throttle valve is physically located above and to the lef t of the pump turbine, 5 feet,10 inches from the floor. By standing on the turbine / pump base the vertical height to the valve is 5 feet.

There are no interferences to manual valve operation.

BEAVER VALLEY 2 - PV0RT AUDIT Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump (2FWE-P22) 1.c.(2) Describe the procedures for manually operating the valve during an emergency condition. Identify the responsible personnel who will be involved. Identify the use of any auxiliary equipment (such as a wheel wrench) to operate the valve.

Response: Operating Manual 2.24, Section 4, Procedure R, identifies the reset / manual operation of the trip / throttle valve. Operations Pro-cedures group will initiate and maintain the Operating Manual and the on-shift operators will perform the valve manipulations. The trip / throttle valve is easily operated with no Ap. If the use of a wheel wrench is required tc operate the valve with maximum Ap, this will be ascertained during Pre-op testing and then incorporated into the required procedures.

l l

l

BEAVER VALLEY 2 - PV0RT AUDIT Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump (2FWE-P22) 1.c.(3) Verify that the responsible personnel for maintaining or operating the valve are properly trained, including hands-on experience prior to fuel load.

Response: The personnel responsible for operating the trip / throttle valve will have completed both classroom and on-the-job training requirement prior to fuel load.

Maintenance activities will be performed in accordance with written procedures and documented instructions or drawings to enable main-tenance personnel to perform the activities without special training.

BEAVER VALLEY 2 - PVORT AUDIT Check Valve Operability

2. IE Notice 86-01 dated January 6,1985 reported an event caused by the fail-ure of five main feedwater (MFW) check valves. These check valve failures resulted in the loss of MFW system integrity and significant water-hammer damage. The applicant should provide the following information to demon-strate check valve operability.

a. Describe the methodology used to size and install check valves, con-sidering proximity to flow disruption devices.

NSS Response: Generic testing has been performed to determine the performance characteristics including flow required to open, pressure drop, etc. These tests demonstrate the valve will be fully open during the design conditions, therefore, precluding cycling of the valve which results in wear.

In addition, the ability of the valve to open is assured by its inherent design characteristics. The swing check design and the clearance between disc hanger assembly and body preclude the possibility of binding.

The methodology used for system layout is per Westinghouse document 1.12, " Systems Standard Design Criteria NSSS Layout Guidelines". In addition, valve sizing is determined by line size and flow rates at which the valve is required to operate.

In summary, the flow rates in NSSS systems are significantly in excess of the flow rates specified in the attachment which is a sample of flow tests performed by Westinghouse.

Following is a list of check valves representative of those used at BVPS-2 and some data on those models known to have been flow tested during development.

Minimum Full-Open Comments Flow Test Velocity ("A"=0riginalStyle:

Valve ID Data (X) (Feet per Second) B= Newer Model) 3C82 X 6 (5.4) B 3C84 X 6 (5.4) B 3C88 X 6 (5.8) B 4C82 B 4C87 8

Minimum Full-Open Comments Flow Test Velocity ("A"=0riginal Style:

Valve ID Data (X) (Feet per Second) B= Newer Model) 4C88 B 6C88 8 8C88 A 8C82

• B

• Similar "A" Style 8C84

• 8

• Similar "A" Style 10C82 8 10C88 11(10.4) B 12C84 A 14C84 A 30P Response:

B0P check valves are specified as equal to the Itae size. This minimizes pres-sure loss in the system. Furthermore, piping velocity guidelines, used by the project to produce cost effective system design, generally envelope the velocities necessary to fully open system check valves. Additional information is provided in the response to FSAR question 271.8 and FSAR section 3.98.3.2.2 pgs 3.9-14 and 3.9-15.

DLC is continually reviewing check valve reports and check valve problem in-formation, taking action as required to assure operability. Documents such as INP0 Significant Operating Experience Reports (S0ER), USNRC IE Information Notices, USNRC IE Bulletins and USNRC NUREGs are reviewed for applicability and j evaluated as it affects system design, valve design, operation and maintenance.

. It is noted that INP0 will conduct a check valve workshop at the end of I October. In addition, INP0 intends to issue an SOER on the subject this year.

Any recommendations which result from these INP0 activities will be carefully evaluated for Beaver Valley 2, these activites may include:

a. Maximum and minimum velocity the check valve will experience (fatigue or wear of parts due to turbulence or oscillation of obturator and associated per s).

i b. Methods and materials fastening for internal parts (parts corroding and l displacement of parts).

l l

c. Adequate maintenance procedure and qualified maintenance personnel (proper assembly and disassembly),

d. Proximity to elbows, tees, pumps.

