-- m POWER E.EnSYSTEMS

.

*

C-E Power Systems i J N 1911Cornbushon Engmeering Inc .ex 9 s .10)o Pros;wct Hdi RoadWmdsor. Connechcut 06095

-- .

m POWERE.E"nSYSTEMSsi

December 1, 1978LD-78-088

Mr. Robert L. Baer, Chief

Light Water Reactors, Branch 2Division of Project ManagementU. S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Baer:

Combustion Engineering appreciated the opportunity +c mot ',

of the Mechanical Engineering and Instrumentation . .eson November 1, 1978 to discuss CENPD-182, "Seismi tru-

mentation Equipment". As outlined in our previou., - LD-76-063,

dated Septenber 1, 1978 - we have been attempting to tsrn. 2 6 viable topical

report approach to seisraic testing; it was our definite impression from thismeeting that such an approach was viewed favorably by the staff and that a con-siderable savings in time could be achieved by generic review.

The majority of the time in the meeting was spent on the actual contents of thereport, how it would be used and the mechanics of submittal and updating of thereport. We have suninarized below the main areas of concern and the actions pro-posed to resolve the remaining problem areas.

The basic question "Could the topical report, CENPD-182, Revision 1, be acceptedand approved by the NRC?", appeared to be answered as follows:

part One (Program and Basic Methodology);

1. Mechanical Engineering Branch

Yes - as long as all tests reported in Part Two conformed to the testmethodology discussed in Part One and as illustrated by the sampletest reports contained tnerein. C-E pointed out that the sample testreports, which were incorporated into Revision 1 at the specificrequest of the NRC, did not encompass the full range of possible testmethodologies allowed by IL.." 344-1975. In fact, many other typesof tests could, and would, be utilized depending upon size, weightand configuration of equipment; test facilities utilized; and thespecific equipment functions being monitored. Because of thc. almostlimitless combinations which exist, C-E does not believe it feasible

to iacluo . examples of all such test reports.

781'211013(1C

_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

' ' . hW.RobertL.Bcer -2-

What is necessary is for the staff to accept C-E's methodology fordetermining that C-E's vendors are performing the tests in an accept-able fashion. To this end C-E suggested that the section on IEEE344-1975 methodology be expanded by the inclusion of SYS80-ICE-0506,Revision 01, " Qualification Criteria of Seismic Category I Instrument-ation and Electric Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations".These criteria are scnt to C-E's vendors and are used by C-E todetermine test acceptability. This approach appeared to offer promisefor MEB acceptance of C-E's methodology.

2. Instrumentation and Control Systems Branch

Yes - although, again, a large number of combinations exist for typesand functions of equipment; if C-E's competence is demonstrated in theexisting sample test reports for electrical and functional methodology,then basic approval of electrical methodology could be given.

Part Two (Summary Data Sheets)

Yes - by both branches. The format and content of the data sheets hadbeen previously reviewed; no further comments were given. Accept-ability of individual, completed data sheets must still be determined,although this would also be on a one-time basis.

As tt NRC requested, C-E will provide a matrix of the project equip-ment list / data sheets such that specific data sheets will have anaccompanying list of projects to which they are applicable.

C-E understands that the NRC will look into the details of how bestto allow applicants to reference Part Two, which is by nature aliving document.

Considerable time was spent in the meeting discussing reference to IEEE 344-1971versus IEEE 344-1975. Other than the points raised above there did not appearto be disagreement on the 1975 methods and approach. The desireability of re-

taining the 1971 methodology and data sheets in the tcpical was thorougnly dis-cussed. Advantages to both C-E and the NRC exist in retaining the 1971 material.This is because several "early" C-E plants reference the IEEE 344-1971 portionof CENPD-182 and advantages of generic t aview can be gained in conjunction withthe site att program in existence. C-E feels this can be resolved by a state-ment in the cuiPD-182 Safety Evaluation Report limiting use of IEEE 344-1971reports / methodology to plants not required to meet later requirements.

Before C-E proceeds with Revision 2 to the topical, we would like confirmationof two points.

1. Will inclusion of additional qualification criteria (" QualificationCriteria of Seismic Category I Instrumentation and Electric Equipmentfor Nuclear Power Generating Stations") in the IEEE 344-1975 method-ology section of the topical suffice to allow NRC approval of qualifi-cation methods (Part One)? A copy of this criteria is enclosed foryour review.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _

Mr. Robert L. Baer -3-.

2. Can a method be found to allow individual utilities to reference PartTwo of the topical - material which will be continually updated?

