ML18046B181
| ML18046B181 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna, Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 12/28/1981 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hoffman D CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18046B182 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-03-01, TASK-3-1, TASK-RR LSO5-81-12-090, LSO5-81-12-90, NUDOCS 8201040133 | |
| Download: ML18046B181 (8) | |
Text
- --'-- c-December 28, 1981 Docket No. 50-255 LS05 12-090 Mr. David P. Hoffman Nuclear Licensing Administrator Consumers Power Company
- 1945 W Pa rna 11 Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 g7ar Mr. Hoffman:
SUBJECT:
SEP TOPIC III-1, QUALITY GROUP CLASSIFICATION OF COMPONENTS AND SYS~EMS (PALISADES)
Enclosed is the staff's draft safety evaluation of SEP Topic III-1 for the Palisades plant. Our evaluation (Enclosure 1) is based upon our contractors final evaluation (Enclosure 2) of this topic. This assessment compares your facility with the criteria currently used for licensing new facilities.
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 id~ntifying errors and supplying the corrected information.
Your response is requested within 30 days of receipt of this evaluation.
If no response is received by the time we will assume that the evaluation is correct.
C 0133 811228 \\
a20104ac*L osooo2ss J PDR AD PDR _,
p
-~- --- -- ------ - -----
~- -
\\)l~B#5:BC
\\..M)Crutchfield
\\Y 12/,J/, /81 AD~DL GLJ'~as 12~ /81 Sincerely, SEPB:DL OFFICE* *******c*c*w/enci *si.ire*=*****~ee*** ex.r.***p*a.*9e******** *i-\\~
1
~~***:*ci*k\\S.f.J.
SURNAME~.***********.****.**.*.. ***************o****o*** ************11**********0 ********* £.:..... ~.....
l 2/Z-7/81 DATE.........................
NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY WRussell
..1.? /.:V.iL.~.1.......
ORB#5:PM TWambach ~
- ~
..1.~/.~.'f/.§.1..... "J-
~I
-I uN1TEo sTATEs a
NUC AR REGULATORY COMMISSION W WASHINGTON, D. C_ 20555 December 28 1 1981 Docket No. 50-255 LS05 12-090 Mr. David P. Hoffman Nuclear Licensing Administrator Consumers Power Company 1945 W Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201
Dear Mr. Hoffman:
SUBJECT:
SEP TOPIC III-1, QUALITY GROUP CLASSIFICATION OF
. COMPONENTS AND SYSTEMS (PALISADES)
Enclosed is the staff 1 s draft safety eva 1 uation of SEP Topic III-1 for the Palisades-plant.
Our evaluati'on (Enclosure 1) is based upon our contracto~s final evaluation (Enclosure 2) of this topic. This assessment compares your facility with the criteria currently used for licensing new facilities.
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.
Your response is requested w*ithin 30 days of receipt of this evaluation.
If no response is received*by the time we will assume the evaluation is correct.
The staff was unable to complete this topic due to the lack of information of original design requirements for various components.
We have concluded, for those components where a comparison of codes was possible, that the changes in the codes since the original design do not significantly affect the safety of the plant.
Based on our sampling of code comparisons to date we do not expect the remaining items to pose a significant hazard to safe P*lant operation. Therefore, we have determined that the schedule and need for providing the remaining information can be determined during the integrated plant safety assessment.
/w
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclosure:
See next page Sincerely,
/ \\}.1f!./[:.. A-. du.£.A>V Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 Division of Licensing
Mr.*oavicl 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 Office of the Governor (2)
Room 1 - Capitol Building Lansing, Michigan 48913 William J. Scanlon, Esquire 2034 Pauline Boulevard Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 Palisades Plant ATTN:
Mr. Robert Montross Plant Manager Covert, Michigan 49043
~-------
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 Charles 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 Palhades Plant Route 2, P. O. Box 155 Covert, Michigan 49043
. ENCLOSURE l SYSTEMATIC, EVALUATION *PROGRAM TOPIC II 1-1 PALISADES TOPIC:
111-1, CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURES, COMPONENTS AND SYSTEMS (SEISMIC AND QUALITY)
I.
INTRODUCTION SEP plants were generally designed and constructed during the time span from the late 1950's to late 1960's. They were designed according to codes and criteria in effect at that time; however, since then, the codes and criteria have been revised to incorporate the results of additional research. Thus, earlier plants may have been designed according to criteria and codes no longer accepted by the NRC.
The purpose of Topic III-1 is the review of the classification of structures, systems and components of as-built plants as compared to current appropriate classifications, codes and standards for seismic and quality groups.
The review of seismic classification is being addressed in the seismic topics. Accordingly, this topic was limited to :m evaluation of the quality group classification of systems and components.
II.
REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria are presented in the Appendix of Franklin Tech-nical Evaluati:on Report... C5257... 428~ "Quality Group Classification of Components and Systems - Palisades Plant."
III.
RELATED SAFETY TOPICS AND INTERFACES The scope of review for this topic was limited to avoid duplication of effort since some aspects of the review were performed under related topics.
The related topics are identified below.
III-6 Seismic Design Considerations III-7.B Design Codes, Design Criteria, Load Combinations and Reactor Cavity Design Criteria V-6 Reactor Vessel Integrity V-8 Steam Generator Integrity IV.
