ML20062B834

Requests Addl Info to Complete Review of Fsar.Info Includes Seismic Qualification of Electrical Equipment,Comments on Recommendations in Reg Guide 1.97,setpoint Accuracy & Environ Qualification of Class IE Equipment

ML20062B834
Person / Time
Site:	05000502, 05000503
Issue date:	10/24/1978
From:	Parr O Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Burstein S WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 7811010224
Download: ML20062B834 (13)

Text

-

k.

jM UNITED STATES

,y g 4 NUCi. EAR REGULATORY COMMisslON E C WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 f..I s, IM v I/

E Y'&

Docket Nos. 50-502 and 50-503

+

OCT 2 41978 Mr. Sol Burstein '

Executive Vice President Wisconsin Electric Power Company ._

231 West Michigan Street Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING HAVEN NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 i

As a result of our review of the Haven Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2, we forwarded requests for additional information via letters dated July 18,1978 and August 3, 1978. These requests represented questions on the majority of the review areas.

The enclosed request for additional information is based on the review by the Electrical Instrumentation and Control Systems and the Mechanical Systems Branches. Also, additional infonnation is requested in the Geology / Seismology area, based on the new information presented in Amendment 18, Appendix 2M, of the Haven Site Addendum concerning the faulting in Lake Michigan.

While our review schedule of the Haven Nuclear Plant has not been approved, pending resolution of *a one or two unit review, we are proceeding'on the assumption that the additional information will be available for our review by December 1,1978. If you cannot meet this

, date, please inform us within seven days after receipt of this letter.

Please contact us if you destre any discussion or clarification of the enclosed requests.

Sincerely, S

kanlu.Par.[ r, T ief Light Water Reactors Branch No. 3 Division of Project Management

Enclosure:

-Request for Additional Information cc w/ enclosure:

See next page i

77//O/D zer jfL$R

~

Mr. Sol Burstein OCT 2 41978 cc: Gerald Charnoff, Esq. Mr. William Charles Hanley Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge President, Safe Haven Ltd.

1800 M Street, N. W. P. O. Box 40 Washington, D. C. 20036 Kohler, Wisconsin 53044 I Robert H. Gorske, Esq. Mr. Thomas Galazen

. General Counsel Northern Thunder Wisconsin Electric Power Company Box 334 780 North Water Street Turtle Lake, Wisconsin 5488-Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 l A. William Finke, Esq.

Senior Attorney Wisconsin Electric Power Company 331 West Michigan Street Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 Thomas A. Lockyear, Esq.

Assistant Chief Counsel Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Hill Farms State Office Building 4802 Sheboygan Avenue Madison, Wisconsin 53702 Mr. Richard L. Prosise Bureau of Legal Services Department of Natural Resources ,

Box 7921 Madison, Wisconsin 53707~~

.g M

=,

i

l ENCLOSURE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORfiATION PART I - WISCONSIN UTILITIES PROJECT PSAR 48 8

9

-2 110.0 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH 110.17 In your response to item D.15 of our Qualification Review (APP.B) letter of April 5,1978, you state that Westinghouse supplied Class lE electrical equipment will be seismically qualified in accordance with the methods described in WCAP 8587, Rev-ision 1 and Supplement 1 to WCAP 8587. The NRC informed Westinghouse via our letter from J. Stolz to C. Eicheldinger ,

of January 9,1978 that WCAP 8587 Revision 1 was not approved as a reference for licensing applications. Therefore, we ,

require that you modify your response to provide a conunitment that all Westinghouse supplied Class 1E electrical equipment will be seismically qualified in accordance with the same requirements as your Balance of Plant Class lE electrical equipment. You state tJiat this 80P equipment will be qualified in'accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.100 Revision 1.

/

i  !

3-l 221.0 INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL SYSTEMS BRANCH 221.47 In response to Item 0.14 of our Qualification Review letter (App. B) of April 5,1978, you express conformance with the recommendations l

of Regulatory Guide 1.97, but include comments and exceptions. We interpret the comments to be explanations of how the recommendations of the Regulatory Guide will be met. The exceptions are summarized as follows:

i (1) The Battelle-Columbus Laboratories Report BMI-X-647,  !

l l

April 9,1973, will not be used as a guide for position C.l.

l (2) The recommendations of position C.3. will not be implemented.

We request that you verify that our interpretation of the comments and our summary of the exceptions are all inclusive and correct.

Also, your response states that'these recorders will not be qualified to function during the postulated seismic event.

Following the event, the recorders will regain an operating status." Clarify this. statement to indicate that the recorders will regain an operating status within acceptable operating limits. These operating limits should also be specified.

