ML20070R931
| ML20070R931 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/01/1983 |
| From: | Devincentis J PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| SBN-449, NUDOCS 8302040092 | |
| Download: ML20070R931 (4) | |
Text
FENHI
-=
1671 Wonaster Rood Pub 5c Service of New Hampshire w h, w e 01701 (617). 872-8100 February 1, 1983 SBN-449 T.F. B7.1.2 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wa shing ton, D. C. 20555 Attention:
Mr. George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No 3 Division of Licens.ng
References:
(a) Construction Permits CPPR-135 and CPPR-136, Docket Nos. 50-443 and 50-444 (b) PSNH Letter, dated January 21, 1983, "Open Item Response (SRP 3.9.2; Mechanical Engineering Branch)," J. DeVincentis to G. W. Knighton
Subject:
Revised Open Item Response:
(SRP 3.9.2; Mechanical Engineering Branch)
Dear Sir:
In response to the open item regarding steady state and operating transient vibration, we have again revised FSAR Section 3.9(B).2 (FSAR Pages 3.9(B)-9 and 3.9(B)-10) as indicated on the attached annotated FSAR pages which will be included in OL Application Amendment 48.
The enclosed revisions were discussed with the Mechanical Engineering Branch reviewer (Mr. David Terao) in meetings conducted on Januarf 26, 1983.
Very truly yours, YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY h W#'
O 4'
J.DeVincentis[k Project Manager ALL/fsf C O/
cc: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Service List l
830204o092 830201 PDR ADOCK 05000443 A
PDR 1000 Elm St.. P.O. Box 330, Manchester, NH 03105. Telephone (603) 669-4000. TWX 7102207595
a.
ASLB SERVICE LIST Philip Ahrens, Eequire Assistant Attorney General
^
Department of the Attorney General Augusta, ME 04333 Representative Beverly Hollingworth Coastal Chamber of Commerce 209 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03842 William S. Jordan, III, Esqcire Harmon & Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 506 Washington, DC 20006 E. Tupper Kinder, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 208 State House Annex Concord, NH 03301 Robert A. Backus, Esquire 116 Lowell Street P.O. Box 516 Manchester, NH 03105 Edward J. McDermott, Esquire Sanders and McDermott Professional Association l
408 Laf ayette Road Hampton, NH 03842 Jo Ann Shotwell, Esquire Assistant Attorney Cencral Environmental Protection Bureau Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 t
l l
l
(
~ ~ ^ C TE *
~
T ' 7 I
' * [
~,Y
'*#[.
" ' ~.
PRELIMLNARY SB 1 (2 O
FSAR JAN 1 I1983 (d) Operability and accuracy of instruments connected to piping.
5.
For steady-state vibration, the piping break stress (sero to peak) due to vibration only (neglecting pressure) will not exceed /2,ooo poi for austenitic stainless steel and 7,4 90 poi for carbon and low alloy steels. These limits are below the piping material fatigue endurance limits as defined in 6 the design fatigue curves in Appendix I of ASMg code for 10 cycles.
46 b.
Thermal Expansion During hot functional testing, the temperature of the reactor coolant and main steam piping will be raised to the operating temperature in increments of 1000F.
At selected temperatures, the thermal expansion of the piping vill be checked at predetermined points. If thermal motion is not as predicted, the support system will be examined to verify correct
~,
function or to locate points of binding of restraints. If binding is 'found, the restraints will be adjusted to eliminate the un-acceptable condition or reanalyzed to verify that the existing O
condition is acceptable.
If the support system is found to be functioning properly, but thermal expansion measurements vary from predicted values by more than a reas.onable tolerance, then the analysis will be reviewed to t
l i
explain the anomaly.
i Reasonable tolerances, for the purpose of these tests, are as' follows:
(
1.
For expected motions of 1/8 inch or less, no measurements are anticipated. In this case a tolerance of +1/8 inch is acceptable.
2.
For arpected motions larger than 1/8 inch but less than 2 inches, a tolerance of 3,50% is acceptable.
3.
For erpteced motions greater than 2 inches, a tolerance of +
25% of the expected motion is acceptable.
l e.
Dynamic Ef fects the During the preoperational test and initial startup programs, 1
i pumps will be started and stopped and valves will be stroked to l
verify proper operation. The effects of the transient vibrations and shocks resulting from these operations will be visually observed l
to verify that no excessive motion of piping or equipment results.
If excessive motions are observed as a result of these operations, I
the support systems will be adjusted to eliminate the unacceptable motion. In cases where sequer.cs of operations or operating procedures O
s.
3.9(3)-9
?RELIN \\ ARY SB 1 & 2 O
FSAR JAN 121983 m
are found to "cause unacceptable conditions, procedures will be changed to eliminate the unacceptable conditions.
For operating transient vibration, the piping bending stress, (aero Ido peak) due to the operating transient vibration, will be correlated with the calculated stress level from the piping stress report, in order to ensure that the calculated total primary stress level is maintained within acceptable code levels. Where testing results indicate unacceptable levels, action will be taken to reduce or eliminate the effect of the operating transient vibration.
is The details of the piping. vibration, thermal expansion and dynamic ef fects testing will be incorporated into the individual test proce-dures for conducting these tests, se abstracted in Chapter 14.
Specific information and data will br generated for the preparation of piping tests. This will include the different flow medes, identi-fication of the selected locations for visual inspections and measure-ments, the acceptance criteria, and the possible corrective actions if excessive vibration occurs.
3.9(B).2.2 Seismic Qualification Testing of Safety-Related Mechanical Equipment Seismic Category I safety-related mechanical equipment has been designed to withstand the combined normal operating accident loads concurrent with the effects of the Safe Shutdova Earthquake (SSE) or the Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE). Verification of the adequacy of the equipment to withstand these combined loads bas been demonstrated.by analysis, by testing, or a combination of analysis and testing. Selection of the method of qualification was determined by the type, size, shape and complexity of the equipment being considered.
Operability of active Class 1, 2 or 3 valves, setive Class 2 and 3 pumps, and their vital auxiliary equipment has been demonstrated by the combination of analysis and testing. Results of the qualification tests are given in 1
Subsection 3.9(B).3.2.
The seismic qualification procedures used for the operability verification of other active mechanical equipment are similar to the procedures described in Subsection 3.9(B).3.2 for pumps and valves.
For the mechanical equipment which is mechanically or structurally too complex, i.e., the seismic response cannot be adequately predicted analytically, testing i
procedures similar to those described in Section 3.10 were used to demonst; rate the equipment operability and adequacy.
The structural and functional integrity of non-active seismic Category I mechanical equipment has been demonstrated by one of the following two methods:
By analytical methods, to satisfy the stress criteria applicable a.
to that specific piece of equipment.
b.
By seismic testing, to show that the equipment retains its structural O
and functional integrity under the simulated test environment.
3.9(B)-10
__ _