REVIEW GUIDELINES The review guidelines are presented in Section 3 of Franklin Report -
C-5257-428, "Quality Group Classificatipn of Components qnd Systems -
Palisades Plant.
11 Quality Assurance was not reviewed since it is address*ed in Topic XVII, "Operational Quality Assurance (QA) Program" REGULA TORY DOC.KET fllE *C.OPY
- v.
EVALUATION The basic input for this report is Table 4.1 in Section 4 of the Franklin Report.
Table 4.1 is a compilation of all systems and components which are required to be classified by Regulatory Guide 1. 26 and the original
- codes and standards used in the plant design. After comparing the original codes with those currently used for licensing new facilities, the following areas were identified where the requirements have changed:
- 1) Fracture Toughness
- 2)
Quality Group Classification
- 3)
Code Stress Limits
. 4)
Radiography Requirements
- 5)
Fatig.ue Analysis of Piping Systems An evaluation of each of these areas is presented in Section 5 of the Franklin Report with a detailed discussion included in the Appendix.
We have determined that changes in the following areas have not significantly affected the safety functions of the systems and components reviewed in this report:
l) Quality Group
- 2)
Code Stress Limits
- 3)
Fatigue Analysis of Piping Systems As noted earlier, we have decided that the area of quality assurance need not be reviewed for this report.
In the remaining two areas we have concluded the following:
- 1.
Fracture Toughness - The current code requires that pressure retaining materials be impact tested.
For 25 of 77 components reviewed, sufficient information was available to exempt them from this requirement.
- 2.
Radiography Requirements - For pressure vesse.l s we have concluded the following:
- a.
Vessels built to ASME III (1965) Class A or ASME VIII (1965}
satisfy current radiography requirements for Class 1 and Class 3 vessels, respectively.
- b.
Vessels built to ASME III (1965) Class C requirements and currently classified as Class 2 or Class 3 satisfy current radiography requirements for Category A or B joints.
- c. Category C joints in current Class 2 or 3 vessels built to Class C requirements do not satisfy current radiography requirements.
For piping, valves and pumps, we have concluded that they meet current radiographic requirements provided Code Case N~7 was applied as indicated by the licensee.
Our review has not identified any significant deviations from past codes.
However, we were unable to complete our evaluation due to insufficient information for the following:
- l. Fracture Toughness - For 52 of 77 components there is insufficient information on materials to complete our review.
The licensee should provide the necessary information using the format provided in Tabies A4-4_ through A4-6 in Appendix A of the Franklin Report.
Table A2-2 of the Franklin Report identifies those components for which this information is necessary.
- 2.
Full Radiography Regui rements - The l icens~e should provide the following:
- a.
For the following pressure vessels information is necessary regarding the radiographic requirements imposed on the Category C welds:
(1} regenerative heat exchangers, (2} letdown heat exchangers, (3) purification filter, (4} volume control tank, (5} excess letdown heat exchanger, (6} shutdown cooling heat exchanger, (7} boric acid filter, (8} purification deminerali-zer, (9} deborating demineralizer and (10} CCWS heat exchanger.
- b.
The present code requ.ires full radiographY for Class l and 2 welded joints for piping, valves, and pumps, where as it was not required in past codes.
However, Provisions 2 and 3 of Code Case N-7 required full radiography.
Confirmation that Cede Case N-7 was applied to all Class l and 2 piping would resolve this concern.
- 3.
Valves - Provide, on a sample basis for Class 1, 2 and 3 valves, information regarding the design of the valve in order to evaluate if they meet current body shape and pressure_.-temperature rating requirements.
I
- 4.
Pumps - Eight of the twelve pumps reviewed were designed to standards other than ASME B&PV Code Sections III or VIII, 1965.
These codes are not available and the comparisons could not be made.
Provide the codes or requirements to which the eight pumps were designed.
- 5.
Storage Tanks - Provide the following:
- a.
Confirm that the atmospheric storage tanks meet current compressive stress requirements.
- b.
Confirm that the 0 to 15 PSIG storage tanks meet current tensile allowables for biaxial stress field conditions.
- c.
Six of the nine tanks were designed to standards other than ASME B&PV Code Sections III or VIII. These codes are not available and the comparisons could not be made.
Provide the codes or requirements to which the six tanks were designed.
- 6.
- Others ~ Complete Table 4.2 of the Franklin Report for the following components:
a)
Reactor Coolant System Block Valves b)
Contatnment Spray.tlozzles c)
Shutdown Coolinq/Low Pressure Safety InJection Pumps d)
Excess Letdown Heat Exchanger - Shell Side e) Deborating Demineralizer f) Purification Demineralizer VI.
CONCLUSION We have determined that for the following, changes between current and original code requirements for Palisades will not significantly affect the safety functions of the systems and components reviewed:
- 1) Quality Group
- 2)
Code Stress, and
- 3)
Fatigue Analysis for Piping Systems.
We were unable to complete our review due to insufficient informatio.n regarding various other systems and components.
The required infer~*
mation is discussed in Section V of this safety evaluation.
- Based on our sampling of code comparisons to date we do not expect the remaining items to pose a significant hazard to safe plant operation and therefore, have determined that the schedule and need for providing the remaining information can be determined during the integrated plant safety assessment.