ML18046A739
| ML18046A739 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1981 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hoffman D CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| TASK-03-03.A, TASK-3-3.A, TASK-RR LSO5-81-06-062, LSO5-81-6-62, NUDOCS 8106240178 | |
| Download: ML18046A739 (6) | |
Text
~..
~-...
-:e>- -..
... -~.
\\_
June 1?, l 98J Docket No. 50-255 LS05 06-062
/ l
/
/
\\,
~
{
(~..
Mr. David P. Hoffman(
. \\
Nuc 1 ear Licensing AdnrlnJ.s tra tor Consumers Power Company 1945 W Parnall Road Jackson,_ Michigan 49201
Dear Mr. Hoffman:
~-.J'~
"llIIVEo.,
Sl)BJECT:
SEP TOPIC III-3.A, EFFECTS OF HIGH WATER LEVELS ON STRUCTURES PALISADES 1 \\
Enclosed is a copy of.our draft evaltlation of Systematic Evaluation Program Topic III-3.A.
. f *-
i*
You are requested to examine the facts upon which the staff has based fts eval ua,tion and respon~ either by conffrroing that the facts are correct, or by iden~tfy.ing errors';and supplylfafrthe -corrected information..
We encourage you to supp]y any other material that might affect the staff's evaluation of these, topics or be significant in the integrated assessment of your facility.
Your response is requested within 30 days of receipt of this letter.
- If no response is received within that time, we will assume that you have no conunents or corrections.
In future correspondencii:. regarding Systematic Evaluation Program topics, pl ease refer to the topic numbers in your cover letter.
0
Enclosure:
'As stated
- cc w/enclosure:
See next page 8
- Sincerely, Dennis M. Crutchfi e 1 d, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 Division of Licensing.
- -'\\
"""'~----
NRC fORM.31811E>/80J NRCM i>2-40 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY *
- ~GP(J:.1980-329*82~
./
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULAT.ORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Docket No. 50-255 LS05 06-062 Mr. David P. Hoffman
~uclear Licensihg Administrator Consumers Power Company 1945 w Parnall Road Jackson,* Michigan 49201
Dear Mr. Hoffman:
June 17, 1981 '
SUBJECT:
SEP TOPIC III-3.A, EFFECTS OF HIGH vJATER*Lf:VELS ON STRUCTURES
-PALISADES Entlosed is a copy of our draft evaluation of Systematic Evaluation P~ogram Topic III-3.A.
You *are requested to examine the facts upon which the staff has based its evaluation_ and respond either by confirming that the facts are correct, or by identifying errors and supplying the corrected information.
We encourage you to supply ~ny other material that might affect the staff's.evaluation of these topics or be significant in the integrated assessment of your facility.
Your response is requested within 30 days of receipt of this letter.
If no response is received within that time, we will assume that you have no comments or correcti ans. -
In future corresp6ndence regarding Systematic Evaluation Program Topics, please refer to the topic nu~bers in your cover letter.
Enclosure:
As-stated cc w/enclosure:
See next page -
Sincerely,
/) - - -
/I
~
- /JI. lfuh-1 _.~I Dennis-~rutchfie~~ -
Operating Reactors Branc~ No. 5 Division of Licensing
r 1.
I Mr. David P. Hoffman cc M. I. Miller, Esquire Isham, Lincoln & Beale Suite 4200 One First NatTonal Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60670 Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Consumers Power Co~any 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Judd L. Bacon, Esquire Consumers Power Co~any 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Myron M. Cherry, Esquire Suite 4501
- one IBM Plaza:
ChicagoL Illinois Q.0611 Ms. Mary P. Sinclair Great Lakes Energy Alliance 5711 Summerset Ori ve Midland, Michigan 48640 Kalamazoo P.ublic Library 315 South Rose Street Kalamazoo, Michigan 49006 Townshi~ Supervisor Covert Township Route 1, Box*lO Van Buren County, Michigan 49043 Office of the Governor (2)
Room 1 - Capitol Building Lansing, Michigan 48913 Director, Criteria and Standards Division Office of Radiation Programs (ANR-460)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D. C.
20460 U. S. E nvi ronmenta 1 Protection Agency Federal Activities Branch Region V Office ATTN:
EIS COORDINATOR 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinoi.s 60604 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq., Chairman Atomic S~fety and Licensing Board Panel
- u. S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrrnission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. George C. Anderson Department of Oceanography
- University of Washington Seattle, Washingt.on 98195 Dr* M. Stan 1 ey Li vi ngston l005 Calle Largo Santa Fe, New Mexica 87501
. Resident. Inspector
. c Io U. S. NR C P. O. Box 87 South Haven, Michigan 49090 Palisades Plant ATTN:
Robert W.
Montros~
Plcnt Manager Covert, Michigan 49043 William J. Scanlon; Esquire 2034.Pauline Boulevard Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103
I.. *:
I.