We request that answers to the above two questions be provided by the NRC assoon as possible. If we can receive positive indications to both by December 15,1978, C-E plans to revise CENPD-182 during January 1979.

We would appreciate this being handled as quickly as possible so that C-E willbe able to confidently advise our customers of the continued viability of usingthis topical report for their FSAR submittals in 1979. If you have any questionsconcerning the letter or the attachment,please feel free to contact me or Ms. J.M. Cicerchia of my staff at (203)688-1911, extension 2595.

Very truly yours,

COMBUSTION ENGIN RING, INC.

-~

_.

A. . chererLicensing Manager

"

AES:dag

Enclosure

!

_ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

.

_ - _ _ _

, . . . ,

.

.

QUALIFICATION CRITERIA

|.

c.

SEISMIC CATEGORY I INSTRUMENTATION AND ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT

S>318= -.a yc,

%E~E5EFOR*

_$ tadR E~E

k j E* h5$ co

NUCLEAR POWER GENERATING STATIONSs a a y i

CRITERI A NO. SYS80-ICE 0506, REV. 01 i E { * E *$. eYg

8UW Wn =, k & ;;; E "*

-

o| E *~ $ $_ E 5 5 3 g:I h 8"EE'

hE & "E iNuclear Power Systems Q 2* '1 at o 2's @

"COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC. --

Windsor, Connecticut -9 }3""[z a~ r. a

a y a E sry9 8 5 h 5' 5

Prepared by fdd7/u@NS Date # - 7 - 7FT. A. MacNair

Approved by__ M se 8e%[ Date //- 7- 76f.Corsi

'

Independently Reviewed by h //[ [ 7 Date l/-7-7T -

R. M. Keller

Approved k" Date N'i-l @R. P. Daigle (/,

Approved by h M d Date / /- 9- 78R. G. Walker '

This document is the property of Combustion Engineering, Inc.(C-E), Winasor, Connecticut, and is to be used only for thepurposes of the agreement with C-E pursuant to which it isfurnished.

Issue Date 11-9-78 Page 1 of 15.

_ - . - . _ - . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . - _ _ _ _ . - . - _ . - _ - - _ _ - - _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - - ~ ~ - _

.- - _ . . . - . .- _- . . ._

. .. .

'

' RECORD OF REVISIONS

NO. ,.. DATE . PAGES INVOLVED PREPARED BY APPROVALS !'

! |

i

00 5-5-77 Original J. Corsi T. A. MacNairD. K. SentellR. P. Daigle |

T. P. Gates

01 11-9-78 3,4,5,7,9,10,12,13, T. A. MacNair J. Corsi14,15 R. M. Keller

R. P. Daigle ;

R. G. Walker i

i

--

.

.

,

,

.

.

.

Criteria No. SYS80-ICE-0506 Revision 01 Page 2 of 15

. . _ _ _ ._ ___ _ _ __ .__ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ -_ _ ____ _ ___-- __.____ __ .

.

.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

"Section Title Page No.

1.0 SCOPE A

2.0 ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY 4

3.0 REFERENCES 4

4.0 REQUIREMENTS 5 |

-

e

(

e

.

Specification No. SYS80-ICE-0506 Revision 01 Page 3 of 15

1.0 ,.. SCOPE

This document provides C-E's interpretation of the currentindustry practices (IEEE Std. 344-1975) and establishes the

[,

minimum requirements for qualification of Seismic CategoryI instrumentation and electrical equipment, used in nucleargenerating stations, which must withstand the effects of theOperational Basis Earthquake (0BE) and the Safe ShutdownEarthquake (SSE). Seismic Category I equipment is definedas Class I structures and equipment that are essential to

the safe shutdown and isolation of the reactor or whosefailure or damage could result in signigicant release of

'

radioactive material. '

2.0 ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSI8 Q EY

The Supplier shall be responsible for the seismic qualificationof equipment within his scope of supply. The Supplier shallsubmit qualif.ication procedures and reports for approval. TheSupplier shall be familiar with the reference in Section 3.0

|herein.

|

3.0 REFERENCE

I

IEEE Std. 344-1975, Recommended Practices for Seismic Qualification |of Class IE Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations.

O

.


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

'

4.0 REQUIREMENTS

4.1 r. SEISMIC CATEGORY I EQUIPMENT

The equipment shall be qualified to motions which conservativelyrepresent its Operating Basis Earthquake (0BE) and Safe ShutdownEarthquake (SSE) environment. The seismic qualification shall beaccomplished in accordance with the Reference and therequirements of this criteria.