_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ ___._____n .

i i

\

l 4-221.48 In resporse, to Item D.17 of our Qualification Review letter (App. 8) of April 5,1978, you express conformance with the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.105, but include comments and exceptions.

We find your exceptions unacceptable in the following areas:

(1) You state, "The need for qualification testing will be evaluated and justified on a case basis." This statement indicates that some instruments may not be subjected to a qualification program to demonstrate that they will perform their design requirements. Modify your response to show that this equipment will satisfy IEEE Std. 323-1974 and the recomendations of Regulatory Guide 1.89.

(2) You take exception to our recomendation that a securing device be provided on setpoint adjusting mechanisms. We therefore, require a preliminary but detailed description of each method that will be used to assure that the required setpoint accuracy will be maintained and to minimize setpoint

. changes.

i Identify and justify any other exceptions taken to the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.105.

i 9

f

l l

, i l

221.49 We have reviewed your response to item D.47 of our Qualification (App 8)

Review letter and find your response unacceptable. It was poin ted out in our Qualification Review letter of April 5,1978, tnat we would be rereviewing certain categories of items.

Item D.47 is one of these items identified as Category D.(3) in that letter. Our concern is that the implementation of the design criteria for the Haven Plant may not satisify all requirements specified in IEEE Standard 323-1974. Therfore, we require that the information outlined in Attachment 'A' be provided.

Your commitment to provide the information for items 1 through 5 of Attachment 'A' prior to the application for the operating license will be acceptable. The information requested in items 6 and 7 of Attachment 'A' may be provided with the application for the operating license.

g ..

9 i

, s. ATTACHMENT A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF CLASS lE EQUIPMENT In order to ensure that your environmental qualification program conforms with General Design Criteria 1, 2, 4 and 23 of Appendix A and Sections III and XI of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, and to the national standards mentioned in Part II " Acceptance Criteria" (which includes IEEE Std 323) contained in Standard Review Plan Section 3.11, the following information on the qualification program is required for all Class lE equipment.

1. Identify all Class lE Equipment, and provide the following:

a. Type (functional designation) 4

b. Manufacturer

c. Manufacturer's type number and model number

. d. The equipment.should include the following, as applicable:

1) Switchgear ~~

2)- Motor control centers

3) Valve operators

4) Motors

5) Logic equipment ,

6) Cable

7) Diesel generator control equipment

8) Sensors (pressure, pressure differential, tenperature ,

and neutron)

9) Limit Switches

10) Heaters

11) Fans

12) Control Boards

13) Instrument racks and panels

14) Connectors

.- 15) Electrical penetrations

16) Splice,s

17) Terminal blocks l

N

2. Categorize the equipment identified in (1) above into one of the following categories:

a. Equipment that will experience the environmental conditions of design basis accidents for which it must function to mitigate said accidents, and that will be qualified to demonstrate operability in the accident environment for the time required for accident mitigation with safety margin to failure.

b. Equipment that will experience environmental conditions of

. design basis accidents through which it need not function for ,

mitigation of said accidents, but through which it must not fail in a manner detrimental to plant safety or accident mitigation, and that will be qualified to demonstrate the capability to with-stand any accident environment for the time during which it must not fail with safety margin to failure.

c. Equipment that will exp.erience environmental conditions of design basis accidents through which it need not function j for mitigation of said accidents, and whose failure (in any mode) is deemed not detrimental to plant safety or accident mitigation, and need not be qualified for any accident environ-  ;

ment, but will ba qualified for its non-accident service environment.

d. Equipment that will not experience environmental conditions of design basis accidents and that will be qualified to r

% demonstrate operability under its normal or abnormal serivce environment. This equipment would normally be located outside the reactor containment.

3. For each type of equipment in the categories of equipment listed in (2) above provide separately the equipment design specification requirements, including:

~

a. The system safety funct' ion requirements.

b. An environmental envelope as a function of time which includes all extreme parameters, both maximum and minimum values, ex-pected to occur during plant shutdown, normal operation, abnormal operation, and any design basis event (including LOCA and MSLB), including post event conditions.

c. Time required to fulfill its safety function when subjected to

any of ti.e extremes of the environmental envelope specified above.

d. Technical bases should be provided to justify the placement of each type equipment in the categories 2.b and 2.c listed above.

4. Provide the qualification test plan, test set-up, test procedures, l and acceptance criteria for at least one of each group of equipment 1

s

m. - of (l.d) as appropriate to the category identified in (2) above.

li' any method other than type testing was used for qualification (operating experience, analysis, combined qualification, or on-i going qualification), describe the method in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of its adequacy.