Introduction ENCLOSURE PALI SADES PLANT DOCKET NUMBER 50-255 SEP TOPIC III-3.A EFFECTS OF HIGH WATER LEVELS ON STRUCTURES, The original design basis high water level including dynamic effects for nuclear power plants is reviewed in SEP Topic II-3.A, B.
Should the design.
basis level or dynamic effects increase from that assumed in the original design, the ability of plant structures to withstand thii new loading is reviewed.
The objective is to provide assurance that high water levels will not jeopardize the structural integrity of Seismic Category I struc-tures and that seismic Category I systems and components located v~ithin these structures will be adequately protected.
II.
Review Criteria Standard Review Plan 3.4 defines analysis procedures for flood loadings and Regulatory Guide 1.102 defines acceptable flood protection.
III. Related Topics and Interfaces
- 1.
Flood water levels and protection requirements are reviewed in SEP Topics II-3.A, B.
- 2.
Inservice inspection requirements for water control structures are reviewed in SEP Topic III-3.C.
- 3.
Dam Integrity is reviewed in SE~ Topic II-4.E.
- 4.
Classification of Structures \\'1hich need be seismic Category I is reviewed in SEP Topic III-1.
IV~
Review Guidelines The information reviewed consisted of design bases of Category I Structuret found in the Palisades Plant FSAR and in the docket files as well as r.otes drawings, and minutes obtained from a trip to the plant by NRC representat on November 17-19, 1980.
This information was compared with currently ace*
criteria for flood loading design as found in the Standard Review Plan (SR' and in the safety assessment of SEP Topics II-3.A, B, B. l, C sent to Consu, Power Company on March 20, 1981 (hereafter referred to as the II-3 Safety Assessment).
The Service Building (north of the Auxiliary Building) was n investigated since no information was available concerning this structure.*
The intake structure was investigated to determine if hydrostatic and hydr dynamic loads due to wave action would be adequately resisted by that stru
- V.
Evaluation Plant grade is -approximately 589 feet above msl on the north, south and weit sides of the plant and about. 625 feet above msl on the east side.
The original design high water level postulated in the FSAR was 589.68 feet.
The design basis flood level now recommended for the Palisades Plant, as stated in the II-3 Safety Assessment is 597.l feet above msl.
Since this latest recommended design basis flood level is 8.1 feet above grade the dynamic effects of water against structures as well as the increased hydrostatic loading will have to be considered in any re-evalua-tion of structural integrity.
From a review of the drawings it would appear that the reactor building and auxiliary building structures would *not be affected by the specification of the 597.l foot design basis flood level.
Assuming that openings a~e the weakest points, it is noted that all closures at *the 590 foot elevation and*
below in thess* buildings* are designed. t6 be watertight to a 22.0 fciot head or about 612 feet above msl **for closures at the 590 foot 1 evel. lt could not be determined that safety.related structures, systems and components within 'the* turbine buildi'ng were similarly.protected~.' *. Th_e intake structure
\\\\las investigated based on the wind generated wave loadings described in th'e*
letter from NRC to Consumers Power Company dated March 31, 1981 and also
- based.on as-built drawi~gs of the intake* structure.
The analysis indicated that the intake st0ucture was capable pf withstanding* the load~.
Discussions held at the plant on N6ve~ber 17-19, 1980 indicate the original ground water elevation usep for the. plant design \\\\las 5.85 feet ab.ove msL The outside plant walls we.re designed as*cantilevered from the base and a uniform hydrostatic pressure distribution consisting of the maximum pressure at the base plus normal earth.pressure and surchar~e superimposed.
These are extremely conservative assumptions; In the I J;.3 Safety Assessment, a ground water eleva~{on at.grade is recom~~nded as a conservatfve design basis.
This would be 36 feet above* the origina*l hydrostatic head on the east side of the plant ahd 5 feet above the original hydrostatic head on the other side of the plant structure.
Because of the extremely conservative assumptions
~sed in.the original design, no structural problem is anticipated with regard to withstanding the hydrostatic loads due to the groundv1ater elevations
- .postulated in the II-3 S'afety Assessment...
VI.
Conclusions Based on a review of the FSAR, docket files and communications it would appear that Category I structures are conservatively designed with respect to flood-ing to the 597.1 foot level and ground water hydrostatic loading to olant grade, wh1ch are the design bases postulated by the II-3 Safety Assessment.
- The intake structure is considered to'be conservatively designed with respect to the dynamic flood loadings described in the letter from NRC to Consumers Power Co~pany dated March 31, 1981.
The licensee should confirm this, with regard to any safety related structures, systems and components in the turbine, building.
Also, it should be confirmed that the contents, location and:constructi-0n of the.Service ~uilding
. are not safety related anq that this structure does not affect any safety related structures.
/