ML17249A487
| ML17249A487 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 01/01/1980 |
| From: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | White L ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. |
| References | |
| TASK-03-06, TASK-3-6, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8001180003 | |
| Download: ML17249A487 (11) | |
Text
Oocke+Ho.
50-244 I
g~ggTI7 tlgEH HK Qlt'P JANUARY Mr. Leon D. White Vice President Rochester Gas 5 Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649
Dear hlr. White:
Recent seismic design evaluations conducted in the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) have indicated a potential safety concern relative to the anchorage and support of safety related electrical equipment.
It has also been observed that non-seismic Category I auxiliary items (dolleys, gas bottles, etc.)
may be dislodged by an earthquake and damage safety related equipment.
These issues were identified during site visits to Dresden 2, Haddam Neck, Gi nna, Oyster Greek,.Palisades and t<illstone 1 by review teams consisting of flRC representatives and consultants.
Since operability of the subject equipment may be essential during and after a seismic disturbance, we request that you assess the capability of all safety related electrical equipment (as well as non-seismic Category I auxiliary items) to resist seismic forces and implement remedial
- measures, as necessary, to increase safety margins.
All operating licensees of nuclear power facilities are being notified of this issue by an IAE Information Ho'tice (Enclosure 1).
Within 30 days, you are requested to develop an action plan for resolution of this issue and to submit. it for our review.
The following issues should be addressed:
1.
Does positive anchorage exist (load carrying mechanism other than friction);
- 2. If positive anchorage exists, has the anchorage system been engi neered
~
with adequate capacity; and 3.
Was the anchorage fabricated to quality standards2 The results of your investigation of Item 1 should be submitted within 60 days of the date this letter is received.
It should describe any corrective action considered necessary.
The overall issue, including any required modifications, should be resolved by September 1, 1980.
'FFICR~
$URNAMC~
DAT2~
NRC PORN 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240 Q U', OOVERNMRNT PRINTINO 0/VICKI IQTO
$2$ $24 800118 p
~Jku tf I ~
~
Fl lt f ~
~ I 10-
Although the final seismic design basis for your facility has not been
- resolved, and other changes may be required, appropriate action on this
'matter should not be delayed.
If necessary, consideration should be given to providing temporary supports with more permanent supports being installed after all seismic questions have been resolved.
Sincerely, p1 iginal signed bV y~rel1 G. Eisenhnt Darrell G. Eisenhut, Acting Director Division of Operating Reactors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclosure:
See next page DISTRIBUTION:
Docket SEPB Reading ORB g2 Reading NRC PDR Local PDR TERA DEisenhut RVollmer DZiemann Project Manager HSmi th DCrutchfield HLevin CHofmayer
DOR:A/DIR DGEisenhut
/
ijV~
DOE':ORBAL-"-"DOR fORB 42/G TUl.lacuna,ab........OU-it.Joano...."..
/2:iQ2g
- p--..
HALeyin:rj DOR;
.-..DOR.
t:.Hof er,.DC. u 'field I'~J ~ fP.5 P)17),.
~ ~ CPFFICK
,~ i SVANAM A~if<El..
~, DATE/
NRC FORM 318 {9-76) NRCM 0240
~ i.'.i'kU>l GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:,1979.289-369 O
/-SEP-tiler.".<.i.
P,~~ g9
L
- ~
f II I
I i'
I
]\\
4 4
)
tp
~8 RE0Ij
~ gV
+
0 Cy An C
O Cy
+>>*++
Docket No. 50-244 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 January 1,
1980 Nr. I.eon D. White Vice President Rochester Gas 8 Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649
Dear Nr. White:
Recent seismic design evaluations conducted in the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) have indicated a potential safety concern relative to the anchorage and support of safety related electrical equipment.
It has also been observed that non-seismic Category I auxiliary items (dolleys, gas bottles, etc.)
may be dislodged by an earthquake and damage safety related equipment.
These issues were identified during site visits to Dresden 2,
Haddam Neck, Ginna, Oyster Greek, Palisades and Millstone 1 by review teams consisting of NRC representatives and consultants.
Since operability of the subject equipment may be essential during and after a seismic disturbance, we request that you assess the capability of all safety related electrical equipment (as well as non-seismic Category I auxiliary items) to resist seismic forces and implement remedial
- measures, as necessary, to increase safety margins.
All operating licensees of nuclear power facilities are being notified of this issue by an ISE, Information Notice (Enclosure 1).
Within 30 days, you are requested to develop an action plan for resolution of this issue and to submit it for our review.
The following issues should be addressed:
l.
Does positive anchorage exist '(Toad~arrying mechanism-other-than-fri-ction);---
- 2. If positive anchorage
- exists, has the anchorage system been engineered with adequate capacity; and 3.
