ML20212M206
Text
J 1
M UNITED STATES j
NUCt. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
g t,y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20566 g..
's,...../
FEB 141978 MEMORANDlN FOR:
D. B. Vassallo, Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors Division of Project Management FROM:
J. P. Knight, Assistant Director for Engineering Division of Systems Safety
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT FOR CRITERIA IMPLEMENTATION REVIEFi MEETINGS WITH PO & E The results of our criteria implementation review meetings with PG & E held during the period Jan. 23, 1978 through Feb. 2,1978 at San Francisco, CA. and Monroeville, PA. are attached. represents the high-lights of the meetings with meeting agenda and attendees listed. Enclosure 2 is a listing of outstanding items for which additional information is a
required from PG & E in order that final conclusions can be reached for our Safety Evaluation Report. The listing includes both NSSS and BOP items and is subdivided into Piping Systems, Mechanical Equipment and Electrical Equipment. We plan on including any unresolved issues as open items in the input to our Safety Evaluation Report which is scheduled for submission by April 1, 1978. The unresolved _ issues would be addressed in supplements to the SER as information is received and evaluated.
i
%D2g2 e 0@
J. P. Kn ght, Assistant Director PDR for Engineering HOUCH36-391 Division of Systems Safety
Enclosures:
1.
Meeting Summary 2.
Outstanding Items cc w/ encl:
Contact:
R. J. Bosnak' R. Tedesco, SS F. Rosa, SS D. Ross, SS T. Ippolito, SS Ext. 27538 J. Stolz, PM F. Catton (ACRS)
'I.
T. Novak, SS L. Vorderbrueggen, Region V D. Kirsch, Region V V. Benaroya, SS,
~ g' D. Allison, FM '
R. Bosnak, SS F. Cherny, SS P. Chen, SS H. Brammer, SS E. Sullivan, SS K. Desai, SS J. Rajan, SS l k
.o o
s
)
4 Mee. ting Summaary
~
The meetings w'ere opened in San Francisco on Jan. 23 and Monroeville i
t on Jan. 31 with a brief statement explaining the role of the ACRS I
i consultants and specifying that intervenors were present at the meetings as observers rather than as participants. The staff explained that the meetings were not to be characterized as " audits" but rather as criteria implementation review meetings to provide the staff the opportunity to i
acquire the detailed information necessary to understand what was done, how it was done and why it was done,to permit us to be able to conclude that the plant as constructed is acceptable.or that it is unacceptable.
i The MEB review was predicated on the condition that all floor response spectra used in the qualification analyses will be accepted by the Structural Engineering Branch.
In the event that any are modified [
the effect on equipment, component and system design would have to be reassessed.
l The procedures used by PG & E to implement the combination of modes and spatial components (CMS) for the seismic analysis predates Regulatory Goide 1.92 which is now in use. This does not arbitrarily invalidate the PG & E CMS methods used on Diablo Canyon but does require that a documented evaluation address the reasons why the CMS methods used by PG & E have resulted in an adequate design. The exchange of information
')
r a
presented during the review meetings on how the CMS procedures were implemented have given the staff further assurance that mechanical systems have binen adequately designed but documentation is necessary.
~
The qualification of electrical and mechanical equipment for the HOSGRI event was concluded to be composite of analytical and experimental procedures which the staff found acceptable pending final documentation and verification of experimental data. The staff expects that PG & E will compare the experimentally determined values of natural frequency and damping with those previously used in the analytical models,
[
and that the analytical models will be refined as dictated by the experi-mental results. The values for damping specified in Regulatory Guide 1.61 should be the basis for analysis, however the results of the experi-mental work should be used when appropriate, giving due cognizance to the intensity of excitation used during the testing. For items which receive additional stiffening, the effect on damping should be addressed.
l l
With respect to the functional qualification of electrical equipment, PC & E was asked to justify all cases in which functional testing was not done during seismic qualification, with the justification resulting in the conclusion that the item will function during and after the HOSGRI seismic event. If this result cannot be concluded, then the program i
should be modified to include functional testing. Individual components within panels also must be demonstrated to be functionally qualified.
e
)
The methodology used to analyze piping systems (both BOP and in the NSSS scope) was found to be acceptable with the exception that additional i
c information is to be submitted by the applicant in the following areas:
CMS sensitivity study, seismic anchor movement study, and branch line analysis.