4.1.1 Inservice Conditions

The following inservice conditions shall be duplicated forseismic testing. -

-

4.1.1.1 Mounting

The equipment shall be oriented (with respect to gravity) andmounted to the excitation system as intended for service asindicated in Section 4.0 of the equipment specification. Any

fixturing necessary to assist simulation of the intended servicemounting shall be rigid in regard to the test frequencies.

4.1.1.2 Equipment Operation|

The equipment shall be operated as intended for service. AllClass lE safety-related functions shall'be exercised. Where more

than one equipment operating mode (safety-related) exists, t ilmodes must be operationally tested during the seismic test.

4.1.1.3 Equipment Assemblagej

The equipment should be tested in the as-built configuration(fullyassembled). If parts of the equipment are removed, they

-

must be replaced with Purchaser-approved dynamically equivalent modelsfor testing. During the test, the mounting points of the modelsshall be monitored by accelerometers and the resultant motionsanalyzed and displayed as response spectra. When overtesting

Criteria No. SYS80-ICE-0506 Revision 01 _ _______ Pagg 5 of 15____

_ - _

'

.

.

occurs as a result of seismic table noise or non-linearities in,the seismic test system, the resulting response spectra at the

r^-mounting points of the models shall be compensated to remove the

effects of the overtesting and included in the test report. The

overtesting is evidenced by the amount the TRS exceeds the RRS.-

at the mounting points of the models. The removed equipmentshall then be qualified using these response spectra in accordancewith this criteria.

4.1.2 Acceptance Criteria for Equipment Performance

The equipment will be considered qualified for its intended useduring and after the SSE (and lesser earthquakes), if it isspecifically shown by testing that the equipment meets the --

Seismic Design Requirements of Section 4,0 of the equipmentspecification. -

4.1.3 Monitoring

,

During seismic testing, the equipment performance shall bepermanently recorded. The method of recording shall berecommended by the supplier and submitted for approval byC-E prior to the start of the seismic test.

4.1.3.1 Functional Monitoring

'

The accuracy, sensitivity, cod response time of the test equip-ment used foi monitoring shall be compatible with the monitored

parameter. The monitoring scheme shall be such as to provide! data which is clearly relativa to the acceptance criteria.

4.1.3.2 Structural Monitoring

4.1.3.2.1 A sufficient number of response accelerometers shall be attached

to the equipment to identify all significant equipment resonance

.

Criteria No. SYS80-ICE-0S06 Revision 00 Page 6 of .15_ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ _ __ _

.

|

frequencies. The test facility and/or Supplier shall determine.the number and location of response accelerometers. The number |

|c'and location of response accelerometers ..iust be submitted to C-E{for approval prior to the start of seismic testing.)

.

4.1.3.2.2 When required by the equipment specification, a sufficient number ofstrain gauges and Linear Variable Differential Transformers (LVDTs)shall be attached to the equipment at appropriate locations to determinemaximum stresse and relative displacements during the full level test.The test facility and/or Supplier shall determine the number and

location of these monitors. The number and location of the monitorsmust be submitted to C-E for approval prior to the start of seismictesting.

-~

4.1.4 Inspections and Tests

4.1 4.1 Pretest Inspections / Test

Upon receipt of the equipment at the test facility,and prior toseismic testing, the following inspections shall be ' performed toinsure the equipment is prepared for testing,

A visual inspection shall be performed for any physicala.

anomalies which may affect the equipment's performanceduring test. Any anomalies shall be corrected by the.

Supplier prior to testing. '

b. Proper operation of the equipment shall be verified by anoperational check. Base data shall be recorded for comparisonwith data taken during and af ter seismic testing.

Special mounting and interconnecting details, such as torquec.

values for fasteners, shall be recorded as required by theequipment specification.


- _-_-_ - _

...,

4.1.4.2 Post-Test Inspection / Test

, . . .

After seismic testing, the equipment shall be inspected and ,

functionally tested to determine the permanent effects of seismic~ hall betesting. The results of the post-test inspection / test s

recorded,

A visual inspection shall be made for loosened parts, cracksa.and defonnations,

b. The pretest operational check shall be repeated to determinethe permanent effects of seismic testing on equipment operation.

--

4.1.5 Seismic Testing

4.1.5.1 Resonance Survey Test1

The equipment shall be excited by sinusoidal motion of low-level,constant amplitude whose frequency is swept through the minimum

,

frequency range of 1 to 33 Hz. The sweep rate shall be no greaterthan one (1) octave per minute. The peak amplitude of thismotion shall be low to avoid resonance damage in the equipment,

but high enough to provide a usable signal-to-noise ratio (0.2gsis typical).

