ML20210M755

Forwards RAI Re plant-specific Summary Rept IAW Commitment Relating to GL 87-02 on Resolution of Unresolved Safety Issue A-46, Seismic Qualification of Equipment in Operating Plants, for Units 1 & 2

ML20210M755
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	08/19/1997
From:	Pulsifer R NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Johnson I COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
References
REF-GTECI-A-46, REF-GTECI-SC, TASK-A-46, TASK-OR GL-87-02, GL-87-2, TAC-M69476, TAC-M69477, NUDOCS 9708220197
Download: ML20210M755 (5)

Text

_ _ _ __ _

i August 19, 1997 M,, Irene Johnson Acting Manager Nuclear Regulatory Services Commonwealth Edison Company Executive Towers West III

! 1400 Opus Place. Suite 500 Downers Grove. IL 60515

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - QUAD CITIES. UNITS 1 AND 2  :

(TAC NOS. M69476 AND M69477)

Dear Ms. Johnson:

In a letter dated June 28, 1996. Commonwealth Edison Company (Comed) provided a plant-specific summary report in accordance with its commitment relating to Generic Letter 87-02 on the resolution of the Unresolved Safety Issue A-46 " Seismic Qualification of Equipment in Operating Plants." Program at Quad Cities. Units 1 and 2. The staff reviewed the summary report and has determined that additional information, as provided in the enclosed RAI. is necessary to complete the review of Comed's USI A-46 response. Please respond within 60 days of receipt of this RAI.

Sincerely.

Original signed by Robert M. Pulsifer. Project Manager Project Directorate III-2 Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265

Enclosure:

As stated

}\ j cc w/ encl: see next page Di.stribution:

Docket File PUBLIC PDIII-2 r/f J. Roe, JWR E. Adensam. ECA1 R Capra D. Dorman. 014B20 R. Pulsifer OGC 015B18 ACRS. T2E26 K. Manoly. 07E23 C. Moore W. Kropp. RIII DOCUMENT NAME:G:\CHNTJR\0UAD\QCb9476.RAI *SEE PREVIO.US CONCURRENCE Ta receive a copy of this document. Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy wRh encbsures "N" = No copy 0FFICE PM:PDill-2 _l 6  !!A: 41l Il-2 lD EMEB l ( 0:PDIII-/ , ,l l NAME RPULSIFERr W " KMANOLY

• Ot100RE\ /JCAPRA AW/

DATE 0_8////97 ' 08/B/97 08/13/97 // 08// l/97 9708220197 970819 1

I. Johnson Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Commonwealth Edison Company Unit Nos. I and 2 cc:

Michael I. Miller, Esquire Document Control Desk-Licensing Sidley and Austin Comonwealth Edison Company One First National Plaza 1400 Opus Place, Suite 400

( Chicago, Illinois 60603 Downers Grove, Illinois 60515 Mr. L. William Pearce Station Manager Quad Cities i.uclear Power Station 22710 206th Avenue North Cordova, Illinois 61242 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Quad Cities Resident Inspectors Office 22712 206th Avenue North Cordova, Illinois 61242 Chairman Rock Island County Board of Supervisors 1504 3rd Avenue Rock Island County Office Bldg.

Rock Island, Illinois 61201 Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety Office of Nuclear Facility Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive Springfield, Illinois 62704 Regional Administrator U.S. NRC, Region III 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, Illinois 60532-4351 Richard J. Singer Manager - Nuclear l

MidAmerican Energy Company l 907 Walnut Street P.O. Box 657 Des Moines, Iowa 50303 i Brent E. Gale, isq.

Vice President . Law and Regulatory Affairs MidAmerican Energy Company One RiverCenter Place 106 East Second Street l P.O. Box 4350 Davenport, Iowa 52808

RE00EST FOR ADDITI6NAL INFORMATION OUAD CITIES. UNITS 1 AND_2

[LNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUE A.45

Reference:

Letter from Commonwealth Edison Company to NRC with a Summary Report and Attachments, dated June 28, 1996

1. In Table 8.2 of the Seismic Evaluation Report attached to the referenced letter, which lists the Quad Cities A-46 equipment outlicrs and the status of their resolution, the Conservative Deterministic Failure Malgin (CDFM) method of Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

NP-6041 " Seismic Harmn Report,' is utilized to resolve the outliers for cable and conduit raceway systems. The methodology has not been approved by the staff for the anclysis of safety-related systems and cornponents, including the resolution of mechanical, electrical and '

structural component outliers in the Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A-46 program. You are requested to re-evaluate your program and ensure that all the identified outliers unl be resolved using the 31 ant licensing-basis methodologies or wher approaches accepthble to tie staff.

