ML18065A753
| ML18065A753 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1996 |
| From: | Robert Schaaf NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Smedley R CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-46, REF-GTECI-SC, TASK-A-46, TASK-OR TAC-M69468, NUDOCS 9606050176 | |
| Download: ML18065A753 (6) | |
Text
~*
Mr. Richard W. Smedley Manager, Licensing Palisades Plant 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Covert, MI 49043 May 31, 1996
SUBJECT:
PALISADES PLANT - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE RESOLUTION OF UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUE A-46 (TAC NO. M69468)
Dear Mr. Smedley:
By letter dated May 23, 1995, you submitted your seismic evaluation program summary report.
The staff has reviewed the report and has determined that we require additional information to complete our review of your response to Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A-46.
Please provide a response to the enclosed questions within 60 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me at 415-1312.
Docket No. 50-255 Sincerely, Original Signed By:
Robert G. Schaaf, Project Manager Project Directorate III-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl:
See next page DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File; PD3-l Reading MGamberoni ACRS RWessman Doorman PUBLIC JRoe OGC WKropp, RIII Alee DOCUMENT NAME:
G:\\WPDOCS\\PALISADE\\PAL69468.RAI To receive a copy of this document, Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE LA:PD31 NAME CJamerson '
MRei nhart/fh DATE 5 I 3/ /96 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
~- ---
9606050176 960531 PDR ADOCK 05000255 p
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 Mr. Richard W. Smedley Manager, licensing Palisades Plant 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Covert, MI 49043 May 31, 1996
SUBJECT:
PALISADES PLANT - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE RESOLUTION OF UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUE A-46 (TAC NO. M69468)
Dear Mr. Smedley:
By letter dated May 23, 1995, you submitted your seismic evaluation program summary report.
The staff has reviewed the report and has determined that we require additional information to complete our review of your response to Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A-46.
Please provide a response to the enclosed questions within 60 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me at 415-1312.
Docket No. 50-255 Sincerely, Robert G. Schaaf, Pro"ect Manager Project Directorate III-I Division of Reactor Projects - Ill/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page
1 PALISADES PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-255 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING RESOLUTION OF UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUE A-46
- 1.
In the proposed resolution for outliers provided in Table 9-1 of the summary report, the lengths of the cantilever impeller shafts of service water pumps P-7A, P-7B, and P-7C are indicated as 37 feet.
The effects resulting from the exceedance of this impeller shaft length beyond the upper bound length of 20 feet was not addressed.
Provide resolution for the potential misalignment and bearing damage due to excessive lateral loads, and damage to the impeller due to excessive deflection of the impeller drive shaft.
- 2.
In the proposed resolution for outliers provided in Table 9-1, we agree that tightening of LI-bolts on the wall brackets of jacket water surge tanks T-13A and T-13B might indeed enhance restraint on the tanks in the vertical and transverse directions. However, we don't believe that the proposed fix provides a positive longitudinal load path.
Provide a discussion on the adequacy of the existing restraint configuration and, if necessary, provide an alternate approach for resolving the issue.
- 3.
Describe the extent to which the seismic margin methodology in the EPRI NP-6041 procedure was used in the Palisades A-46 program, including
- resolution of outliers. Since this methodology is generally not acceptable for the A-46 program, provide justification for deviation from the GIP-2 guidelines in situations where the margin methodology is utilized.
- 4.
For plant structures containing equipment in the USI A-46 scope:
- a.
Identify structures which have licensing-basis floor response spectra (5% critical damping) for elevations within 40-feet above effective grade which are higher in amplitude than 1.5 times the SQUG Bounding Spectrum.
- b.
Provide response spectra, designated according to height above effective grade as identified in Item 4.a. above, and a comparison to 1.5 times the Bounding Spectrum.
- c.
With respect to the comparison of equipment seismic capacity to seismic demand, indicate which method (Method A or Method B in Table 4-1 of GIP-2) was used to address the seismic adequacy of equipment installed on those floors as identified in Item 4.a.
above.
- 5.
Provide a comparison of demand and capacity response spectra at the top floor and ground elevations for the reactor and auxiliary buildings.
This is to ensure a complete enveloping of the licensing-basis response spectra by the GIP spectra.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14. Provide resolution schedules for the outliers shown in Table 9-1 for which schedules were not provid~d. Provide an assessment of the impact on plant safety in consideration of the proposed schedules.