,

This survey shall be performed in each of the three major equipmentThe pertinent information (frequency, direction, andaxes.

location) of each resonant condition shall be recorded. Any ofthe following conditions constitutes equipment resonance.

Amplified output of response accelerometer.a.

b. Change in sound level of equipment, humming or chattering.

c. Electrical output oscillation or perturbation.

Revisfon 00 Page 8 of 15. __ __ Criteria No. SYS80-ICE-0506 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

_- . _= .

.

4.'1. 5. 2 Full Level Test

The seismic environment of the equipment (motions of the

jequipmentmountingpoints)i:: characterized by the RequiredResponse Spectra (RRS) found in the equipment specification.

The equipment shall be subjected to test motions yieldingtest response spectra (TRS) from the control accelerometerattached to the test table which envelop the RRS. Prior tothe full level test, a minimum of five (5) half-level orOperating Basis Earthquake (0BE) tests shall be performedin each test direction. Should any of the TRS fail to envelopthe respective RRS, the test facility shall provide acceptablejustification that the equipment is qualified for use in thespecific seismic environment.

The seismic input waveform shall be random multifrequency.m

(RMF) at intervals no greater than one-third octave. The

use of sine or sine-beat to augment RMF is permitted ifone of the following criteria (a,b,or c)is applicable. Insuch a case', the TRS of the RMF portion of.the excitation shallbe equal _to or greater than the RRS of the OBE, or~ one-half theSSE. The TRS of the combined RMF and sine or sine-beat shallenvelop the full RRS of the SSE,

a. Sine or sine-beat may be superimposed upon the RMF wave-form so long as the sines or sine-beats are simultaneous

and continue at the same frequency (s) throughout thedurationoftesting(30 seconds).

b. Sequential sine or sine-beat may belused to qualify fora plant specific RRS which contains a single, high peakwhich as been artificially broadened. A minimum of 3sines or sine-beats may be used with a minimum durationat each frequency of 15 seconds. The sines or sine-beats

may be sequenced in the same test, requiring extended testtimes, or they may be sequenced in separate tests.

'.


. _ - _ _ _ _ . -___- - - - ___ -______________-_____ -______________-_______ _____.

.. . ._. - ~ - .. .-- .. - , - .

,.

,.

'|

.

r' !

c. If a test facility has difficulty enveloping the low !1

frequencies of a C-E generic RRS, it is permissible |to sequence sines or sine-beat at the low frequencies |

(the leading edge of the generic RRS), with 15 seconds j

duration at each of these. frequencies. |

4.1.5.2.1 Test Directions,

Excitation shall be directed to each of the three majoraxes of the equipment in a biaxial manner. Phase-incoherent

biaxial testing (two orthogonal inputs) requires two''

sequences for each test; vertical - side / side and vertical -front /back. Phase locked biaxial testing (one inclined input)

0requires four sequences for each test; specimen rotated 90about vertical for each sequence.

4.1.5.2.2 Test Duration.

The duration of each test sequence shall be 30 seconds.Longer duration is permitted if required for electricaldata collection or as required when superimposing sine orsine-beat onto RMF.

L

.

d

Criteria No. SYS80-ICE-0506 Revision 01 Page 10of 15-- .

.. .

|*

^4.1.5.2.3 Spectrum Analyses

Spectrum analysis shall be performed for each axis of each testsequence. The TRS from the control (excitation) accelerometershall be plotted from 1 Hz to a frequency which gives a clearindication of zero period acceleration (ZPA), using a dampir-vaiwe equal to that indicated by the RRS.

4.1.5.3 Determination of Resonance (Natural Frequencies)

The resonance frequencies of the equipment shall be datermined bycomparing the TRSs of the response accelerometers to the control

'

accelerometers, in addition to the results of Section 4.1.5.1,Resonance Survey.

4.1.6 Calculation of Alternate Mounting Method

If the equipment must be qualified to use alternate, mountingmethods (bolt or weld) by Section 4.0 of the equipment specification,a calculation shall be performed to determine the minimum requirements

for the alternate (untested) method. If the alternate method iswelding, the minimum requirements include weld material (by nameor psi rating), fillet diameter, length and location. If the

'

alternate method is bolting, the minimum requirements includebolt material (psi rating) bolt dianeter, number and location ofbolts and recomended torque value.

4.1.7 Dynamic Loading on Foundation (Mounting Pads)

| The dynamic load on the equipment foundation (via equipmentmounting hardware) shall be calculated. When the equipment ismounted by discrete fasteners, the results shall be given on a"per fastener" basis.


