ML18046A893
| ML18046A893 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 08/26/1981 |
| 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 LSO5-81-08-063, LSO5-81-8-63, NUDOCS 8109020307 | |
| Download: ML18046A893 (5) | |
Text
. --Bocket No. 50-255 LSOS-81-08-063 Mr. David P. Hoffman
. Nuclear Licensing Administrator Consumers Power Company 1945 W. Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201
Dear Mr. Hoffman:
August 26, 1981 SUBJE~T: SEP TOPIC 111-3.A, EFFECTS OF HIGH WATER LEVEL ON STRUCTURES Enclosed is our evaluation of Systematic Evaluation Program Topic 111-3.A.
Following Exchang~s between your staff and the NRC staff, we* have'. revised*
the draft evaluation that was sent to you on June 17, 1981 to reflect,the add~tional infonnation you have su~pl i~d.
- Therefore, our review of thi.s ~
topic is complete and this evaluat1on will be a basic input to the inte-grated safety assessment for your facility.
This 'f:!)pic assessment may be~
revised in the future if your facility design is changed or if additional information is provided to the staff.
Enclosure:
Aspstat~d
- cc w/enclosure:
See next page NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 Sincerely, Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 Div:tsion of L fcensing 50Y s,;j l)Stf tts £ ~.)
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGPO: 1981-335-960
)*':,.
'
- Mr. David P. Hoffman cc M. I. Miller, Esquire Isham, Lincoln & Beale Suite 4200 One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60670 Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Judd L. Bacon, Esquire Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Myron M. Cherry, Esquire Suite 4501 One IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 Ms. Mary P. Sinclair Great Lakes Energy Alliance
. 5711 Summerset Drive Midland, Michigan 48640 Kalamazoo Public Library
. -315 South Rose Street
. Kalamazoo, Michigan 49006
. Township Supervisor Covert Township Route 1, Box 10 Van Buren County, Michigan 49043 Office of the Governor (2)
Room 1 - Capitol Building
. Lansing, Michigan 4~913 William J. Scanlon, Esquire 2034 Pauline Boulevard Ann.Arbor,. Michigan 48103 Palisades Plant ATTN:
Mr. Robert Montross Pl ant Manager Covert, Michigan 49043
', ~
./
PALISADES Docket No. 50-255 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Activities Branch Region V Office ATTN:* EIS COORDINATOR 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 Cha~les Bechhoefer, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D *. C.
20555
- Dr. George C. Anderson Department of Oceanography University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Dr. M. Stanley Livingston 1005 Calle Largo Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 Resident Inspector c/o U. S. NRC Palisades Plant Route 2, P. O. Box 155 Covert,. Michigan 49043 i**
/*
- ,?>
- /,'
1**
I.
Introduction ENCLOSURE PALISADES PLANT DOCKET NUMBER so~2ss SEP TOPIC III-3.A e..
EFFECTS OF HIGH \\~ATER LEVELS ON STRUCTURES;*
The original design basis high \\'later. level including dynamic effects for nuclear power plants is reviewed in SEP Topic II-3.A, 8.
Should the design basis level or dynamic effects intrease from that assumed in the original design, the ability of plant structures to withstand this new loading is reviewed.
The objective.is to pr6vide assurance that high water levels
\\*Jill not jeopardize the structural integrity of Seismic Category I struc-tures and that seismic Category I systems and components located within these structures will be adequately protected.
II.
Review Criteria Standard Review Plan 3,4 defines ~nalysis proc~dures 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 w~.ter control* structures are,.
revie~ed in SEP Topic 111-3.C.
- .* 3.
Dam Integrity is reviewed in _SEP, Topic II:-4.E.*
- 4. *classification of Structures which need be.seismic Category.I is reviewed in SEP Topic 111-1 *.
... :- ':,~ :. :..
- IV.
Review Gui de lines The information reviewed consisted of design bases of Category I Structures found in the Pali sades Pl ant FSAR and in the docket fi 1 es as we 1 l as notes,
- drawings, and minutes obtained from a trip to th~ plant py NRC representatives:
on November 17-19, 1980.