Provide a copy of the Peer Review Letter, referred to as Reference 20 in the submittal; and provide the peer reviewers' bases for concluding that the licensee's walkdowns have been performed in accordance with the plant walkdown procedure and have indeed revealed equipment as-built configurations.
Provide an explanation for why the accelerations of the reactor building shell at elevations 646.25 and 683.75 are lower than that at elevation 608.75 (Figs.B-6, B-7 and B-8), and for why the acceleration of the auxiliary building at elevation 601.0 is lower than that at elevation 590.0 (Figs. B-10 and B-11).
Section 4.1.3, Anchorage Adequacy, states that all significantly sized equipment was analyzed using the ANCHOR software package developed by Stevenson Associates.
Provide a list of such equipment (if they are contained in the existing lists in the report, identify them) and a sample calculation indicating the input parameters, assumptions and other pertinent information together with the output.
It appears from your discussion in Section 4.1.3 that only expansion anchors are used and all the anchors for safety related equtpment have been inspected.
If this is the case, indicate the number of anchors inspected. Otherwise, indicate your criteria for selective inspection.
In Section 4.1. 3 on page 4-5, at about the middle of the page, it is indicated that tightness checks and embedment checks will be documented in a separate report.
Are these checks completed?
If so, provide the report. Otherwise, indicate the planned dates for completion and submittal of the report.
On page 4-6 the formulae for pullout capacity and shear ca>>ratfty are given, with various reduction factors for each.
Provide an example for each case where the formulae are used.
On page 4-7 of Section 4.2, Outlier Resolution, a general di:scussion on how to resolve an outlier was presented.
Provide a specific example of an outlier resolution.
In Section 6.1, Evaluation Methodology, most statements are verbatim repetitions of what is stated in Section 7.2 of the GIP. It ts indicated that 19 tanks and heat exchangers were evaluated (Table 6-1 shows only 13) and 12 tanks and heat exchangers were declared outliers.
How many tanks and exchangers are there in the safe-shutdown path at Palisades?
How many tanks are vertical?
How many are horizontal? Are any of the vertical tanks supported on skirts and structural legs?
'*' 15.
Provide a sample evaluation for each type of vertical tank (flat bottom and supported on skirts and structural legs, if any) and horizontal tank, indicating the major simplifying assumptions made in the analyses.
Even though GIP-2 indicates that buckling is only to be evaluated for vertical tanks, was the possibility of buckling in horizontal tanks evaluated? The evaluation of anchors which restrain tank movement should also be provided.
It is noted that you have used the EPRI Report NP-6041-SL guidelines in evaluating the flat bottom vertical tanks, which is known to render results with lower margins of safety than those obtained using the GIP-2 guidelines.
Provide justification for deviation from the GIP-2 guidelines.
- 16.
Indicate the criteria used in selecting 12 hanger supports for limited analytical review (LAR) as listed in Table 7-1.
- 17.
Provide the sample analysis or resolution for the hangers listed as LARs No. 005, No. 007 and No. 012 in Table 7-1.
- 18.
Provide an explanation of the critical interaction values, specifically how the various values in Table 7-2 are established and how they are used.
- 19.
Section 8.2 indicates that because cinch anchors may have been used, a tightness check will be scheduled to determine the installation quality of these anchor~. Please indicate whether the tightness check has been performed.
If not, when will it be done?
1---
h' Mr. Richard W. Smedley Consumers Power Company cc:
Mr. Thomas J. Palmisano Plant General Manager Pali sades Pl ant 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Covert, Michigan 49043 Mr. Robert A. Fenech Vke. President, Nuclear Operations Pali sades Pl ant
- 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Covert, Michigan 49043 M. I. Miller, Esquire Sidley & Austin 54th Floor One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 Mr. Thomas A. McNish Vice President & 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 Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 801 Warrenville Road lisle, Illinois* 60532-4351 Jerry Sarno Township Supervisor Covert Township 36197 M-140 Highway Covert, Michigan 49043 Office of the Governor Room l - Capitol Building lansing, Michigan 48913 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector's Office Palisades Plant 27782 Blue Star Memorial Highway Covert, Michigan 49043 Palisades Plant Drinking Water and Radiological Protection Division Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 3423 Martin Luther King Jr Blvd P. 0. Box 30630 Lansing, Michigan 48909-8130 Gerald Charnoff, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N. W.
Washington DC 20037 Michigan Department of Attorney General Special Litigation Division 630 Law Building P.O. Box 30212 Lansing, Michigan 48909 May 1996