ML19260A760
| ML19260A760 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 11/26/1979 |
| From: | Counsil W NORTHEAST UTILITIES |
| To: | Ziemann D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TASK-03-06, TASK-3-6, TASK-RR NUDOCS 7912030206 | |
| Download: ML19260A760 (320) | |
Text
- ,
NORTHEAST trrII. FRIES 3
Cf"ZZI.'f27~
N4TroNcoNNEOTICUT 06101
.":"X""~
weHen L
L 2
C'M::;;:lll:::::
November 26, 1979 Docket No. 50-245 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn:
Mr. D. L. Ziemann, Ch:.ef Operating Reactors Branch #2 U.
- 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wt.shington, D. C.
20555
Reference:
(1)
J. J. Shea meeting notes to NNECO, dated September 25, 1979.
Gentlemen:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1 SEP Seismic Revie'J A two-day meeting between NU and the NRC Staff was held at the site and corporate office on August 28 and 29 to define the scope of the NRC seismic review. As a result of the meetings, a meeting summary and a detailed list of additional information requirements on the seismic design of Millstone Unit No. 1 were forwarded to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) in Reference (1).
The requested information that was readily available is enclosed. The attached checklist shows the items included in this package.
Because of the volume of material, only one copy of the enclosures is submitted. The remaining material will be addressed in follow-up status reports as soon as they become available.
At this time, we would like to comment on the overall SEP seismic review schedule. NRC Milestone 9 indicates the NRC intention to request NNECO to,
" complete evaluations of outstanding items", on March 1,1980. Milestone 10 indicates completion of the evaluation of these outstanding items by May 1, 1980.
NNECO requests elaboration on the scope and effort the NRC perceives is associated with these outstanding items. We also point out that any effort required beyond providing existing drawings or analysis will almost certainly require consultant services.
Hence, the present provision of two months between the identification of outstanding items by the NRC and the evaluation of these items by NNECO is judged to be insufficient by at least several months, based upon the currently anticipated scope of effort.
NNECO suggests that the schedule be extended to accommodate an increase in the evaluation period, or provisions be made to identify these open items to NNECO at an earlier date.
1460 296 2 0k 791203 0 k
e It is also noted that the overall seismic review schedule is becoming increasingly optimistic as regulatory pressures in other areas continue to escalate. The ongoing development of a revised SEP topic categorization /prioritization is expected to facilitate NNECO evaluation of the feasibility of the Staff proposed schedule.
Should you have any questions, please contact as.
Very truly yours, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY t4V W. G. Counsil Vice President Enclosures 1460 297
" t t;;hin.--?-
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED TO 00;uMENT Int SEISMIC RE5ISTANCE ffatuS CApAlilLlif 0F Int MILL 5TuhE 1 F ACIlliY g
The NRC staff and its consultants have completed a review of the Millstone 1 docket for information pertinent to the seismic design bases of the facility The and its capability to withstand the effect of potential earthquakes.
infomation currently on the docket is not sufficiently complete to adequately It is anticipated that pertinent infomation is
. Quantify such capability.available from other sources such as the original NSSS, A-E, or plan The following information is necessary to proceed with the seismic review; however, at this time it is not required that new information be generated to satisfy this request. (ExceptItemB.18).
A.
Seismic Analysis and Desiga Criteria for Structures and Input to Equipment Building Models - Original mathematical models used to determine 1.
seismic response (forces, moments, shears) for the following structures, Enc /osel a.
Turbine Builair.g b.
Control Building / Rad Waste Building c.
Intake Structure Infor: ration concerning these models should include:
Lumped mass properties Stiffness properties Cetails of any consideration of coupling / torsional effects 2.
Structural response profiles (forces, moments, shears) actually used in design for the following structures, 6** c/oSe a.
Turbine Building b.
Control Building / Rad Waste Building c.
Screen House d.
Gas Turbine Building 3.
Foundation details (drawings) for the following structures, hT, 3$
a.
Turbine Building b.
Control Room / Rad Waste Building 6"N##'#!
c.
Reactor Building Snelosec$
d.
Stack Description of structural interconnection and gaps between Unit 1 gue/osec/
4.
buildings and between Units 1 and 2.
Simplified sketches showing overall interactions would be beneficial. These sketches should 1460 298
~
f
-A-;L-l., '
~2~
Stafus II /us/79 be supplemented with sufficient structural framing details to permit dynamic modeling of the buildings as a system including the effects of all pertinent interconnections and interactions.
6M!
5.
Ori inal stress computations showing the design of the reactor bui ding wall for the design forces, moments and shears at elevation 14'-0.
6.
Stuctural design calculatior.s for drywell.
7.
Detailed description of how forces, moments, shears were distributed Enc /oded in turbine building for the design of areas which house Category I Equipment, including the rationale for the following structural modifications:
a.
vertical braced frames b.
reinforced block walls in the battery rooms.
8.
Condesate storage tank analysis plus arrangement drawings showing anchorage details.
gjg B.