This* information was compared with currently accepted criteria for flood loading design as found in the Standard Review Pl fin (SRP)
.~ *,, "*.
and in the safety assessment of.SEP.Topics II".'~*A, 8, B. l, C sent to Consumers Power Company on March 20, 1981 (hereafter referre~ to as the II-*3 *.safety
- ----~ *
- Assessment).
The Service Building (north of.the Auxiliary Building) \\'ias not :
- i"nvestigated since the Service Bu1lding is not a safety-related structure and.
therefore, the specified flood level from Topic II-3.B. would have no.safety_.**
consequence *. *
/
The intake structure was investigated to determine if hydrostatic and hydro-dynamic loads due to wave action would be adequately resisted by _that structure.
V..
Eva 1 uation Plant grade is -awroximately 589 feet above msl on the north, south and west sides of the plant and about 625 feet above msl on the east side.
The original design high water level postulated iri the FSAR was 589.68
- feet.
The design basis flood 1eve1 now recommended for the Pali sades Plant, as stated in the 11-3 Safety Assessment is 597.1 feet above msl.
Since this latest recorrimended design basis flood level is 8.1 feet above grade the dynami~ effects of water against structures as well as the increased hydrostatic *loading will have to be c~nsidered. *
- From a review of the drawings we conclude that thereactor building*and auxiliary E>uiding structures would not be affected by the specification of the 597.l foot design basis flood level. Assuming that openings are the weakest points, it is noted that all closures at the 590 foot eleva-tion and below in these buildings are designed to be watertight to a 22.0 foot head or about 612 feet msl for closures at the 590 foot level. From*
information supplied tiy the licensee, ihe only equipTient located in the Turbine Building needed to safely shutdowri the plant are the auxiliary.
feed pumps.
They would not be affected by the fl oo.d since they are en-closed.in a room below grade which can be sealed by a water tight door.
The intake structure was investigated based on the wind generated wav~
loadings described in the letter from NRC to Consumers Power Company dated March 31, 19~1. and also based on as-built drawings of 'the intake.
structure. The analysis indicated that the intake structure was ca pa bl e of withstanding the loads.
. \\
. ~ ;
Discussibns held at the plant on November 17-19~ 1980 indicate the origina1
~round water elevation used for the plant design was 585 feet abov~ msl.
The outside plant walls were designed as cantilevered from the base and a
- uniform hydrostatic *pressure distribution consisting of the maximum pressure at the base plus normal earth pressure an~ surcharge superimposed. These are extremely conservative assumptions.
In the II-3 Safety Assessment, a.*...
ground water elevation at grade is recommended as a conservative design
. basis. This would be 36 feet above the original hydrostatic head on the east side of the plant and 5 feet above the original hydrostatic head on the other,-
side of the plant structure. Because bf the extremely conservative assumptions used in the original design, no structural problem is anticipated with regard to withstanding the hydrostatic loads due to the groundwater elevations postulated in the II-3 Safety Assessment.
' VI... Canel us ions Based on a review of the FSAR, docket files and communieat.ions *w.e concl~de-7-~.. --.. ~-~*.~_::* _
that Category I structures are conservatively designed with respect ~o flood-*
ing to the 597.l*foot level and ground water hydrostatic loading to plant*.
grade, \\~hich are the design bases postulated by the II-3 Safety Assessment.
/
..: 3 -
The intake structure is considered to be conservatively designed with respect to the dynamic flood loading described in the letter from NRC to Consumers Power Company dated March 31, 1981~ With respect to flood effects on the Auxiliary Building Addition from the Topic II-3.B evaluation, the licensee has stated that there are no openings in the,
north wall of this building below five feet above ~rade and that the same criteria were used in the design of this building as were used in the design of the Auxiliary Building. Therefore, the same conclusions can be drawn for this building as for the Auxiliary,Building.
. --- *: --* -~
- , -*