ASME XI testing or required inspection, provides additional assurance of opera-bility. OLC is closely following ASME XI activities since the NRC representative on ASME XI requested and had put on the committee agenda an item to review, for adequacy, the visual inspection requirement for valve internals.

I 1

i

BEAVER VALLEY 2 - PVORT AUDIT Cneck Valve Operability 2.b. Describe tests, if any, used to demonstrate that the valve is not damaged and can still perform its safety function.

Response: Main feedwater and auxiliary feedwater check valves are verified operable by Operation Surveillance Test (OST) 2.24.8 and 2.24.6.

These OST's will be available for review at the audit.

i i

BEAVER VALLEY 2 - PV0RT AUDIT

c. Describe what measures are considered to prevent valve' chatter, blockage, or failure of the disk assembly.

Response: Adherence to the methodology stated in response to 2.a. provides assurance of prevention of valve chatter and failure of the disk assembly.

Maintenance activities will be performed in accordance with written procedures and documented instructions or drawings to assure the valves will function as designed. The appropriate housekeeping and cleanliness controls will be maintained to prevent introduction of foreign material into the system that could result in valve block-age.

t- ~

q-- w- - - - -

BEAVER VALLEY 2 - PVORT AUDIT Containment Recirculation Spray (RSS) Pumps (2RSS-P21A THROUGH P210)

Bingham-Willamette 10X12X18BE-VCR Service Water (SWS) Pumps (2SWS-P21A through P-21C)

Byron-Jackson 36RXM

3. IE Bulletin 79-15 dated July 11, 1979 reported industry-wide problems as-sociated with the long term operation of deep draft pumps. The applicant's letter dated September 13, 1979 and referenced by NUREG/CR-3049 described the appropriate pumps, but stated that operating experience had not yet been achieved. The applicant should provide the following information to demonstrate deep draft pump operability,

a. Compare the Beaver Valley 2 program for long term operability of deep draft pumps with the Licensing Review Group II (LRG-II) guidelines (Revision 1, September 19,1983).

Response: The seven (7) deep draft pumps at BVPS Unit II, Containment Recirc-ulation Spray (RSS) pumps and Service Water (SWS) pumps have not, as yet, been tested. The test procedures P0 2.30.01 and P0 2.13.01 have been written to comply with LRG II guidelines.

Preventative Maintenance activities are scheduled consistant with the vendor recommendation for both the Servica Water Pumps and the Recirculction Spray Pumps. Upon completion of testing, the data will be available for review.

During comerical operation, 0.S.T.'s will be performed to meet the requirements of Technical Specifications and Section 11 of In-Service-Test (IST).

The Service System Test (P0 2.30.01) consists of the following:

Shutoff head for each pump will be measured, and then each pump will be run at three different flow points (@ 10,000 GPM, @ 14,200 GPM, @

17,600 GPM) with full sets of data including running currents, bearing temperatures, vibration readings, discharge pressures, and calculated power levels of each flow point. The test engineer will also monitor and log the cumulative time that each pump is in service during the test.

Prior to RSS pump delivery to site, factory performance testing was accomplished and a 150 hour0.00174 days <br />0.0417 hours <br />2.480159e-4 weeks <br />5.7075e-5 months <br /> full length performance test was run or one pump per P0 2.13.01 (see attached).

The RSS Pumps will undergo normal startup testing to recirculate water from the containment sump through the spray header drain pipes and then back to the sump. Each pump will be run at 3500 gpm, 3000 gpm, 2000 gpm & 1000 gpm, parameters allowed to stabilize and vibration, current, bearing temperatures, outlet pressures and differential pressures will be recorded.

~. _. _ _ _ ,_ --

BEAVER VALLEY 2 - PVORT AUDIT t

Containment Recirculation Spray (RSS) Pumps (2RSS-P21A THROUGH P21D)

Bingham-Willamatte 10X12X18BE-VCR Service Water (SWS) Pumps (2SWS-P21A through P-21C)

Byron-Jackson 36RXM 3.b. Identify deviations, if any, from the LRG II guidelines.

Response: BVPS-2 mets the LRG II guidelines as stated in response to 3a.

3.c. Provide justification for any deviations from the LRG II guidelines Response: N/A 3.d. Describe actual operating experience of deep draft pumps, including longest continuot; run.

Response: See response to 3a.

+

3 25-

,y - --- --, - , .c- --..-- - --- -. - -e--+ - - - ,, . --, - - . - - - , ---4

gw e Le c' u,t

.E30.209

' p p s,. 6 u.

