ML15112A593
| ML15112A593 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1998 |
| From: | Labarge D NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Mccollum W DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-M99487, TAC-M99488, TAC-M99489, NUDOCS 9804060335 | |
| Download: ML15112A593 (5) | |
Text
April 2, 1998 Mr. W. R. McCollum Distribution:
HBerkow RWessman Vice President, Oconee Site Docket File LBerry OGC Duke Energy Corporation PUBLIC DLaBarge ACRS P. 0. Box 1439 PD 11-2 Rdg.
PYChen LPlisco, Rll Seneca, SC 29679 JZwolinski DJeng PSkinner, Rll SUpJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 EMERGENCY CONDENSER COOLING WATER SYSTEM (TAC NOS. M99487, M99488, M99489)
Dear Mr. McCollum:
Your response dated March 19, 1998, to Question 1 of the staff's request for additional information dated March 2, 1998, did not provide complete information for each item of the equipment requested in accordance with Section 1.2.3.4 of Generic Implementation Procedure, Revision 2 (GIP-2). In particular, it was not clear that the provisions in Section 1.2.3.4 of the staffs Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report No. 2 (SSER-2) dated May 22, 1992, were followed.
The staff's position in SSER-2 relating to new and replacement equipment (not identical to the seismically adequate Safe Shutdown Equipment List equipment) states that GIP-2 criterion and procedures may be applied on a case-by-case (i.e., plant-specific and equipment-specific) basis only. In particular, each new or replacement item of equipment and parts must be evaluated for any design changes that could reduce its seismic capacity from that reflected by the experience data base. Furthermore, if the equipment is commercial-grade equipment, you should evaluate and document the results in accordance with applicable guidance and requirements in Generic Letters 89-02, 89-09, and 91-05, which include applicable criteria of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
The staff needs to review your evaluation and documentation in accordance with Section 1.2.3.4 of GIP-2 and Section 1.2.3.4 of the staffs SSER-2 for each item of the equipment requested in item No. 1 of the staffs March 2, 1998, request for additional information. In order to perform this review, we request that you respond to the enclosed request for additional information.
Sincerely, Original signed by:
David E. LaBarge, Senior Project Manager V
Project Directorate 11-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/Il Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encl: See next page 9804060335 980402 PDR ADOCK 05000269 P
PDR To receive a co y of tris coc entidit iein the box:"C" = Copy without attachmentlenclosure "E" = Cop with attachm enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE P
j/ If LA:PDII-D:PD NAME Dfa8ge:cn L perry y
HB r
/
DATE 4/12198
\\/f/98/
/198
/
/98 I
/98
/
/97 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\OCON E\\OCO99487.A OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Z
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 April 2, 1998 Mr. W. R. McCollum Vice President, Oconee Site Duke Energy Corporation P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, SC 29679
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 EMERGENCY CONDENSER COOLING WATER SYSTEM (TAC NOS. M99487, M99488, AND M99489)
Dear Mr. McCollum:
Your response dated March 19, 1998, to Question 1 of the staffs request for additional information dated March 2, 1998, did not provide complete information for each item of the equipment requested in accordance with Section 1.2.3.4 of Generic Implementation Procedure, Revision 2 (GIP-2). In particular, it was not clear that the provisions in Section 1.2.3.4 of the staffs Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report No. 2 (SSER-2) dated May 22, 1992, were followed.
The staffs position in SSER-2 relating to new and replacement equipment (not identical to the seismically adequate Safe Shutdown Equipment List equipment) states that GIP-2 criterion and procedures may be applied on a case-by-case (i.e., plant-specific and equipment-specific) basis only. In particular, each new or replacement item of equipment and parts must be evaluated for any design changes that could reduce its seismic capacity from that reflected by the experience data base. Furthermore, if the equipment is commercial-grade equipment, you should evaluate and document the results in accordance with applicable guidance and requirements in Generic Letters 89-02, 89-09, and 91-05, which include applicable criteria of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
The staff needs to review your evaluation and documentation in accordance with Section 1.2.3.4 of GIP-2 and Section 1.2.3.4 of the staffs SSER-2 for each item of the equipment requested in item No. 1 of the staffs March 2, 1998, request for additional information. In order to perform this review, we request that you respond to the enclosed request for additional information.
