ML20028A753
| ML20028A753 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 11/12/1982 |
| From: | Clark R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Fay C WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| References | |
| GL-81-14, TAC-43669, TAC-43670, NUDOCS 8211240389 | |
| Download: ML20028A753 (9) | |
Text
l vtha -Aes l) hb M N h
- P:n'; m ASB DISTRIBUTION Nov 121982 JTBeard-0RAB docket File FMiralgia-AD Local PDR ORB #3 Rdg D.Eisenhut JHeltemes RAClark Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301 PKreutzer (3) i OELD NSIC E.L. Jordan-J.M. Taylor (1) 4 ACRS (10)
Mr. C. W. Fay TColburn Assistant Vice President Wisconsin Electric Power Company Gray File 231 West Michigan Street Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 j
Dear Mr. Fay:
We have reviewed your July 16, 1981 and May 4, 1982 submittals regarding seismic qualification of the auxiliary feedwater (AFW) system for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2.
Your submittals were in response to Generic Letter 81-14 dated February 10, 1981 and the NRC staff's request for additional information on this subject dated January 25, 1982.
Our consultant has prepared the attached Technical Evaluation Report (TER) for your facilities. You are asked to review the attached TER and provide us with your comments. Comments received by December 20, 1982 will be given consideration in the preparation of our SER. A copy of this TER is being telecopied to your staff for your convenience.
The intent of our request is to ensure that our understanding of your AFW system design is correct. Your comments on the TER or other information relevant to upgrading actions which may be required and the scheduling of such actions will be given consideration if receeved before the requested date.
1 The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OM8 Clearance is not required under P. L.96-511.
Sincerely, unginal signed by Robert A. Clark, Chief
$$jigy9 jjggj{
Operating Reactors Branch #3 g
P PD.t Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated
..QL;.0Raff...
..QL0RBD1 DRAE.hb.
g
...[..................
CC See next page
- omer,
..P,Kr,$4jr.,,,,,Eolhyrn,;dd.J,Th,ary,,,,,,,,,,,R,,,C,,,a,ri,,,_ I,h..,
su m uo
.1.11.'.22.?....
.111.Ll.B.....
11LG.1B2........ 1.1.l.%L...
omy tenc ronu ais oo m uncu eno OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usamen-mem
- -~ _ -- _,-
Wisconsin Electric Power Company cc:
Mr. Bruce Churchill, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge USNRC Resident Inspectors Office 1800 M Street, N. W.
6612 Nuclear Road Washington, D. C.
20036 Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241 Joseph Mann Library 1516 Sixteenth Street Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241 Mr. Glenn A. Reed, Manager Nuclear Operations Wisconsin Electric Power Company Point Beach Nuclear Plant 6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241 Mr. Gordon Blaha Town Chairman Town of Two Creeks Route 3 Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241 Ms. Kathleen M. Falk General Counsel Wis6pasin's Environmental Decade 114 K. Carroll Street Madison, Wisconsin 53703 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Activitics Branch Region V Office ATTN:
Regional Radiation Representative 230 S. Dearborn Street.
{
Chicago,' Illinois 60604 l
l Chairman Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Hills Farms State Office Building Madison, Wisconsin 53702 Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III Office of Executive Director for Operations i
799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 4
m
~August 19, 1982 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPURT POINT 6iACH NUCLEt,R PuANT, UNITS 1 AND c SEASMIC ODALIFICATION OF AdXILIARY FEECWATER SYSTih 1.
ERODJCTION Since the a'cioent at Three Mile Island, considerable attention has been focused on the capability of nuclear power plants to reliably remove oecay heat.
The NRC has recently uncertaken Multiplant Action Plan C-14 " Seismic Qualification of AFW Systems" [Ref. ~1), which is the subject of this evalua-tion.
To implement the first phase of Action Plan C-14, the NRC issued Generic Letter No. 81-14 " Seismic Qualificaton of AFW Systems" [Ref. 2], cated Feoruary 10, 1981, to all operating FWR licensees. This letter requested each licensee (1) to conduct a walk-down of non-seismically qualified portions of the AFW system and identify deficiencies amenable to simple actions to improve seismingsistance, and (2) to provice oesign information regaroing the seis-mic capability of tne AFW system to facilitate NrlC backfit decisions.
The licensee of Point 6each Units 1 ano 2 responded with a letter dateo July 16,1981 (Ref. 3).
The licensee's response was found not to be complete
]
cno a Request for Aoditional Information (RAI) was issued by the NRC, dateo January 25, 1982 [ Ret. 4).