-_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _

'..*

'

4.1.8 Documentation

r.iThefollowinginformationshallbeincludedintheseismicqualification report. Identification shall be such as to permittraceability. The completeness of the report shall allow theprocedures to be repeated with similar results,

n. Description of the qualified equipment, including mountingdetails,

b. The Acceptance Criteria.

c. The date, place, and names of persons performing this effort.

--

d. The test equipment employed, with calibration schedule andrated performance data,

e. The approved qualification procedure,

f. The actual steps of the qualification effort,

g. A list of all assumptions methods and techniques employedwith justification for their application.

h. Results of the qualification effort, including monitoreddata, inspaction findings, resonance frequencies, and test

#response spectra.

i. A comparison of results and acceptance criteria. Any

deviations from the acceptance criteria or approved proceduresshall be clearly stated and justified. The TRS shall besuperimposed on the RRS for comparison.

.

)


_ ____ ______________ - _ _ _ _

- --, - , . -. - - -

'.

. .

,

J. Conclusions; the status of qualification should clearly.beunderstood,

,

r.,

k. Analysis and minimum requirements of alternate mountingmethod when required.

1. The dynamic loads on the equipment foundation.

m. Signature, with date, of persons certifying the qualification.

4.2 SUPPORTS OF CATEGORY I EQUIPMENT

Non-functional structures, which support or enclose category I ,

s

equipment that are too large for mounting upon a test table,shall be qualified by in-place test and analysis. This sectionserves only to qualify the non-functional structure and determinethe~ seismic environment of the supported equipment. Qualificationof the supported equipment shall be in accordance with Section4.1 or as described below, as applicable.

,

4.2.1 Inservice Conditions

The following inservice conditions shall be duplicated forinplace test and analysis.

.,

o4.2.1.1 Mounting

The structure shall be oriented and mounted to the floor or wall(usually at place of manufacture or installed in the power plant)as intended for service.

4.2.1.2 Structure Assemblage.

The structure shall be, in regard to structural dynamics, in the,

fully assembled configuration. Equivalent models shall replaceany of the supported equipment which has been removed.

Criteria No. SYS80-ICE-0506 _ Revision 01 Page 13 of 15 . .

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.,.

4.2.2 Acceptance Criteria

c'The structure will be considered qualified for its intended useduring and after the SSE if:

a. The integrity of the structure is maintained.

b. When required by the support structure specification, theresponse spectra determined at the mounting points of thesupported equipment fall within the required response spectraof the supported equipment,

c. Any special requirements, given by the structure specification,are satisfied.

--

4.2.3 Analysis

The analysis shall determine the response of the structure whenexcited by the SSE, which is characterized by the required responsespectra, or the required time-history.

.

4.2.3.1 Analysis Methods

A detailed math model of the structure shall be constructed. The

model shall consider al.1 members of structural significance, plusthe location of each of the supported equioment. The model must,

then be analyzed to determine whether the quipment is rigid orflexible. If the model has ta resonanch in the frequency rangeof dynamic amplification (i.e. below the ZpA frequency of theRRS) it is considered rigid and can be analyzed statically. If

flexible, the model can be analyzed using linear analysis,response spectrum mdal analysis or time history analysis.

4.2.3.2 Results

The results of the analysis shall be:

Criteria No. SYS80-ICE-0506 Revision 01 Pagel4 of 15

_ _ - - _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

_ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _

q,.

a. Acceleratica response spectra at each of the mounting pointsof the supported equipment; the response spectra shall

.

c' contain data points at intervals not greater than 1/3 octave,have an associated damping of 1% of critical, and range from |

i1 Hz to that frequency which gives a clear indication ofiZeroPeriodAcceleration(ZPA);

b. A comparison of the resultant stresses to the allowablestresses at all significant stress points of the structure, |

c. The dynamic load to the structure mounting,

d. The maximum deflection of the structure exterior...

4.2.3.3 In-Place Test

The in-place test shall consist of using one or more portable |shakers, attached to the structure at various points, for low-level excitation of the structure. Appropriate monitoring devicesshall also be attached to the structure to determine modal dampings,

'

shapes, frequencies, participation factors, etc., to refine theanalytical model. The above properties shall be normalized tothe SSE excitation levels ! use in the analysis.

4.2.4 Documentation

The documentation of inplace test and analysis shall be as indicatedby Section 4.1.8 herein with emphasis given to the responsespectra at the mounting points of the supported equipment.

Criteria No. SYS80-ICE-0506 Revision 01 Page 15 of 15.

Documents

-- m POWER E.EnSYSTEMS