ML19209A622
| ML19209A622 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 08/13/1979 |
| From: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Borgmann E CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910050078 | |
| Download: ML19209A622 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000358/1979003
Text
># REGg
[- / O
/
UNITED STATES
o
!"
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$
E
REGION 111
- I
o
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD
o
GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOls 60137
.....
AUG131979
s
Docket No. 50-358
.
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company
ATTN:
Mr. Earl A. Borgmann
Vice President
Engineering Services and
Electric Production
139 East 4th Street
Cincinnati, OH
45201
Gentlemen:
Subject: Request Regarding The Use Of Containment Liner Leak Chase
Channels As Anchors For Category I Supports
As a result of inspections performed recently by inspectors from this
office, an unresolved item related to Category I supports for instrument
sensing lines and electrical conduit was identified.
IE Inspection
Report 50-358/79-03 transmitted to you by a letter dated March 14, 1979,
described this item in Section III.
Since we consider the resolution of this matter a requisite to issuance
4-
of an operating license, it appears, that there are two principal alter-
natives to resolution.
Correct the current existing field conditions so that no Category I
.
supports are anchored to or supported from the containment liner
plate leak chase channels.
Leave as installed and rely upon a detailed evaluation by the Office
.
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) or other. agency for determination
of acceptability.
With regard to the second alternative above, we have been advised by our
Headquarter's staff that due to the establishment of higher priorities
resulting from the Three Mile Island 2 incident, NRR anticipates as least
a six month delay in reviewing this matter. Furthermore, should the NRR
review show a need for rework of current installations, additional delays
could be experienced.
It is recognized that the options discussed above may not be the only
alternatives to resolving this problem.
In view of current conditions,
you may wish to propose other means or options for arriving at an
acceptable solution.
I109
236
7910050b7h
.
.
.
.
.
.
Cincinnati Gas and Electric
-2-
AUG 131979
Company
Accordingly, you are requested to submit within thirty days after receipt
of this letter, a response describing your planned course of action in
this matter.
In case a complete response must await the results,of
future activities, an interim reply should be provided within thirty days
addressing the adequacy of that activity to provide the basis for a
s'uitable reply, and the associated schedules for that activity and reply.
Your response, in addition to the above, should address the items requested
in the attachment.
Should you desire clarification or other discussions of the enclosed
requests, please contact this office.
Sincerely,
/
&
M
c
'?JamesG.Keppler!
Director
Attachment: Request For
Additional Information
..
ec w/ attach:
J. R. Schott, Plant
Superintendent
Central Files
Reproduction Unit NRC 20b
Local PDR
Harold W. Kohn, Power
Siting Commission
Citizens Against a
Radioactive Environmeat
H. D. Thornburg, IE
R.
E.. Shewmaker, IE
G. W. Reinmuth, IE
I. Peltier, NRR
D. Vassallo, NRR
1109
257
-
.
Attachment
.
.
REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
.
1.
For Alternative No. 1, if used, provide the details (include drawings)
of the method which were to be used in the original construction to
5
fasten Category I items directly to the liner plate.
Include with
this submittal any written information which applies. This,shoula
include details of requirements for thickened liner plate sections
and/or patch plates and associated anchorage to the concrete containment.
If no Category I items were anchored to the liner originally, develop
the necessary engineering data to provide how these items would be
anchored. This information should include the QA/QC procedures to
be followed to assure that the attachments meet exis;ing requirements.
2.
For Alternative No. 2, if used, provide the details of the evaluation
performed by your consultant who arrived at the conclusion that
existing attachments to vertical leak chase channels met requirements,
but no new attachments were to be made to the vertical chases. The
justification for attachments remaining on the horizontal leak chase
channels and those new ones to be added should be provided. The
engineering information required for the support of this alternative
must address how the leak chase channel to liner plate seal welds
can be relied upon for structural support under all loading conditions.
It is our understanding that the channel to liner welds were only
visually inspected; NDE was not specified and therefore not performed.
Your submittal should include actual physical data which would
support consideration of the seal welds as structural welds.
If
.
additional NDE techniques or other methods have been used, describe
the procedures and evaluations performed.
3.
For either alternative provide the schedule and details of how
modifications to the liner plate system will impact the structural
integrity test and the containment integrated leak rate test.
.
1i09
258
.