Seismic Qualification of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment and Fluid and Electric Distribution Systems Seismic qualification documentation based upon analysis or testing of actual equipment or similar equipment to that installed at the Millstone 1 facility for the following equipment is required. In addition, provide any other reports that document the results of seismic tests or detailed analyses tnat may have been performed on either mechanical or electrical equipment.
1.
Please provide a list of mechanical and electrical equipment required for safe shutdown, ECCS and Engineered Safeguards as previously requested in a letter from D. Ziemann to W. Counsil dated may 30, 1979.
An example of the necessary format is included.
(Enclosure 3).
Mechanical Comconer.ts 6HC/#S* '
2.
Reactor pressure vessel support system - analytical techniques (including dynamic model and methodology) used to evaluate the overall RPV support system and the original design computations (including responses and/or stresses due to pipe break).
6"C!#
3.
Reactor presture vessel internals support design report.
4.
Control rod drive hydraulic control units, a.
Computations addressing the lateral support of tubing, b.
Anchorage criteria for the CRD modules including supporting computations.
1460 299
l.
-A+
&a Yu.S
~
~
II/AIl79 5.
Heat Exchangers - arrangement drawings including support and A
qualification data for the following HXs:
Enc losecl Po,-hi sclos.2 Isolation condenser a.
b.
Rea: tor building closed cooling water HX c.
Shutcown HX En c /M" Recireplation Pump Support - details of seismic analysis and 6.
arrangement drawings (including response due to pipe break).
Oil Storage Day Tank - arrangement drawings including support and 7.
anchorage details and/or calculations.
Portion Enc /c5 Service Water Pumps - arrangement drawings including support and 8.
anchorage details and qualification data.
Small motor operated valves - identification of safety related 9.
MOVs on 1" to 4" diameter lines - effect of eccentric mass on pipe stress.
Fluid Distribution Systems Piping isometric drawings including support locations, support 10.
stiffnesses (or necessary drawings of supports to enable a detemination of support stiffnesses), valve locations, valve masses and center of gravity and other pertinent details as noted in Enclosure 2 needed to independently verify and audit the seismic capability of the following piping systems.
Underground lines to oil storage day tank and from day a.
tank to diesel generator, compressed air inlet line to
- diesel, C5 b.
Feedwater line inside containment.
Condesate transfer line (portions run above isolation c.
condenser) free reactor building penetration to the isolation condenser.
Shutdown cooling line (portion summarized in Table d.
Provded Yo
((ffgf[
'[
- 11. Piping analyses of the following lines.
on ;Tulyr,19N.
a.
Recirculation loop.
b" dose 2 b.
Main stea. line inside containment.
Electrical Co-conents
- 12. 4163 - 480 Volt Transfomers.
- 13. Battery racks.
i460 3%
e ohs _ /Atl79 II
- 14. Criteria for anchorage of electrical equipment - anchorage of cabinets and equipment mounted inside (e.g. motor control centers, switch gear, control panels, instrument panels, etc.).
- 15. Sketches showing arrangement and anchorage details including mass distribution of typical electrical components as listed above and/or supporting calculations to demonstrate adequate seismic resistance capability. The sample may include:
a.
Remote control board for diesel generator.
b.
Motor control center (single unit) on pedestal in diesel generator room, Battery chargers (if safety related).
c.
d.
Motor control centers or switch gear with large height
~
to depth ratios (single and multiple connected units).
- 16. Confirmation that design modifications recomended in memo from G.E. to NUSCO dated December 18, 1970 were made.
Description of Millstone 1 plant specific modifications.
Copy of Field Disposition Instructions referenced in subject memo.
Electrical Distribution System
- 17. Cat.le trays including lateral supports - original supporting criteria and/or later qualification testing data.
Interaction Problems
- 18. Develop procedures and/or required modifications to positively anchor dollys, gas bottles, block and tackle or other misc.
items which could potentially impact safety related equipment.
The seismic review team recomends that items in the vicinity of the CRD hydraulic modules be addressed.
- 19. Prohidethecriteriaadoptedinthedesignofnon-CategoryI items to assure that they would not fall or become dislodged and damage Category I equipment. Demonstrate how these criteria were applied to assure that:
(a) airhandlingductsaboveserhicewaterpumpswould not severe pump electrical power cables if they should j
fall during an earthquake; (b) water coolers above RBCCW heatexchangerYalveswould not danage these valves if they should fall during an earthquake.
C.
Reports Identified During Site Visit and Engineering Discussions The following reports by the J. Blume organization are requested:
1460.501
[.....,,
O S+a-hd
- 5-s u /a u /,e _
& closed 6"c /#S'd 1.
Pressure suppression chamber analysis.
2.
Suppression cha.mber suction header anilysis.
Enc /#S#'I 3.
Isolation condenser analysis.
'g;,c/osed 4.
Reactor pressure vessel analysis.
g,,cjased 5.
Earthquake design criteria.
-& /osed 6.
Radwaste building analysis.
r /osed -
7.
Gas turbine building analysis.
8.
Recirculation loop analysis.
fN/###
9.
Ventilation stack analysis, grc)c, sed 1460 302
+
8