l 1
4 8
e o
e e
y
Diablo Canyon Seismic Criteria Implementation t
Review Meeting (PG & E) i January 23-27, 1978 l
[
s Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday I&E Mechanical Mechanical Electrical Electrical
.g Equipment Equipment j
Equipment Equipment (Review of reports)gggg)
(Review of reports)
(Review of reports)(7)
(Review of reports)
SEg 3:
t i
f ss i
Mechanical Mechanical Electrical Electrical Mechanical & Electrical Equipment Equipment Equipment Equipment Equipment and Piping Wyle presentation (VI)
Summary of the 1.
Questions on 1.
Questions on Wyle and ANC jg)
Summary forma (Review of reports) meeting.
)
Summary forms presentations l
and Amendments (Review of reports) and Amendeants t
50 and 56.
50 and 56.
2.
Review the math-z 8
ematical model and methods of g
[
seismic analysis h,
witri extended valve for piping system L
str.sctures.
I.
I 1
i t.
---~~..p...
I
/
i
!I i
Note:
(I) We will start with the following items:
Auxiliary Feedwater pumps (Turbine Driven & Motor Driven) 1.
Diesel Generator System (including Diesel generator air 2.
' starting system valves, Diesel fuel oil transfer pumps check valves) 3.
Auxiliary Saltvater Pumps 4.
Steam Safety valves E
5.
Component cooling water pumps 6.
Boric Acid Tanks 7.
Component cooling water heat exchanger 8.
HAVC Supply Fans, S-31, S-32 9.
HEPA Filter, EFH-23
Others (II) Wyle presentation of Steam Safety Valve tests Applied Nucleonics Presentation of In-Situ Test Program.
l O
E s
p i
2-
~
l.
u l.
I Note: (Cont).
(III) We will start with the following iten.s:
i 1.
Vital 4KV Switchgear l
- 2., Station Batteries & Battery Racks 3
D. C. Motor Control Center & D. C. Switchgear 4.
Battery Chargers 5.
Main Annunciator, Record No. 663101
?
6.
Safeguards Relay Boards 7.
Hot Shutdown panel 8.
Instrument AC panel 9.
Main Control Board 10.
Cable Trays 11.
Others (IV) Wyle Presentation ofi (1) In-Situ Testing (2) Requalification Prograr.
t
=
b e
, - y mmem v
Diablo Canyon Seismic Criteria Inyplementation Review Meeting 5
Jan. 31 - Feb. 2, 1978 Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Mechanical Mechanical Electrical Equipment Equipment Equipment
)
(Review of Reports) and Piping eview ePorts)
MORNING 1.
Questions on summary forms and Amendments m
50 and 56 Review of Reports (
2.
AFTERNOON Mechanical Electrical Piping Equipment Equipment (Review of Reports)
(Review of Reports)
Summary of Meeting 1.
Questions on summary forms and Amendments 50 and 56
}
2.
Review of Reports e
k e
j m
1 l
Note (I) We will start with the following items:
1.
Pressurizer 2.
Reactor Pressure Vessel Internals 3.
CRDM and CRDM Support / Head Lifting Rig.
4.
Steam Generator Supports 1
4 Seal W'ter Injection Filter (includes In-Situ Tests) 5.
a 6.
RilR Heat Exchanger 7.
Boric Acid Filler 8.
RilR Pump 9.
Centrifugal Charging Pump 10.
Valves (8701, HCV 637, 8805 A/B)
I 11.
Others i
N
,M
5 4
i i
Note (II)
We will start with the following items:
[
1.
Safeguards Test Cabinet 2.
Auxiliary Safeguards Cabinet (WCAP 8941) 3.
Electrical equipment not covered by the W generic demonstration program (e.g. valve operators) h 4.
Others t
5 v
fg Note (III) 4' 1.
Reactor Coolant Loop Analysis r
2.
Branch Line Analysis 1
t e
f e
s i
-- - +
. - ~.
i 0
d Attendees Jan. 23 through Jan. 27, 1978 PG & E Offices PG & E NRC J. B. Hoch R. J. Bosnak H. J. Gormly P. Y. Chen A. G. Walther E..J.