Was the anchorage fabricated to quality standards'he results of your investigation of Item 1 should be submitted within 60 days of the date this letter is received.
It should describe any corrective action considered necessary.
The overall issue, including any required modifications, should be resolved by September 1, 1980.
Although the final seismic design basis for your facility has not been
- resolved, and other changes may be required, appropriate action on this matter should not be delayed.
If necessary, consideration should be given to providing temporary supports with more permanent supports being installed after all seismic questions have been resolved.
Sincerely, M<i. ILI, > (C.tiers Darre 1 G. Eisenhuk, Acting'Director Division of Operating Reactors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encl.osure:
See next page cc w/enclosure:
Lex K. Larson, Esquire
- LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby E HacRae 1757 H Street, N.
W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 Hr. Michael Slade 12 Trailwood Circle Rochester, New York 14618'ochester Committee for Scientific Information Robert E. Lee, Ph.D.
P. 0.
Box 5236 River Campus Station Rochester, New York 14627 Jeffrey Cohen New York State Energy Office Swan Street Building Core 1, Second Floor Empire State Plaza
- Albany, New York 12223 Director, Technical Development Programs State of New York Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza
- Albany, New York 12223 Rochester Public Library 115-South, Avenue
Rochester, New York 14604 Supervisor of the Town of Ontario 107 Ridge Road West
- Ontario, Hew York 14519 Director, Technical Assessment Division Office of Radiation Programs (AW-45g)
U. S. Enviromental Protection Agency Crystal Hall 82 Arlington, Virginia 20460 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II Office ATTN:
EIS COORDIHATOR 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 Herbert Grossman, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555
I'
U'.gITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT WASHINGTON, D.C.
20655 NOVEMBER
, 1979 IE Information Notice No. 79-ANCHORAGE AND SUPPORT OF SAFETY RELATED ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT Descri tion of Circumstances Recent seismic design evaluations in connection with the NRC Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) have indicated a potential safety deficiency relative to the anchorage and support of safety related electrical equip-ment.
This subject was highlighted for more in-aepth evaluation after site visits to several facilities.
These reviews have inaicated that equipment is supported in a non-uniform manner.
This may have resulted from the fact that earlier engineering design criteria did not require rigorous analyses.
Further evaluations are continuing for the SEP plant designs.
In some cases, design moaifications may be required to render acceptable seismic design margins.
In general, a lack of engineered supports of safety related electrical equip-ment has been observea at certain SEP plants.
Typical components affected i ncluae:
-AC and DC motor control centers
-switch gear
-control room panels
-instrument panels
-trans formers
-inverters
-battery racks
-cable trays
- Also, a related observation indicates that non-seismic Category I ancillary items (dolleys, gas bottles, block and tackle gear, ductwork, etc.) are located such that they may dislodge, impact and damage safety related equipment during an earthquake.
The types of anchorage systems utilized in these plants and their expected capacities vary widely.
For example, high uncertainty exists relative to the capacity of non-engineered tack welds and attachments that rely on frictional clamping forces.
In some cases, equipment has been found free standing with no means of positive lateral support.
(Friction being the only lateral load carryng mechanism).
Most often, heavier equipment is anchored using l) tack welds to steel angles embeaded in concrete;
- 2) clips that rely on frictional resistance;
- 3) concrete embedded anchor bolts; or
- 4) external braced frames.
Lighter equipment housed in cabinets or attached to panels or racks has been anchored using l) bolts;
- 2) sheet metal screws;
- 3) tack welds; and 4) braced racks.
The potential concern is that certain pieces of equipment may not have adequate levels of seismic resistance capability due to limited anchorage capacity.
The potential problems relate to overturning and/or sliding of large equipment and gross movement or unacceptable forces on smaller attached equipment that may render it inoperable during an earthquake.
For certain large battery racks, this judgement is supported by computations that predict unacceptable seismic beha vior.
Section 3.10 of the Standard Review Plan provides acceptance criteria for the seismic qualification of Category I electrical equipment.
These criteria include IEEE Std. 344, "Guide for Seismic gualification of Class 1 Electrical Equipment for Nuclear-Power Generating Stations", first issued in 1971.
Facili-ties designed before about 1971 without benefit of such design and testing criteria may have some anchorage deficiencies.
The NRC staff is continuing to evaluate this issue on the SEP plants as part of the seismic review in the SEP.
Remedial action has been taken on one SEP plant to date.
This Information Notice is provided as an early notification of a possible significant matter.
It is expected that recipients will review the design criteria for anchorage and support of safety-related electrical equipment including as-built installation details to assure adequate capabjlity to resist seismic forces.
No written response is required.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the Director of the appropriate NRC Regi onal Office.