88W W"'- "- 6% REV. I 10-6-82 g4. ps, _ _ n_ jg, PAGE 1 of 3 2

k E SIGNED AY ~

SUBJECT:

150 HOUR ENDURANCE TEST I. _ GENERAL will receive a witnessed full length endurance test.Upon comple  !

1 The purpose of.this test is to demonstrate the. mechanical integrity of the pump.

This will be acconplished by mounting the full length pump on a tower of structur steel construction designed and fabricated speci,fically for this test.

The pum

- ation p i.e., will be mounted in such a manner as to duplicate the actual field install-the combined pump and receiver can will be anchored at the lower

,. BWC drawing B-29893. support plate with two additional seismic restraints at ele The test loop suction piping will be fabricated and installed to simulate the actual field suction piping configuration. Pressure taps will be installed at the same approximate location as in the field.

A. ENDURANCE TEST The test will be run at approximate design capacity (3500 GpM ) in a 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> on/1 hour off manner until 150 hours0.00174 days <br />0.0417 hours <br />2.480159e-4 weeks <br />5.7075e-5 months <br /> running time has been logged .

The following reading will taken and recorded throughout the run:

1. Voltage to the driver.

2. Amperage to the driver.

i

3. Flow rate -

4. Suction and discharge pressure i

a. Suction piping and receiver can losses. See schematic ASK-439 attached, for location of pressure taps.

5. Vibration, both filtered and unfiltered at the following locations:

a. One axial and two radial 90 apart at the location of the top motor bearing,

b. Two radial directions at the pump mounting flange on the same axis as the two probes at the top motor bearing.

c. One radial of the first direction on the outside of the receiver can at the elevation stage impeller.

6. Ambient external temperature. -

7. Wind speed REVISION pAGE 1 2 3 STATUS: REV. I 1 1 ._

ISSUED TO: E30 HANUALS

• ' uu.euw .

' 'REV. 1 10-6-82 Be+bME "4

., P, AGE 2 of 3 The above data will be measured and recorded, as a minimum per the following:

1. At the start, middle, and end of the first 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> run

2. In the middle of the subsequent 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> runs.

NOTE: Ambient external temperature and wind speed will be recorded, as a minimum , at least once during each 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> run.

Upon startup, at the beginning of the first 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> run, the pump will be run for one hour after which time four head / capacity points will be taken. These points will be used for baseline data and will be approximately 850, 2700, 3500 and 4500 GPM. In addition, suction piping and can losses will be measured at these same aflows.

• Following the 150 hour0.00174 days <br />0.0417 hours <br />2.480159e-4 weeks <br />5.7075e-5 months <br /> run the above data points (850, 2700, 3500 and 4500 GPM )

will be repeated (measured and recorded) and compared to the baseline data taken at the start of the test.

II. TEST CONDITIONS A. Cold (80* F + 40* F ) City of Portland tap water will be used for the test.

B. Suction pressure during the endurance run will be maintained at approximately 50 PSI.

III. INSTRUMENTATION A. Line voltage will be measured with a calibrated voltmeter.

B. Amperage will be measured with a calibrated clamp-on ammeter.

C. Capacity will be measured thru a calibrated orifice and read out on a diff-erential pressure gage.

D. Discharge pressure will be measured on a calibrated dead-weight tester.

E. Suction pressures to be measured on calibrated pressure gages.

F. Vibration will be measured using velocity pickups in conjunction with a tuneable filter readout.

IV. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA A. Parameters for acceptance of pump performance is that the head / capacity curve following the 150 hour0.00174 days <br />0.0417 hours <br />2.480159e-4 weeks <br />5.7075e-5 months <br /> test fall within + 2% of the curve run at the start of the test.

B. Parameters for acceptance of pump vibration are as follows:

1. Vibration at the top motor bearing shall not exceed twice the limits as specified by Hydraulic Institute,13th Edition, filtered to rotative frequency (i.e., 7 mils).

2. Vibration at the pump mounting flange shall not exceed 31s mils.

C. Reference BWC Procedure E30.201 for bushing wear acceptance criteria.

25 3_ . _ _ _

7 OPERABILITY OF CONTAINMENT PURGE AND VENT VALVES The applicant has not provided the information to demonstrate operability of the containment purge and vent valves per NUREG-0737, TMI Item II .E.4.2(6).

The applicant shall submit the appropriate documentation for review prior to fuel load. The evaluation of this issue will be done in the NRC staff's office, not during the plant audit.

Response: The information for the operability of containment purge and vent valves will be provided prior to fuel load. The containment purge and vent valves are not cons'idered active valves due to their operational requirements.