Sullivan R. M. Laverty P. T. Kuo P. G. Antiochos D. C. Jeng R. E. Bacher T. W. Pickel[ ACRS Consultants D. J. Curtis I. Catton J
V. M. Chauhan D. F. Kirsch A. L. Chan L. E. Vorderbrueggen T. N. Crawford Q
J. Colwell D. Nielsen R. A. Young J. Herbst O. W. Steinhardt 4
F. Mao PG & E Consultants P. Ib4Hez G. Shipway N. Chauhan Westinghouse M. Torcaso T. Esselman D. Alexander S. Jarecki Intervenors R. Hubbard G. C. Miner l
i I
t
l
~
)
I o
j' Attendees Jan. 31 through Feb. 2, 1978 Monroeville i
i Westinghouse NRC M. A. Torcaso D. P. Allison j
W. C. Cangloff R. J. Bosnak C. W. Lin P. Y. Chen D. W. Alexander E. J. Sullivan R. E. Kelly T. W. Pickel ACRS Consultant R. W. Brandon T. C. Esselmau H. L. Ott G. R. Ellis s
F. J. Marx T. M. Anderson
- 1. L. Cloud A. J. Kuenzel L. E. Abel L. I. Walker G. F. Holupka C. W. Hirst J. M. Pandya S. Jarecki L. Wood V. Miselfs E. Vogedir.g G. Bohn R. Barlow J. Harim PC & R H. J. Gormly R. J. Pillers R. A. Young P. Antiochos R. E. Bacher Intervenor R. Hubbard
)
o
)
e e
Piping Systems 1.
Combined Modes and Spatial Components (CMS)
Provide the results of BOP and NSSS piping sensitivity studies l
comparing the CMS method used for Diablo Canyon to the methods required by current criteria.
2.
Seismic Anchor Movement Study (SAM Study)
Expand the SAM study reviewed during the meeting in San Francisco to reflect the following criteria:
Where primary stre.sces result from SAM (such as in supports a.
consisting of a member in pure tension) the faulted condition p
~
loading combination to be used for both piping and supports should be: Hosgri Inertia plus SAM plus Dead Weight plus Pressure (piping only).
t b.
Where the SAM loads produce secondary stresses (such as in supports consisting of a frame structure) the faulted condition loading combination to be used should be: Hosgri Inertia plus Dead Weight plus Pressure.
c.
Where the limiting condition, especially for supports, arises in the load combination when thermal expansion is considered, the SAM loads and stresses should also be included.
Additionally, PG & E should justify, by comparison with other plant piping, that the piping included in the SAM Study experience l
~
l
.l
.t i
o il e
\\
e e _
the most severe SAM loading in the plant.
3.
Support Stiffness Sensitivity Studies Provide the results of the support stiffness sensitivity studies upon completion.
!~
4.
Terry Turbine Nozzle Loading l'
Provide the results of the resolution obtained on reconciling the Il computed nozzle loads on the Terry Turbine driving the Auxiliary l.
Feedwater Pump with those specified by the turbin,e manufacturer.
5.
Derivation of Design Response Spectra for Typical Piping System Revise Fig. 8-2 in amendment 53, as discussed at our meeting, in a future amendment.
4 6.
LOCA plus Hosgri Analysis of RCL Branch Lines l
Provide the results of the analyses for the several typical branch lines. The results presented should include pipe stress versus allow-c'le and support loads versus design loads or support ratings. An equivalent static LOCA ' branch line analysis may be used if acceptable justification for the dynamic amplification factor is provided. In the c.se of the pressurizer surge line, also demonstrate that the pressurizer and its supports have been designed for the combined effects of a terminal end break of the surge line at the pressurizer nozzle and'a Hosgri seismic event.
7.
Anchors at Seismic Design Class Changes Identify seismic.acsign class changes in all piping systems required l
?=
L2
m
,._.....~.... _ _ _.... -..... _... -....... _. _. _. _ _ _.. _..
y 3-for shutdown and in the piping branched from the required systems.
This includes the systems initially identified by PG & E and those later added by the Reactor Systems Branch and the Auxiliary Systems Branch. Where process lines with design class changes are a part of these shutdown systems or branched from them, the supporting of the design class 2 portion should be modified to meet the spacing criteria guidelines implemented for the design class 1 portion.
l t
l l
i t
h
y
- 4' -
Mechanical Equipment 1.
