ML20216B693

Forwards Request for Addl Info Pertaining to Summary Repts for IPEEE & USI A-46 Seismic Evaluations That Entergy Operations,Inc Submitted on 960531 for ANO-1 & ANO-2

ML20216B693
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	05/07/1998
From:	William Reckley NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Hutchinson C ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
References
REF-GTECI-A-46, REF-GTECI-SC, TASK-A-46, TASK-OR TAC-M69426, TAC-M69427, NUDOCS 9805180348
Download: ML20216B693 (5)

Text

.

Mr. C. Randy Hutchinson May 7, 1998 Vice President, Operations ANO Entergy Operations, Inc.

1448 S.R.333 Russellville, AR 72801

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL lNFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE RESOLUTION OF UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUE (USI) A-46 FOR ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE (ANO), UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. M69426 AND M69427)

Dear Mr. Hutchinson:

This is a request for additional information pertaining to the summary reports for the Individual Plar.t Examination of Extemal Events (IPEEE) and USl A-46 Seismic Evaluations that Entergy Operations, Inc., submitted on May 31,1996, for ANO-1 and ANO-2. In order for the staff to i complete its review of the USl A-46 program implementation at ANO, please respond to the questions in the enclosed request for additional information. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this request for information.  ;

i Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY: 1 William Reckley, Project Manager )

Project Directorate IV-1 I Division of Reactor Projects Ill/lV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/enci: See next page DISTRIBUTION:

Docket File. PUBLIC PD4-1 r/f WReckley CHawes OGC ACRS TGwynn, RIV JRoe EAdensam (EGA1) JHannon YLi ARubin (RES) t Document Name: AR69426.RAI ,,

)

OFC PM/PD4-1 _ LA/PD4-1 PD/PDh we N NAME WReckley/vw CHawe JHannon DATE T /7 /98 $/$/98 [/fi98 COPY j YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

.G YE&O i*.* W #"T"1*"

9805180348 900507 N f]de w.KwAugWfynmyy PDR ADOCK 05000313 P PDR

p aso og g 1 UNITED STATES

, g ,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20646 0001 4 ,o 9***** May 7, 1998 l l

Mr. C. Randy Hutchinson ,

Vice President, Operations ANO l Entergy Operations, Inc. '

1448 S. R. 333 Russellville, AR 72801

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE RESOLUTION OF UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUE (USI) A-46 FOR ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE (ANO), UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. M69426 AND M69427)

Dear Mr. Hutchinson:

This is a request for additional information pertaining to the summary reports for the individual Plant Examination of Extemal Events (IPEEE) and USl A-46 Seismic Evaluations that Entergy Operations, Inc., submitted on May 31,1996, for ANO-1 and ANO-2. In order for the staff to complete its review of th( USl A-46 program implementation at ANO, please respond to the questions in the enclosed request for additionalinformation. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this request for information.

Sincerely, William Reckley, Project Ma Project Directorate IV 1 Division of Reactor Projects lil/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ encl: See next page

Mr. C. Randy Hutchinson Entergy Operations, Inc. Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 & 2 cc:

Executive Vice President Vice President, Operations Support

& Chief Operating Officer Entergy Operations, Inc. j Entergy Operations, Inc. P. O. Box 31995 l P. O. Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 I Jackson, MS 39236-1995 Wise, Carter, Chi!d & Carr cay Directcr, Division of Radiation P. O. Box 651 Control and Emergency Management Jackson, MS 39205 I Arkansas Department of Health 4815 West Markham Street, Slot 30 Little Rock, AR 72205-3867 Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, N.W. ,

Washing'on, DC 20005-3502 l Manager, Rockville Nuclear Licensing Framatone Technologies 1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525 Rockville, MD 20852 Senior Resident inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 310 London, AR 72847 Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011-8064 County Judge of Pope County Pope Cour,ty Courthouse Russellville, AR 72801

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE. UNITS 1 AND 2 UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUE A-46

1. In Sections 1.5 and 11 of the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 (ANO-1) seismic evaluation report, the licensee indicated that 17 items have been designated as outliers pending completion of the USI A-46 walkdown These 17 items were added to the later revisions of the safe shutdown equipment list (SSEL) after completion of the previous walkdowns.

