ML17059B579
| ML17059B579 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1997 |
| From: | Hood D NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Sylvia B NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| References | |
| TAC-M69461, NUDOCS 9706110272 | |
| Download: ML17059B579 (12) | |
Text
Hr. B. Ralph Sylvia Executive Vice Presi~~
. t Generation Business Group and Chief Nuclear Officer Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nuclear Learning Center 450 Lake Road
- Oswego, NY 13126 I I
SUBJECT:
SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING VERIFICATION OF SEISMIC ADEQUACY OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, NINE 'MILE POINT'NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO.
1 (TAC NO. H69461)
June 5,
1997 Sincerely,
Dear Hr. Sylvia:
The NRC staff is reviewing your submittal of March'll, 1996, associated with Unresolved Safety Issue (USI),A-46 regarding the verification of seismic adequacy of mechanical and electrical equipment in operating reactors.
In addition to the NRC staff's requests for additional information dated March 11, 1997, to which you responded Hay 1,
- 1997, we find that further information is necessary to complete: this review.
Therefor e, the enclosure identifies supplemental requests for, additional information regarding report MPR-1600, "Nine Mile Point Unit 1 USI A-46, Seismic Evaluation Report," dated November
- 1995, forwarded by your letter o'f March 11, 1996.
"J Your response to the enclosure is requested within 45..'days of receipt of this letter.
If you have questions regarding the'nclosure or are unable to meet the requested response date; please call me at (301) 415-'3049, or e-mail me at dsh8nrc.gov.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
Docket No. 50-220 Darl S.
Hood, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-l Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Supplemental Request for Additional Information cc w/encl:
See next page DISTRIBUTION:
NRCMCKÃES CI'V
%.ocketFi'Ie PUBLIC PDI-1 R/F SVarga ADromerick SLittle
'Hood GGolub RWessman OGC GBagchi ACRS
=
CThomas L. Doerflein, RI RRothman PChen KHanoly g(<L DOCUMENT NAME:
G: iNMPliNH169461. RAI 4
To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box:
"C" = Copy without attachment enclosure "E" =
Co ith attachment enclosure "N" = No co OFFICE prr:pD I -1 E
LA:PDI-DP I,f NANE DNood/rsl DS SLItt ADr DATE D6/~ /97 06/
/97 06/
/97 9706ii0272 970605 PDR ADOCK 05000220 P
" PDR
5 1
J Jl
gAR AEONS~
+~
~o
++**+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055&0001 June 5,
1997 Hr. B. Ralph Sylvia Executive Vice President Generation Business Group and Chief Nuclear Officer Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nuclear Learning Center 450 Lake Road
- Oswego, NY 13126
SUBJECT:
SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORHATION REGARDING VERIFICATION OF SEISMIC ADEQUACY OF HECKANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPHENT, NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO.
1 (TAC NO. M69461)
Dear Hr. Sylvia:
The NRC staff is reviewing your submittal of March 11,
- 1996, associated with Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A-46 regarding the verification of seismic adequacy of mechanical and electrical equipment in operating reactors.
In addition to the NRC staff's requests for additional information dated March 11, 1997, to which you responded Hay 1,
- 1997, we find that further information is necessary to complete this review.
Therefore, the enclosure identifies supplemental requests for additional information regarding report HPR-1600, "Nine Mile Point Unit 1 USI A-46 Seismic Evaluation Report," dated November
- 1995, forwarded by your letter of March 11, 1996.
,Your response to the enclosure.is requested within 45 days of receipt of this letter.
If you have questions regarding the enclosure or are unable to meet the requested response
- date, please call me at (301) 415-3049, or e-mail me at dsh8nrc.gov.
Sincerely, g~4~
Darl S.
Kood, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-220
Enclosure:
Supplemental Request for Additional Information cc w/encl:
See next page
I
,B. Ralph Sylvia Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit No.
1 CC:
Hr. Richard B. Abbott Vice President and General Hanager-Nuclear Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station P.O.
Box 63
- Lycoming, NY 13093 Mr. Martin J. HcCormick, Jr.
Vice President Nuclear Safety Assessment and Support Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station P.O.