Submit the test reports for review for all the mechanical, electrical equipment and piping that has or will undergo seismic requalification testing.
2.
Diesel-Generator Starting Air Receiver Determine the stiffness of the supporting legs by tests,using the experimentally determined value, refine the analytical model as necessary, verifying analytically and experimentally determined values of natural-frequency, to qualify the unit for the Hosgri seismic event.
3.
Describe the diesel generator fuel transfer pump check valves and
~
the line valves in the diesel generator starting air system and demonstrate that the loads which would result from a Hosgri seismic event will not affect the ability of these valves to operate.
4.
Describe briefly the analysis of the various equipment tanks and heat exchangers. Indicate the mode shape used and provide justification why other mode shapes, such as the shall mode, will not be considered.
5.
Boric Acid Tanks l
Refine the analytical model by taking the experimental data into consideration and using the refined model compare the stresses at the skirt and bolting with allowable stresses.
?
s h
O
. 6.
Component Cooling Water Heat Exchangers Refine the model by considering the experimental data to justify the mode shapes included in the analysis and those omitted. Provide
[
the final reanalysis results.
7.
Refine the diesel-generator fuel oil filter analytical model to introduce a boundary condition different from fixed base and i
demonstrate qualification of the unit for the Hosgri seismic event.
8.
Assess the effects of structural stiffening on th,e damping value used in the analysis for those items of mechanical and electrical equipment that have been modified or stiffened and summarize the p
findings.
9.
Auxiliary Salt Water Pump Refine the vertical model for the seismic analysis and clarify the total stresses, the percentage which is due to seismic stress, and compare with the allowable stresses for the mounting plate area.
10.
Revise page 6 - 10 of Amendment 50 to reflect the changes in the reactor vessel internals evaluation.
I 11.
Provide a summary report for all primary system components listing the resulting limiting stress for each component due to (a) the t
Hosgri seismic event, (b) a LOCA, and (c) the combination of the
~
two events by absolute sum.
The results may be presented either as percentages of allowable stress, or as actual calculated stresses
'nia*her with the appropriate values of sllowable streas.
.,.. _. _... -... _........ _ _ _. -.... ~..... _, _ _ _. _. -. _ ~...
.- _. ~.
.m _
)
For Components
- 12. Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM)
In the evaluation of CRDM for Hosgri earthquake the DDE response spectra was compared to the final Hosgri spectra. Since the DDE spectra does not envelope the Hosgri spectra in the high frequency region (above approximately 12 Hz), assess the effect of the 2nd and higher modes on the overall evaluation.
- 13. -In the evaluation of the steam generator supports, provide the analytical results to demonstrate that the follow'ing have been accounted for:
(a) Asymmetric loads resulting from cavity pressurization following a LOCA.
(b) Single failure of an upper support snubber.
14.
Provide the required Hosgri acceleration levels (horizontal and vertical) for the HCV 637 valve and demonstrate that the natural l
l frequency of the valve as modified is greater than 33 Hz.
l 15.
Provide the seismic qualification information for the 8805 A/B valves for the Hosgri earthquake. Preliminary results should be submitted as acon as possible since qp information was available during the review meetings.
16.
Document the proper valves of calculated and allowable stresses in critical region (operator frame) for the Copes-Vulcan 10%
.tmospheric dump valves.
t
_y 17.
Document all the corrections discussed during the Criteria Imple-mentation Review Meeting by either revising the seismic qualification sunsnary forms to remove incorrect data or provide the correct infor-mation in an Amendment to the FSAR.
18.
Update Chapter 13 of Amendment 50 to the FSAR to include all the necessary modifications to the structures, systems and components as a result of seismic reanalysis for the Hosgri earthquake.
19.
Submit the Main Steam Safety Valve Test Report for review. Analyze the experimental strain data to demonstrate that the stress levels experienced during the test program fall within acceptable limits.
20.
The functional operability statement now appearing on the summary forms for active valves was noted at the review meeting to be acceptable only if it were modified to apply only to valves not required to function during the Hosgri seismic event. Identify I
any valves which must operate during the seismic event and provide the criteria used to establish their operability during and after the event.
- 21. Update and complete Tables 7-5 through 7-8 of Amendment 50 to the FSAR.