Tne licensee provided a supplemental response in a I
letter dated May 4, 1982 [Ref. 5).
This; report provides a technical evaluation of the information provided in l
the licensee's responses to the Generic Letter, and includes a recommendation regarding the need for additional analysis and/or upgrading modification of this plant's AFW system.
2.
EvALUMTluN Information provioed in licensee's responses included:
o Specification of the overall seismic capability of the AFW system.
o identification of AFV system components that are currently non-seismically qualified for SSE.
o Summary of procedures for switchover to the secondary water source and supply path.
o Discussion of levels of seismic capability of non-seismically quali-fled components.
<' o Description of the AFW system boundary.
o Status of compliance with se.tsmic related NRC Bulletins ano informa-tio, Notices.
n Additionally,schematicsketch'oftheAFWsystem.
o o
Additionally, description of methodologies and acceptance criteria for seismically qualified portions of the AFW system.
o Aceitionally, results of walkdown of seismically qualified areas of
,the AFW system and ioentification of areas of modification / upgrade with proposed schedule to upgrade.
We have reviewed the -licensee's responses, and a point-to-point evaluation "of, licensee's responses against Generic Letter's requirements is provided,
below.
(1) Seismic Caoability of AFW System Except for those iters identified in the following, the AFW system has been designed, constructed and maintaineo to withstand an SSE utilizing methods anc acceptance cr,teria consistent with those applicable to other i
safety-relateo systems in the plant.
Presently, tnose items identified by the licensee as not being fully seismically qualified are evaluated below:
o Pumos/ Motors - None O
2-
~
o Picin : - Licensee has statec tnat oranch pipings tos. 20 to 28 were not originally required to be seismic.
Connections 20 and 21 go to tne Unit 1 ano 2 Concensers. Connection 22 is a 1.5 inch connection to the Waste ano Blowoown Evaporator Distillate Processing dystem.
Connection 21 is a 4-inch connection to the heating boiler feed pump.
Connection 24 is a 2-inch diameter connection that provides a source of water to the turbine plant chemical audition tanks.
Connection 25 is a 3-inch diameter connection to the mixed beo cemineralizer in the m'keup water treatment system.
Connections 26, a
27 and 28 were not clearly icentified in licensee's response.
Licensee's response did not discuss the seismic capability of these branch lines, therefore, we judge that they possess a less than CBE level of seismic capability.
o Valves / Actuators - None o
Power Sucolies - None o
Water Source (s) - The condensate storage tank of the primary water source is seismic Class II.
However, a seismic Class I secondary water ano supply path, the service water system, is available and a manual switchover procedure exists.
o M nitiation/ Control System - None o
Structures - Except for the seismic Class I control building,.Other structures housing or supporting the AFW system inclucing the turoine builcing, auxiliary building superstructure and the facade in con-
.f
~
tainment bulloing were not designeo to seismic reauirements.
Licen-see's reponse did not discuss the seismic capability of these non-seismic Class I structures except that recently the turbine building has been analyzed fo,r seismic loading assuming the turbine building i
i crane to be located above the control building and was found to be capable of withstanding an SSE.
Classifica' tion' needs to be mace, however, that this is the worst loading condition for the turbine j
building in the presence of a seismic event. We therefore conclude l
that the structures in general have a less than C6E level of seismic capacity.
l-l
- i
~
~
~
Baseo on our evaluation, those areas of the AFW system judged not to possess an SSE capability are icentified below:
o Pumos/ Motors None o
Pipino Less than OBE o
Valves / Actuators None o
Power Sucolies None o
Water Source (s)
None o
Initiation / Control System None o
Structures Less than OBE in summary, our evaluation indicates that the licensee's AFW system ooes not possess an overall seismic capability that can withstand an SSE.
The primary water source anc supply path is not seismically qualified, therefore, switchover to the seismically qualified secondary water source ano supply path is required. The licensee stated that such procedure is available by warning the operator when the low level (20% or four feet) on the-conden tie storage tank occurs. The operator then opens the auxiliary feeowater pump service water system suction valves following such a warning.
Selscic qualification information for any alternate decay heat removal system was not provicea in the licensee's responses. This information was i
requesteo by GL 61-14 if substantial lack of seismic qualification is inoicat-eo for the AFW system.
Based on tne information provided by the licensee we aid not find that the licensee's AFW system has an SSE capability.
For the purpose of removing cecay heat following an SSE, the licensee needs to either r
re-analyze and/or modify its AFW system, or to provide an alternate decay heat removal system seismically qualified to the SSE level and appropriate operat-ing procedures.