Box 63
- Lycoming, NY 13093 Ms. Denise J. Wolniak Manager Licensing Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station P.O.
Box 63
- Lycoming, NY 13093 Hr. Kim A. Dahlberg General Manager - Projects Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station P.O.
Box 63
- Lycoming, NY 13093 Hr. Norman L. Rademacher Plant Manager, Unit 1
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station P.O.
Box 63
- Lycoming, NY 13093 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O.
Box 126
- Lycoming, NY 13093 Charles Donaldson, Esquire Assistant Attorney General New York Department of Law 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 Hr. Paul D.
Eddy State of New York Department of Public Service Power Division, System Operations 3 Empire State Plaza
- Albany, NY 12223 Mr. F. William Valentino, President New York State
- Energy, Research, and Development Authority Corporate Plaza West 286 Washington Avenue Extension
- Albany, NY 12203-6399 Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esquire Winston
& Strawn 1400 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-3502 Gary D. Wilson, Esquire Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West
- Syracuse, NY 13202 Supervisor Town of Scriba Route 8, Box 382
- Oswego, NY 13126
SUPPLEMENTAL RE VEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING REPORT MPR-1600 "NINE MILE POINT UNIT 1 USI A-46 SEISMIC EVALUATION REPORT IAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION UNIT NO.
1 DOCKET NO. 50-220 In report HPR-1600 transmitted by your letter of March ll, 1997, you stated that resolution of all outliers will be completed at the conclusion of refueling outage 15 (RF015) which is scheduled for 1999.
Please elaborate on your decision to defer the resolution of identified outliers and your evaluation in support of the conclusion that the licensing basis for the plant will not be affected by your decision.
Specifically, you are requested to provide the justification for assuring operability of the affected systems and components while a number of safety-related components in the safe shutdown path have been identified as outliers thus rendering their seismic adequacy questionable and their conformance to the licensing basis uncertain.
2.
In Table 5-3 of report'PR-1600, many outliers related to cinch.anchors were resolved based on calculations and bolt tightness checks.
Provide
.the seismic adequacy evaluations, the details of the calculations, and the findings of the tightness checks for the items with the following designated equipment identification numbers:
a.
210. 1-36 (CRAC/Chill Water Circ.
Pump ¹12) b.
210-01 (CRAC/Emerg.
Vent Fan ¹11) c.
MSIVIR (AP/Hain Steam Isolation Valve Instrument Rack) d.
PRC167 (AP/HG Set ¹167 Proj. Relay Cabinet) e.
96-04 (EDG 102 Air Start Tank ¹1) f.
TRANS 167A/600 to 120/208 V Transformer) g.
BBll (AP/125 V DC Battery Board ¹ll)
Submit for NRC staff's review the report RTR-2661, "Lead Expansion Anchor Load Capacity in Reactor Buildings at the Savannah River Site,"
dated August 15, 1989, which is referenced in Appendix E to HPR-1600.
3.
Provide the details of the seismic adequacy evaluations and the outlier resolutions for the items with the following designated equipment identification numbers:
a.
VB12 (CTRL/125-V-DC VLV Board ¹12) b.
1671 (AP/600V Powerboard, Ref.
DER 1-95-3101) c.
1S35 (CTRL/Aux Control Relay Cabinet
- 1S35, Ref.
DER-1-95-3151) d.
72-03 (SW/Emerg.
Service Water Pump ¹12)
Enclosure
/
II i
On page 36 of Appendix B, "Composite Safe Shutdown Equipment List (SSEL)," to report HPR-1600, line 8101 (AP/Emergency Diesel Generator
¹102),
you indicate that the diesel generator, oil transfer
- pump, and control panel are on the same skid and are, therefore, evaluated together.
Provide the details of the seismic adequacy evaluations for each of these three equipment items.
On pages 1 and 2 of Appendix B to report HPR-1600, lines 3144-3154, you indicate that since the safety valves are not required to satisfy the Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP) safe shutdown requirements, it is not necessary to perform a seismic evaluation of these valves.
Provide justification for this statement.