5. For each category of equipment identified in (2) above, state the actual qualification envelope simualated during testing (defining the duration of the hostile environment and the margin in excess of the design requirements). If any method other than type test-ing was used for qualification, identify the method and define the equivalent " qualification envelope" so derived.

~

• 6. A sumary of test results that demonstrates the adequacy of the quali-fication program. If analysis is used for qualification, justification of all analysis' assumptions must be provided.

• 7. Identi,fication of the qual"ification documents wnich contain detailed supporting information, including test data, for items 4, 5 and 6.

In addition, in accordance with the requirements of Appendix B of 10 CFR 50, the staff requires a statement verifying: 1) that all Class lE equipment has been (OL) or will be (Cp) qualified to the program described above, and 2) that the detailed qualification information and test results are (or will be) available for an flRC audit.

• For applications for construction permits, it is acceptable to state that items 6 and 7 will be supplied in the initial application for an i

operating license.

l i .- , j

I em M e_

• N4 m** *** **

• O REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PART II - HAVEN SITE ADDENDUM OO

360.0 GEOLOGY / SEISM 0 LOGY The following questions apply to Amendment 18, Appendix 2M (Geology and reismicity under Lake Michigan).

360.7 Provide a gravity map ~and interpretation of the gravity data (App 2m) for Lake Michigan.

360.8 Modify the following figures in Appendix 2M to reflect the (App 2m) following: ,

(1) 2M-3 Include the fault which exists 5 miles southeast of the Haven Site; (2) 2M-6 Include fault F on geologic cross Section BB; (3) 2M-7 Include the fault which exists 5 miles southeast of the Havon Site on geologic cross Section CC; (4) 2M-8 Include faults L, M, and N on geologic cross Section DD; i (5) 2M-10 Include the location of faults C through N; (6) 2M-12 Label the geologic contacts and longitude lines on the profiles; and (7) 2M-13 Label the geologic contacts and longitude lines on the profiles. Label the fault and identify the reflection line on the figure.

360.9 Provide a figure which'shows both the faults on seismic (App 2m) profiles and the regional faults shown in Figure 2.5.1-96 of the PSAR. Discuss the possible continuation of the faults

( under Lake Michigan into Wisconsin and Michigan.

360.10 Discuss the ages of the rock units offset by the faults seen (App 2m) on the seismic reflection records. Discuss the age of the oldest rock units penetrated by the shallow versus the deep reflection records.

360.11 Provide full size copies of:

(App 2m)

(1) University of Wisconsin shal'ow reflection lines 12 through 17; (2) Grant Geophysical deep reflection lines D.O. 17, 18, 19, 23, 25, and 30;

~

l l

1 i

(3) Illinois Geological Survey high resolution seismic lines; and (4) Weston Geophysical Company's reflection record which shows the fault which ekists 5 miles southeast of the Haven Site.

360.12 Provide further discussion of the arguments for connecting (App 2m) faults, G, H and C. Are there any geologic structures on the shores of Lake Michigan with a similar northeast trend? Provide a regional geological analysis to support the assumption that all the faults in Lake Michigan strike the same direction.

360.13 Provide a full scale bathymetric chart of Lake Michigan.

(App 2m)

, 360.14 Show on the cross sections where the breccia related to

- (App 2m) possible salt collapse occurs. Discuss in detail the relationship of the apparent zone of salt collapse and the irregular bottom north of 44010'N, which is assumed to be due to differential erosion of breccias caused by salt collapse.

360.15 What is the basis for correlation of Or (Richmond Group-(App 2m) Michigan) with 0m (Maquaketa Group-Wisconsin)?

360.16 If a Pleistocene river channel is respcnsible for the fault-(App 2m) like conditions observed on lines 13,14 and 15 and 0.0. 25,

, why isn't the channel apparent on lines 12 and 16?

360.17 Provide an estimate of the seismic detection magnitude (App 2m) threshold for Lake Michigan given the current seismic monitoring around the Lake. In this regard, it should 4

also be noted that the microearthquakes recorded at the Milwaukee station could have originated in northeastern Lake Michigan.

360.18 Discuss in detail the following as possible sources of (App 2m) faulting in Lake Michigan: <

(1) Reactivation of Precombrian faults (consider any  ;

faults inferred from the aeromagnetic or gravity studies and their relationships to the faults found on the seismic reflection records); ,

(2) Solution of the salt formations and associated collapse

, of the overlying formations; (3) Crustal rebound following Pleistocene glaciation; and (4) Channel fill which appears as faulting on the seismic reflection records.

I