Sincerely, David E. LaBarge, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 11-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encl: See next page
Oconee Nuclear Station cc:
Mr. Paul R. Newton Mr. J. E. Burchfield Legal Department (PBO5E)
Compliance Manager Duke Energy Corporation Duke Energy Corporation 422 South Church Street Oconee Nuclear Site Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, South Carolina 29679 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esquire Winston and Strawn Ms. Karen E. Long 1400 L Street, NW.
Assistant Attorney General Washington, DC 20005 North Carolina Department of Justice Mr. Robert B. Borsum P. O. Box 629 Framatome Technologies Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Suite 525 1700 Rockville Pike L. A. Keller Rockville, Maryland 20852-1631 Manager - Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Manager, LIS Duke Energy Corporation NUS Corporation 526 South Church Street 2650 McCormick Drive, 3rd Floor Charlotte, North Carolina 28242-0001 Clearwater, Florida 34619-1035 Mr. Richard M. Fry, Director Senior Resident Inspector Division of Radiation Protection U. S. Nuclear Regulatory North Carolina Department of Commission Environment, Health, and 7812B Rochester Highway Natural Resources Seneca, South Carolina 29672 3825 Barrett Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721 Regional Administrator, Region II U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Suite 23T85 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Max Batavia, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 County Supervisor of Oconee County Walhalla, South Carolina 29621
Request for Additional Information Upgraded Emergency Condenser Circulating Water (ECCW) System Stated below are specific areas where additional information is requested.
1.
Identify or list the new or replacement equipment in the ECCW system for the safe shutdown path for which Generic Implementation Procedure, Revision 2 (GIP-2), was applied, since it is unclear which equipment is existing and which is new or replacement.
- 2.
You identified eight new Safe Shutdown Equipment List (SSEL) cabinets, which were divided into two groups. Within the group, are the cabinets exactly identical? If not, identify their differences, and how the differences among equipment in the same group were addressed in regard to establishing their seismic adequacy. What is an ESV cabinet/ESVLCP cabinet? What internal components do they contain? Do they contain any relays or contactors? Describe how the internal components were evaluated for their seismic adequacy.
- 3.
For each piece of new and replacement equipment (NARE) identified in our request for additional information (RAI) dated March 2, 1998, where GIP-2 was used for assessing its seismic adequacy:
- a.
As stated in GIP-2, identify whether the equipment is "identical (like-for-like)" or "non-identical (alternate item)." Describe the specific method used to assess the adequacy of the equipment of concern.
- b.
As stated in SSER-2, describe how you ensured that design changes in each equipment such as construction of the equipment, new parts, new materials, etc., have not reduced its seismic capacity from that reflected by the data base, i.e., describe how you compared the new or replacement equipment with experience data base equipment beyond just meeting the applicable equipment caveats given in GIP-2.
- c.
From a quality assurance perspective, (1) identify the items that are commercial grade, (ii) identify whether each commercial-grade item is "like-for-like" or "alternate item;" and (iii) describe both the seismic and nonseismic critical design attributes/characteristics for each item.
- 4.
Describe, in general, the evaluation performed regarding the acceptability of the NARE in the ECCW system in relation to the guidelines provided by the generic letters (GLs) identified below. Discuss the result of the evaluation for each of the items requested in our RAI of March 2, 1998:
GL 89-09, "ASME Section III Component Replacements" GL 91-05, "Licensee Commercial-Grade Procurement and Dedication Programs"
-2 GL-89-02, "Actions to Improve the Detection of Counterfeit and Fraudulently Marketed Products"
- 5.
You provided only one Screening Evaluation Work Sheet (SEWS) (for the ESV pumps);
you should have SEWSs for each item of equipment evaluated. In our previous RAI, we requested you to provide equipment-specific SEWSs for four items. We request the SEWS forms for all requested equipment.
- 6.
In the fourth paragraph, Section 4.6, "ESV System Design Criteria" of your submittal dated August 28, 1997, it is stated that "...Where QA-1 cable supports/trays have been added, a seismic review has been performed. This review addresses the potential for any interaction of non-seismic equipment with the new QA-1 cable support/trays..."
Beside the potential 11/1 seismic interaction issue that was evaluated for the new QA-1 cable supports/trays, discuss the methodology and criteria used in qualifying the seismic adequacy of the QA-1 cable supports/trays.