In your Harch 11, 1996, letter and in associated report HPR-1600, you state that you committed to implement the GIP-2 including the clarifications, interpretation, and exceptions in SSER-2, and to communicate to the NRC staff any significant or programmatic deviations from the GIP-2 guidance.
You further state (Section
- 9) that the submittal confirms that no significant or programmatic deviations from the GIP-2 guidance were made.
Provide the 10 worst-case items (from the safety point of view) that deviate from the GIP-2 guidelines but were categorized as not being significant.
Also, provide (1) the definition of "significant deviations" that the walkdown crew used to classify the deviation as significant or insignificant and (2) a justification as to why such a
definition is adequate.
Referring to the in-structure response spectra provided in your 120-day-response to the NRC's request in Supplement No.
1 to Generic Letter (GL) 87-02, dated Hay 22, 1992, the following information is requested:
a.
Identify structure(s) having in-structure response spectra (5
percent of critical damping) for elevations within 40-feet above the effective grade, that are higher in amplitude than 1.5 times the Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG) Bounding Spectrum.
b.
With respect to the comparison of equipment seismic capacity and seismic
- demand, indicate which method in Table 4-1 of GIP-2 was used to evaluate the seismic adequacy for equipment installed on the corresponding floors in the structure(s) identified in your response to Item 7.a.
above.
If you have elected to use method A in Table 4-1 of the GIP-2, provide a technical justification for not using the in-structure response spectra provided in your 120-day-response.
Some USI A-46 licensees appear to be making an incorrect comparison between their plant's safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) ground motion response spectrum and the SQUG Bounding Spectrum.
The SSE ground motion response spectrum for most nuclear power plants is defined at the plant foundation level.
The SQUG Bounding Spectrum is defined at the free field ground surface.
For plants located at deep soil or rock sites, there may not be a significant difference between the ground motion amplitudes at the foundation level and those at the
E
8.
- 9. ground surface.
However, for sites where a structure is founded on shallow soil, the amplification for the ground motion from the foundation level to the ground surface may be significant.
c.
For the structure(s) identified in your response to Item 7.a.
- above, provide the in-structure response spectra designated according to the height above the effective grade.
If the in-structure response spectra identified in.the 120-day-response to Supplement No.
1 to GL 87-02 was not used, provide the response spectra that were actually used to verify the seismic adequacy of equipment within the structures identified in the response to Item 7.a.
above.
- Also, provide a comparison of these spectra to 1.5 times the Bounding Spectrum.
Table 5-2 of report MPR-1600 indicates that a cutout cover-plate size of a motor control center (equipment identification no.
PB1671) exceeds the GIP maximum dimension.
However, you accepted it as a "standard GE unit whose structural adequacy is judged acceptable."
The use of the term "judged" is vague and this judgment needs to be justified.
Provide an analysis or test result that demonstrates equipment item PB1671 is seismically adequate.
'able 6-1 of report HPR-1600 provides only brief descriptions and resolutions for the tank and heat exchanger outliers.
Provide the detailed descriptions and calculations for the tanks and heat exchangers with identification numbers 60-09, 82-43, 96-35, and 305-125.
10.
In Item 9 above, if you used the seismic margin methodology described in the report EPRI NP-6041 for the tank evaluations, you should describe the extent to which the method was used in the NNPl A-46 program.
Since this methodology is known to yield analytical results that are not as conservative as those obtained by following the GIP-2 guidelines, it is generally not acceptable for the USI A-46 program.
Therefore, for each deviation from the GIP-2 guidelines, in situations where the margin methodology is utilized, identify the nature and the extent of the deviation, and provide the justification for its acceptance.
11.
Section 7 of report HPR-1600 states that a total of eight worst-case limited analytical reviews (LARs) for the cable and conduit raceways were selected.
Provide the list of those eight cases.
Indicate whether the LARs include a review for the hanger supports; Provide the analysis for the cast iron inserts for the resolution of CB-TB-261.
12.
Discuss the issue described in NRC Information Notice 95-49 regarding Thermo-Lag panels in particular, the issue regarding seismic resistance capability of the cable tray and its support when appropriate weight and models of the Thermo-Lag are included in your LARs.
~
r
~I' F
J