ML19345C795

Forwards Request for Addl Info & Clarifications Needed to Complete Independent Confirmatory Piping Analysis.Requests Justification of Several Stress Intensity Values for Piping Components & Sys Reported in FSAR Tables 3.9-15 & 3.9-15A

ML19345C795
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	11/20/1980
From:	Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Jackie Cook CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
References
NUDOCS 8012080366
Download: ML19345C795 (6)

Text

_ _ _.__

s

-(

df u.,'%

UNITED STATES l'

s.3, g i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,J t

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s k.a%/]*

~.

NOV 2 01380 a

-1 Occket tios. 50-329/330 Mr. J. W. Ccok Vice President

'O Consumers Ptwer Ccmpany fi o

U 1945 West Parna11 Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 4

SUBJECT:

RECUEST FOR INFORMATION FOR PIPING ANALYSIS OF MIOLAND PLANT 1 Atl0 2 Mr. L. Rubenstein's letter of April 10, 1980 described the independent con-firmatory piping analysis of the Midland Plant to be performed for us by our consultant, Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC), and recuested certain information to this end. On July 7,1980, Mr. J. O. Bates,of ETEC requested

. hat legible cecies of scme of the original documents provided by your reply be crovided.

In addition to these two earlier reouests, our consultant advises that clarifications of certain existing information and some additional infor-mation are also needed for their analysis. The additional information and clarifications needed are listed in Enclosure 1.

Our continuing review of the Midland FSAR has also indicated the need for justification of several stress intensity values for piping componetits and systems reported in FSAR Tables 3.9-15 and 3.9-15A which exceed the alicwable stress of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. This request is provided by Enclosure 2.

Your response to Enclosure 2 should be made in accordance with the normal cuestion and answer procedure associated with our FSAR review. When responding to Enclosure 1, please send three sets of requested dccuments and responses to us, plus one additional set directly to:

Mr. L. J. Auge, Manager Facility Design Engineering Energy Technology Engineering Center P.O. Box 1449 Canoga Park, Caltiarnia 91304

~8012 o 8 0 3q,6

["

t

2 Should you require clarification of these requests, please telephcne our Licensing Project Manager or ETEC. Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely, Nhc.c Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1.

Requests for ETEC's Analysis 2.

FSAR Request 110.50 cc: See nex :: age

cc: Michael I. Miller, Esq.

Mr. Ocn van Farowe, Chief Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq.

Division of Radiological Health Alan S. Farnell, Esq.

Cesartment of Public Health Isham, Lincoln 3 Scale P.O. Sex 33035 Suite 4200 Lansing, Michigan 48909 1 First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 James E. Brunner, Esq.

William J. Scanlon, Esq.

Consumers Pcwer Company 2034 Pauline Boulevard 212 West Michigan Avenue Ann Arcor, Michigan 48103 Jackson, Michigan 49201 U. S. Nuclear Regula: cry Ccamission Myron M. Cr.erry, Esq.

Resident Inspectors Office 1 !3M Plaza Route 7 Chicago, Illinois 6C611 Midl and, Michigan 48640 Ms. Mary Sinclair Ms. Barcara Stamicis 5711 Summerset Drive 5795 N. River Midland, Michigan 48640 Freeland, Michigan 48623 Frank J. Kelley, Esq.

Ms. Sharon K. Warren Attorney General 636 Hillcrest State of Mict'gan Environmental Midland, Micnigan 43640 Protection Division 720 Law Suilding Lansing, Michigan 48913 Mr. Wendell Marshall Reute 10 Midland, Michigan 48640 Mr. Steve Gadler 2120 Carter Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55108

Information Needed for ETEC'S Picing Analysis

1) The " Pressure-Temperature Data Sheet" Drawing No. H-611, Sheet 1 gives the temperature and pressure data for 7 modes of operation at 9 nodal points. However, there is no information included as to where these nodal points are located in the system.

Identify the locaticn of these nadal points.

2)

Information is required concerning the loadings to be considered for nomal, upset, emergency and faulted conditions. This should include, wnere applicable, pressure, temperature, thermal transients, and dynamic loadings other than CBE and SSE and the numoer of cycles projected for each occurrence.

3) Provide the response spectra for the reactor vessel noz:les to which the Decay Heat Removal and Core Flooding System Unit 2 tie.

4) The response spectra for the core flooding tank no::les is given for Unit 1 :er Babcock & Wilcox specificaticn 19-139-1000012-00. The specificaticn states that ne data for Unit 2 can be obtained by following the procedure outlined in specification 13-1235000012. Provide this specificaticn.

5) Clarify whether the seismic deflections and the response scectra for the core flocc tank nozzles as stated in specification 18-391000012-00 are fcr the CBE and SSE.

6) Note 9 of the Isometric H-611, sheet 1(Q) states that unless otherwise noted pipe bends have a minimum centerline radius of 5 times the nominal pipe diameter. This requires clarification for several areas of the pipe; for example, the distance between nodes 180 & 190 is 50.29 inches. With a 5 diameter radius bend on each end, a 100 inch length wculd be required for a 10 inch diameter pipe. ETEC assumes that note 9 is in error and has used a 1 1/2 diameter radius bend except where a 5 diameter bend is specifically called out. ETEC also used a 5 diameter bend at node 260 where a 5 inch diameter bend is called for. Verification of ETEC's assumptions or clarification as to the actual radii is required.

7) Provide pipe support details for supports numbers 233 and 372.

3) Provide insulation thicknesses for la inch diameter pipe Class III F and IM, and 10 inch Class II F.

9) FSAR Figure 3.6-9 depicts pipe whip restraints at different locations on the CHR piping. However, Drawing No. H-611, Sheet 1(Q), Revision 6 does not.

C1arify this discrepancy.

2-

10) Provide design and specification information on tha pipe stub and root

'edlVe for the pressure, transmitter 2PT-ll36B on line 2CCA-23.

11) The ' drawings for the snubber installations list Mechanical Sheck Suppressors per Figures 306 'and 307. These figures are not in the ITT Grinnell Category PH79. Provide information on these snubbers as to load carrying capability and spring rates.

1 i

i

- _ _.,. u. -

J 110.0 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH 110.o0 Approximately 50% of your calculated stress intensities exceed the (3.9) allowable stresses listed in 2 Tables 3.9-15 and 3.9-15A. In Table 3.9-15, there is a footn:e for the cases where the calculated stresses exceeded the allowable, stating the " Elastic-Plastic evaluation performed for justification".

In Table 3.9-15A, no justification is given for exceeding the listed allowable stresses. Revise these sables to include the new allcwables and provide the analysis methods used to decermine the new allcwables.

1 4

I 4

4 4

5 1

i 3

t 4

-.m

.. -