ML18051A655
| ML18051A655 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 11/01/1983 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Vandewalle D CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18051A656 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-03-07.B, TASK-3-7.B, TASK-RR LSO5-83-11-001, LSO5-83-11-1, NUDOCS 8311040116 | |
| Download: ML18051A655 (6) | |
Text
- _I Docket No. 50-255 LS05 11-001 Mr. David J. VandeWalle Nuclear ~icensing Administrator Consumers Power Company 1945 W. Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201
Dear Mr. VandeWalle:
November 1, 1983 *
SUBJECT:
INTEGRATED PLANT SAFETY ASSESSMENT REPORT (IPSAR)
SECTION 4.12, DESIGN CODES, DESIGN CRITERIA AND LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR THE PALISADES PLANT In the Integrated Plant Safety Assessment Report (IPSAR) for the Palisades Plant (NUREG-0820), Section 4.12, structures were identified that may ~ot meet the current design codes, design criteria, or load combinations.
To resolve this issue, Consumers *Power Company. (CPCo) proposed to review the applicability of the identified deviations and perform calculations, as needed, to assess the level of design tonservatisms that exist.
CPCo sent.
responses to the staff by letters dated October 8, 1982 and September 23, 1983.
Enclosed is the staff's evaluation of these responses.
The staff !s review of the information submitted thusfar is not yet complete; some issues require clarification or additional information to support the conclusions drawn.
However, based on.your evaluation, the affected structures.and structural elements in the Palisades Plant were found to have an adequate margin of safety, such that no plant modifications have been deemed necessary.
The staff considers the additional information to be confirmatory in nature and is required to provide adequate documentation.
of the results of this evaluation. This information request has been discussed with your staff and, because this reporting requirement affects fewer than ten respondents, an OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
8311040116 831101 I\\
PDR ADOCK 05000255 l p
PDR t
-~ - --* ----------- _____ __..-
Enclosure:
As stated Sincerely, Original signed by/
Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #5 Division of Licensing cc w/enclosure:
-,/'.
See next page r--/1'~
- See previous tissue for additional concurr'eflces.
SEPB:DL SEPB:DL SEPB:DL ORB#5:PM DPersinko:dk* MBoyle*
CGrimes*
TWambach 10/31/83 10/27/83 10/31/83 1110//83
Docket No. 50-255 Mr. David J. VandeWalle Nuclear Licensing Administrator Consumers Power Company 1945 W. Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201
Dear *Mr. VandeWalle:
SUBJECT:
INTEGRATED PLANT SAFETY ASSESSMENT REPORT (IPSAR)
SECTION 4.12, DESIGN CODES,.DESIGN CRITERIA AND LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR THE PALISADES PLANT In the Integrated Plant Safety Assessment Report (IPSAR) for the Palisades*
Plant (NUREG-0820), Section 4.12,.structures were identified that may not meet the current design.codes, design criteria, or load combinations.
To resolve this issue, Consumers *Power Company (CPCo) proposed to review the applicability of the identified deviations and perform calculations, as needed, to assess the level of.design conservatisms that exist.
CPCo sent responses to the' staff by letters dated October 8, 1982 and September 23, 1983.
En.closed is the staff's evaluation bf these responses.
The staff 1s review of the information.submitted thusfar* is not yet complete; some issues require clarification or additional informati-0n to support the conclusions drawn.
However, based on the information presented, the affected structures and structural elements in the Palisades Plant have been found to an adequate margin of safety, such that no plant modifications have. been deemed necessary.
The staff considers the additional information to be confirmatory in nature, to provide adequate documentation of the results of this evaluation. This information request has been discussed with your staff and, because th~s reporting requirement affects fewer than ten respond~nts, an OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclosure:
See next SEPB: DL ~.fer SEPB: DL J?