22.
Revise the Wyle proposed test procedures (PG & E letter of December 21, 1977) for 'the requalification testing of certain electrical equipment as discussed in the meeting. Provide the test method and procedures for the proposed seismic tests of the 14 inch, stor operated valve.
c
_ _ ~.. _... _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _.
)
3
- Electrical Equipment 1.
Complete Table 10-1 and Amendment 56 for all electrical equipment according to the final Hosgri Spectra.
2.
Provide information concerning seismic qualification of electrical components on the instrument panels and main control board (required i
g-level, qualified level and functionality).
5 3.
For instrument panels PIA, PIB and PIC, provide the Hosgri Required Response Spectra (curves) and verify that these panels have been qualified for the Hosgri earthquake.
4.
Cable Trays Provide verification that the 8-foot span criteria used for the i
cable trays will result in a natural frequency of the cable trays s.?
greater than or equal to 33 Hz.
5.
Install strain gages on the equipment (cabinets) under requalification l
test to assure that structural strength of the equipment under test I
i will not be impaired due to high stresses or fatigue effects.
l l
6.
Revise the statement in many areas of the Amendment 56 (e.g., on t
l l
page 11) concerning the significant frequency range of the electrical equipment to reflect'the actual frequency of the specific equipment rather than a general statement.
1 C-5
,,_.m-,,.,
...... -. - - ~
I
)
i 3
7.
Provide a list of electrical equipment used in the Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2, supplied by Westinghouse but not included in the i
Westinghouse Generic Demonstration Program. Verify that all
{
those equipment have been qualified for the Hosgri earthquake.
l 8.
Submit the seismic qualification reports for all model Limitorque
}
Valve Actuators discussed during the review meetings for our review.
I' 9.
Confirm that the modification for the instrument rack for the Nuclear Instrumentation System cabinet discussed at the review meetings has been implemented.
i 10.
Supplement #1 to WCAP 8021 is to be submitted for review.
11.
This item addresses EICSB secondary review responsibility under Standard Review Plan 3.10.
The following listed general classifica-tions of BOP electrical equipment were discussed with the applicant.
1.
Vital 4K switchgear l
2.
Station Batteries and Battery Racks i
3.
D.C. Motor Control Center and D.C. Switchgear i
4.
Battery Chargers 5.
Main Annunciator 6.
Safeguards Relay Boards 7.
Hot Shutdown Panel 8.
Instrument AC Panel i
9.
Main Control Board I
10.
Cable Trays
- 11. Others (a) Instrument Panels PIA, B and C (b) Local Inst. Panels (c) Pressure Transmitters (Barton)
PG & E stated that items 1 through 6 listed above are to be ratested either totally or in part to IEEE Standard 344-1975 and Regulatory
~
l l
i
-,,,.n.
. - -A-.-
.-. :.- w...... -. -... = -.
w.-...,
)
Guide 1.100 guidelines. The results of the retest program will be submitted for staff review when complete. Our review will include verification that equipment mounting adequately simulates the actual service mounting and that the electrical performance meet safety
}
requirements. If the electrical performance or actuation of the f
electrical equipment is not specifically tested during seismic qualification testing, we will require acceptable justification be provided so that it can be concluded that the Class 1 electric equipment will perform its required safety function during as well as af ter a sesimic event in accordance with the objectives of IEEE Standard 344-1975. In addition, our review of equipment, that will be retested in part only, will include the original qualification test program as well as the parts being retested.
In regard to items 7, S, 9 and 11 listed above, the applicant presented t
a number of test reports that document the seismic tests performed on specific types of Class 1 electrical equipment. The information pre-sented was found to be inconclusive, since it could not readily be concluded that the electrical function monitored during testing was representative of the safety function that the equipment may be l
required to perform during and/or after a seismic event. PG & E l
was requested to provide a'dditional information which would identify:
(a) the Class lE equipment, (b) safety function for each item of equipment, (c) a description of functions monitored during seismic l
I
?
-u..r_...a....
._....s..
..i i,
i testing with justification, (d) mounting configuration during test, i
and (e) a conclusion, based on test results, that the equipment will perform its required safety function during and af ter a seismic i
event.
I
?
y a.?
~
NN rg e
I 1
- 4. -
a FcTk%-Y)/
- A -/N