ML18106A325
| ML18106A325 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1998 |
| From: | Milano P NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Keiser H Public Service Enterprise Group |
| References | |
| GL-88-20, TAC-M83669, TAC-M83670, NUDOCS 9802240294 | |
| Download: ML18106A325 (5) | |
Text
Mr. Harold W. Keiser Executive Vice President-Nuclear Business Unit Public Service Electric & Gas Company Post Office Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 February 3,~98
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATION OF EXTERNAL EVENTS, SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1AND2 (TAC NOS. M83669 AND M83670)
Dear Mr. Keiser:
In a letter dated January 29, 1996, the Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G, the licensee) submitted its response to Generic Letter 88-20, "Individual Plant Examination of
- External Events."
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is reviewing your submittal and has determined that additional information is required to complete its review. The information that is requested relates to the seismic and high winds, flood and external events analyses. The specific information requested is addressed in the enclosure. The staff requests that the additional information be provided within 60 days of receipt of this letter.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (301) 415-1457.
Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311 Sincerely, Isl Patrick D. Milano, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 1-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION Docket File PUBLIC PDl-2 Reading BBoger JStolz OFFICE POI-PM_ilano TClark OGC ACRS MCunnin NAME PMilano:rb DA TE I /"'[/ /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: SA93669.RAI ARubin JLinville, RGN-1 RHernan 9802240294 980203
~
PDR ADOCK 05000272
/
P PDR f~illit0 fF[JJ~ tS~PHJJfE~~ ~PW*
111111111111 '"";~lllllllll~"~l 1 -
' A
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Mr. Harold W. Keiser Executive Vice President-Nuclear Business Unit Public Service Electric & Gas Company Post Office Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 February 3, 1998
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATION OF EXTERNAL EVENTS, SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1AND2 (TAC NOS. M83669 AND M83670)
Dear Mr. Keiser:
In a letter dated January 29, 1996, the Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G, the licensee) submitted its response to Generic Letter 88-20, "Individual Plant Examination of External Events."
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is reviewing your submittal and has determined that additional information is required to complete its review. The information that is requested relates to the seismic and high winds, flood and external events analyses. The specific information requested is addressed in the enclosure. The staff requests that the additional information be provided within 60 days of receipt of this letter.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (301) 415-1457.
Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311 Sincerely, Patrick D. Milano, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 1-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page
Mr. Harold W. Keiser Public Service Electric & Gas Company cc:
Mr. Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire Nuclear Business Unit - N21 P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 General Manager - Salem Operations Salem Nuclear.Generating Station P.O. Box236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038
- Mr. Louis Storz Sr. Vice President - Nuclear Operations Nuclear Department P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Senior Resident Inspector Salem Nuclear Generating Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Drawer 0509 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038
. Dr. Jill Lipoti, Asst. Director Radiation Protection Programs NJ Department of Environmental Protection and Energy CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625-0415 Maryland Office of People's Counsel 6 St. Paul Street, 21st Floor Suite 2102 Baltimore, MD 21202 Ms. R. A. Kankus Joint Owner Affairs PECO Energy Company 965 Chesterbrook Blvd., 63C-5 Wayne, PA 19087 Mr.. Elbert Simpson Senior Vice President-Nuclear Engineering Nuclear Department P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1and2 Richard Hartung Electric Service Evaluation Board of Regulatory Commissioners 2 Gateway Center, Tenth Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Lower Alloways Creek Township c/o Mary 0. Henderson, Clerk Municipal Building, P.O. Box 157 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Manager-Licensing and Regulation Nuclear Busienss Unit-N21 P.O. Box236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. David Wersan Assistant Consumer Advocate Office of Consumer Advocate 1425 Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Manager - Joint Generation Atlantic Energy 6801 Black Horse Pike Egg Harbor Twp., NJ 08234-4130 Carl D. Schaefer External Operations - Nuclear Delmarva Power & Light Company P.O. Box231 Wilmington, DE 19899 Public Service Commission of Maryland Engineering Division Chief Engineer 6 St. Paul Centre Baltimore, MD 21202-6806
\\
A.
Seismic REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATION OF EXTERNAL EVENTS SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2
- 1.
As described on page 3-25 of the PSE&G submittal of January 29, 1996, the regenerative and excess letdown heat exchangers were screened out from further analysis even though a low fragility value was estimated for these components. The reason given for screening these components out was that their failure could be isolated by valve closures. This reasoning does not seem appropriate if operator actions are required to achieve this
- isolation.
Provide additional information regarding required operator actions, if any, to isolate a potential failure of these components and justify the screening out of these components.
- 2.
According to page 3-14 of the submittal, the screening criteria for components are defined by a 1.5g median capacity or 0.5g HCLPF capacity value. Using this criterion, a total of only 12 components were screened-in for the system analysis.
Provide the basis of the screening criteria used, and explain why a higher g-value for screening would not be appropriate for obtaining a more complete analyses.
- 3.
On page 3".'15 of the submittal, a median capacity factor of F cm = 2.53 was assumed for a generic evaluation of the seismic margin of components. This assumption seems to be overly optimistic for application to a wide range of components, particularly for rigid components with a non-ductile failure mode.
Explain the assumptions and technical bases which lead to this factor.
- 4.
In Table 3.6 of the submittal, the anchorage failure of components, DFUEL TNK11 and ICA-EC/ED, was apparently evaluated based on a generic database. Please explain why a plant-specific analysis was not needed for this type of failure mode. Also, in the same table, the same fragility value is assigned to exhaust fans installed at different elevations 9fthe Auxiliary Building.
Explain why the response magnification of the building did not affect the fragility values.
- 5.
Small LOCAs can be significant contributors to the seismic core damage frequency (CDF).
Therefore, it is important to know how the conditional probability of a small loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) given an earthquake, was obtained. The submittal gives the fragility parameters used for a small LOCA without explaining how they were derived. It also seems, based on the fact that the generic data for the seismic failure of the pressurizer PORV accumulators have the same fragility parameters, that this failure was included with small LOCAs; although it is not clear how such failure would lead to a. small LOCA.
Explain what types of equipment failures were considered for small LOCAs and how the fragility parameters were derived.
ENCLOSURE
- B.
High Winds. Flood and Other External Events CHFO)
- 1.
In the flooding evaluation it is noted that a significant reduction in the contribution to CDF from flooding (from about 1 O""' to 10-7 per reactor-year) was achieved by designing and installing improved penetration seals between the auxiliary and service buildings.
Describe any maintenance that is planned for these improved penetration seals to ensure that they continue to provide protection against flood damage, or provide justification for not having a maintenance program for these seals.
l