DPersinko:ak MBoyle ~
10/~t/83 10/tl /83 page SEPB:DLC01 V.'... -,
CGrimes; _._.-,
10/~ /83 Sincerely, Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #5 Division of Licensing ORB#5:PM TWambach 10/ /83 ORB#5:BC DCrutchfield 10/ /83
PALISADES IPSAR SECTION 4.12 DESIGN CODES, DESIGN CRITERIA AND LOAD COMBINATIONS I.
INTRODUCTION The staff's topic evaluation on this subject was forwarded by letter dated February 12, 1982, and was summarized in NUREG-0820, the Integrated Plant Safety Assessment Report (IPSAR), for the Palisades Plant.
Consumers Power Company (CPCo) responded to the issues *raised in the IPSAR by* letters dated October 8, 1982 and September 23, 1983.
The staff's topic evaluation identified specific design code changes which could significantly change margins of safety of the structures at the Palisades Plant. Also, the staff identified loads which have increased and load combinations which contained new loads or loads which have increased in magnitude.
CPCo assessed the applicability of these variations to structures at the Palisades Plant and evaluated the levels of existing conservatism in the structures where deviations were found to be applicable.
II.
EVALUATION A detailed review of the licensee's October 8, 1982 submittal is reflected in the attached'Technical Evaluation Report (TER) prepared by the Franklin Reserach Center. Additional information was supplied in the licensee's September 23, 1983 submittal; however, justification and additional information is still necessary to resolve a number of the open items.
A summary of the status of the issues identified in Section
- 4. 12 of the IPSAR is presented in Tables l and 2 of this evaluation.
The licensee has presented analyses and qualitative arguments and concluded that the existing structures have an adequate margin of safety to accommodate the differences identified. This information has been sufficient to resolve the issues in many cases, while others require clarification or additional information.
In no case has a difference been identified which has required a plant modification to restore a margin of safety.
On this basis the staff concludes that the additional information identified is confirmatory in nature and is required to provide an adequate documentation of the results of this evaluation.
III.
CONCLUSIONS The staff concludes that the licensee has adequately addressed many of the issues identified in Section 4.12 of the integrated assessment, while the remainder require confirmatory information to justify the conclusions that the margins of safety are adequate.
ID no case has a difference been identified which has required a plant modification.
Pending receipt of the confirmatory information, the staff considers these issues resolved.
The staff will present the results of this confirmatory review in a supplemental evaluation.
i A sununary of the conclusions is given below.
Issues Raised by TER-C5257-324 Resolved To be resolved in accordance with findings of SEP Topic III-5.B Remaining Issues Raised by TER-C5257-324 Resolved To be resolved in accordance with findings of other SEP topics Remaining Scale A Code Changes AISC 1963 ACI 318-63 vs.
vs.
AISC 1980 ACI 349-76 8
8 5
2
.o 1
3 5
Sca"le Ax Load Combinations 14 9
2 3
ACI 318-63 vs.
ASME B&PV Sect. III Div. 2 1980 6
4 0
3
. -=*....:=~--
AISC 1980 ACI 349-76 ASME BPV Section III Division 2 1980 Resolved 1.11.4 1.10.6 1.14.2.2 1.15.5.2 1.15.5.3 1.15.15.4 11.16.1 11.16.2 11.16.3 11.16.4 11.16.5 11.16.6 7.10.3 cc 3421. 5 cc 3421. 7' cc 3532.1. 2 TABLE 1 CODE CHANGES Remaining 1.11.5 1.9.1.2 Appendix C 1.5.1.2.2 11.13 11.16. 7 11.15 Appendix A Appendix B (under review) cc 3421.6 cc 3440 c.c 3421.8
TER Section 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7
5.8 NOTES
\\
\\
TABLE 2 LOAD COMBINATIONS Load Combination Number Resolved To Be Resolved in Remaining.l!
accordance with 13,10 13,10 8, 10 10 10 10, 13-y other SEP topics 14 14 8
8 13Y
- l. *Issue of roof snow loads has not been addressed.
- 2.
Resolution of load Ra~
- 3.
Resolved by the results of Topic III-5.B.