O,
Regarding tne AFW bouncary, the licensee's responses inoicateo that piping branch connections 6 through 26 do not comply with GL81-14 boundary oefini-tions because they do not have a second normally closed valve.
Pipe connections 6 through 9 are outlet connections for the pump recirculation piping.
Connections 10 through 13 were not clearly identified in licersee's gesponse.
Connections 14 through 19 are overflow, drain, and instrument connections on the Condensate Storage Tank.
Connections 20 through 28 are described previously in pace 3 of this report.
The licensee stated that the AFW system was incluoed within the scope of seismic related Bulletins 79-02, 79-04, 79-07, 79-14, 80-11, and IE Information Notice 80-21, except for part of the piping supports ide.11tifed under 1E 79-14 that will be upgraded by the end of June,1982.
(2) Walk-Down of Non-Seismically Qualified Portions of AFW System A walk-cown of the non-seismically qualified areas of the AFW system is required, but has not been conducted.-
(3) Aob'idonal Information The licensee proviceo schematic representation of the plant including structures, major AFW system components and piping, and showea sketches of piping in 'the IE Bulletin 79-14 program with identification of pipe connec-tions.
Also included are preliminary piping isonetrics from the IE Bulletin 79-14 program.
l Regaroing the valves, additional information provided by the licensee
~
stated that IE Bulletin 79-14 piping analyses did not analyze the valve itself, but as long as the acceleration level on the valve was less than 3g, the valve operator was considered acceptable, otherwise, the valve received aooitional evaluation.
For other items in the AFW system that are seismically qualified, the seismic qualification methodologies are given in the FSAR ano are consistent i
with that applied to other safety-relateo systems in the plant.
l
-5
~
A recent walkoown on seis.ically qualified items has identified the following ceficiencies:
(a) Main Piping:
The 1.5" DB-3 recirculation pipe for each of the four AFW pumps and the discharge piping of each pump are not goequately supported.
These oeficiencies are planned to be correcteo, but no oefinite schedule is given.
(b) Power Supplies:
Seismic resistance of the battery racks in the battery Room is questionable and will be upgradeo.
Supports for cable conduits in P3SA and P38B cubicles will also be upgraded.
(c) Initiation / Control Systa.n:
Conouits D01-2, 2-4001,1-4000 and 1-4001 ano conouits above panels D12, D13 ano D14 ao not have acequate supports. Ciamps will be provioeo to overcome these oeficiencies.
Also, the four safeguaro motor control centers (1832,1942, 2B32, ano 2542) in auxiliary bulloing are presently not anchorea to the floor. Supports will oe installed to secure these cabinets. Upgrading of mest of the above mentioned items identified in the recent walkoown will be performed by the end of 1982.
3.
COND_USIONS The information contained in licensee's responses to Generic Letter 81-14 is inc.glete with regard to the seismic capacity of nonseismically qualified piping ano structures.
The walkoown conducted by the licensee had been performed for the seismically qualifiec items and did not cover the non-seismically qualified branch connections and structures.
Most of the deficiencies ioentifieo as a result of this walkdown will be upgraded by the end of June, 1982.
The licensee also stated that the AFW system bouncary,coes not fully conform to the definition specified in CL81-14.
t3aseo on the submitteo information, we concluoe tnat the AFw system coes not provide a reasonable assurance to per-form its required safety function following an S.>l.
Therefore, we reconnend that the NAC consicers requiring the licensee to provioe a re-aaslysis ano/or modification of the AFW system.to acquire an SSE level of capacity.
sp -
- =. - _
REFERENCES ~
1.
D. G. Eisenhut, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, memorandum to H. R.
Denton, "Hultiplant Action Plan C-14: Seismic Qualification of Auxiliary Feedwater Systems," February 20, liSl.
2.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, G3neric Letter No. 62-14 to all operating pressurizeo water reactor licensees, " Seismic Qualification of Auxiliary Feedwater Systems," Feoruary 10, 1981.
3.
C. W. Fay, Wisconsin Electric Power Company, letter to H. R. Denton of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 16, 1981.
4.
R. A. Clark, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, letter to C. W. Fay of Wisconsin Electric Power Company, " Request for Additional Information on Seismic Qualification of the Auxiliary Feedw9ter System, Point Beach
!!uclear Plant Units 1 and 2," January 25, 1982.
5.
C.,F..' Fay, Wisconsin Electric Power Company, letter to H. R. Denton of so-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 4,1982.
SCL: tim /mg/0164G i
. -