2. The referenced submittal states that all outlier resolutions, eitner by analysis, physical modifications, or replacements, will be compkted fcr each respectire unit hy r.he end of the second refueling outego for that unit after the receipt of the staff's Safety Evaluation Report. You 60 requested to elaborate on your decision te defer the resolutton of ideutified outliers and your evaluation in support of the conclusion ti.at tha licensing basis for the plant will not be affected by your decision. Specifically, you are ree ':ted to nrovide t.he justification for assuring operability of the affected cystems and components while a '

number of safety-related components in the safe shutdom path have been <

identified as outliers: thus rendering their sniccic edequacy <

questiorable and their co6formance to the licensing basis uncertain.

3. In the Relay Evaluation Report Section 3.L3. it is stated that. "Of the 1249 contacts evaluated using the Seismic Capacity Screening process, 654.of the contacts passed." The number of the contacts that did not pass would, therefore, be 595 instead of 562, as stated. You e are requested ta clarify this discrepancy. (

4. In AppGndix C to the Seismic Evaluation Report. "QuGd Cities Nuclear Station N&lkdown Personnel Resume:." and Apaendix A to the Relay Evaluation Report, " Resumes of Individuals performing Relay Reviow."

certificates were not prcvided to demonstrate that those who

. participated in the seisMc walkdown inspections and relay re',iew have completed all the necessary seismic qualificction utility group (SOUG) training tourses. You are reouested to provide appropriate documentation to demonstratednat these individuals are geslified to participate in tha USI A-46 implementation Progrem.

ENCt.0SURE l

__._[

, ~. m . -

l. -

lc . 5. In Section 4.1.1 of the Seismic Evaluation Report it appears that in some cases, the seismic demand for equipment located within 40-feet above the effective grade has been defined by the Housner ground response s)ectrum (GRS) instead of the bmplified in structure response spectra (IRS). Provide justification for using this approach 6t the Quad Cities site (shallow soil layer on competent rock). where the amplified IRS is shown to be higher than the GRS (Figure B S in the Appendtx B of the Seismic Evaluation Report).

6. In Section 4.1.1 and Appendix B of the Seisinic Evaluation Report, it appears that at Quad Cities, tte IRS at floors within 40-feet above the effective grade sre above the Boumiing Spectrum (85), and in some cases.

abov6 1.5xBS at a number of frequenc5es (e.g., Reactor Building elevation 623.00. Figure B-4). Provide additional information regarding the procedures used in assessing the seismic 6dequacy of equipment and their anchorages in such cases. ,

7 GIP-2 (Section 4.4) recommends that expansion anchors not he used for anthoring vibratory equipent, such as pumps and air compressors. If used. GIP-2 recommends a iacge margir, between the puliout loads and the pullout capacit hs. The screening verification data sheetr (SV'El in -

Apnemiix 0 to the Bismic Evaluation Report do nat provide any inTohnation regarding the type of anchors usad for the hsted equf pment.

Provide information about the seismic adequacy of vibratoiy equipment i secured by expansion anchors.

B. Section 6 of the Seismic Evaluation Repcrt proddes a summary describing

?

the mettdology for evaluating larp, flat-uottom vert.ical tanks.

However. Table 6.1 does not contain information about such tanks.

Identify the large, flat-botto'1. vertical tanks that are net 11dted in Table 6.1, and provide the following related information: 3

a. Sketchc shoning tank dimensions, anc h chairs, anchorages (1nchCing embedmenO and foundation, b, A detailed calculation of a representative tenk, wt.ich demonstrates the sei ric adequacy Of the tank utilizing the GlP-2 proceuure.

9. Sect 10a 7.3 of the Seismic Evaluation Report ir.oicated that 8 out of 11

, lin,ited analytical reviaws (LARs) performed required outlier c evaluations. In hght of the result, rovide a justification for not i expanding the revicws ta a 'iarger samp e size.  !

?.0. In reference to Tsble 7.3 in the Seismic Evaluation Report. LAR 001 involved a rod hung t-aaeze supporting 3-tier cable trays. Provide d? tailed calculations swing how the outlier for LAR 001 support was resched, including th justification for the use of the rod fatigue

) [

test data and the generic acctptability curve from F.P Prnject 8050. '

)

3

, c ,- m n a m

_ 11. In reference to Table 7.3 in the Seismic Evaluation Report, a number of outlier resolutions for the raceway hangers were performed based on the high-confidence-low-probability-of-failure (HCLPF) and the CDFM methodologies, which in view of Item 1, are not acceptable to the staff. Provide an alternate method for resolution of these raceway outliers, and provide a schedule for implementing the resolution.

12. Tables 8.1 and 8.2 in the Seismic Evaluation Report show a number of

, pieces of equipment that do not meat the seismic demand. The SRT has recommended methods for resolving these outliers. Provide a table showing how these outliers were actually resolved.

\

t k

k f

2 E

i E

m mu

• n - -