The licensee stated that another walkdown is needed to complete the review of these ,

items. Similarly,29 items in ANO-2 have been identified as outliers of the same nature. I Do these items belong to a unique category of equipment which can not be identified I without a prior walkdown of the plant by Seismic Review Team (SRT) members? Within the context of the above question, discuss the basis for your assertion that the SSELs as presented in the evaluation reports are complete and are based on sound engineering judgment. Has another walkdown been completed? If so, provide a description of the findings. Otherwise, indicate the projected date for completiori and submittal of the supplements to the seismic evaluation reports.

2. In Section 5.4.3 of the ANO-1 seismic evaluation report, the licensee indicated that there are some panels that were attached to block walls with expansion anchor bolts. The licensee also stated that the anchorage evaluation for those items was performed and the anchorage was determined to be acceptable. However, Generic Implementation Procedure, Revision 2 (GIP-2) does not provide allowable capacities for anchors installed in block walls. It is unclear as to how the.=e anchor capacities were determined. The licensee is requested to describe how the anchorage capacities were determined and to provide a comparison of the anchorage capacity with the seismic demand.

3. On page 5-18 in Section 5.4.4 of the ANO-1 seismic evaluation report, it is indicated that the pair of cabinets C-46 and 48 are next to each other, but not bolted together. It further indicated that this pair of cabinets did not contain essential relays and the interaction was, therefore, not a concem. A similar argument was made in the evaluation of other pairs of cabinets C-41 and 28, C-26 and 24, and C-86 and 34. Based on the information provided by the licensee, it is unclear whether, as a result of the potential seismic interaction between the pair of cabinets, there would be any subsequent adverse impact on other adjacent safety-related equipment. If so, provide a description to show that the advesse impact would not cause the failure of adjacent safety-related equipment to perform its intended safe shutdown function.

4. Page F-3 in Appendix F of the ANO-1 seismic evaluation report contains two comments provided by the peer reviewer, Mr. Robert J. Eudnitz. The two comments are related to the criteria used by the licensee for equipment identification. It is also noted that in Page F-2 of Appendix F, Mr. Budnitz stated that his two comments relating to ANO-1 equipment, have been incorporated fully in the ANO-2 evaluation. However, it is unclear whether any measures have been taken by the licensee to address his comments regarding ANO-1 equipment. The licensee is requested to address this concem.

ENCLOSURE

i

5. With respect to Section 2.2 on the In-Structure Floor Response Spectra for both ANO-1 and ANO-2, it is stated in page 2-1 that M911 (underline add ad) Seismic Category I structures at ANO 1 and 2 are founded on rock. What Seisnic Category I structures are founded on soil or non-rock material as exceptions to this stotement which may have altered the generation of the floor response spectra? Discuas the characteristics of the seismic input motions used for various rock and soil founded structures of ANO-1 and ANO 2.

6. Regarding Section 6.1.1 for Vertical Tanks, three and two ver<ical flat bottom tanks were identified for ANO-1 and ANO-2, respectively, as outliers with respect to the GlP-2 methodology. These outliers were resolved based on the assertion that these tanks all have HCLPF [high confidence low probability of failure) capacities greater than 0.3g (refer to Table 6-5 for ANO-1 and ANO-2). Provide a discussion of the relative safety margins that would result from use of the two different methodologies (i.e., GIP-2 vs. HCLPF i methods) and di:: cuss the rationale for implying that having a greater than 0.3g HCLPF ,

tank capacity would suffice to show that the intent of Section 6 of the GIP-2 is satisfied. l

7. Briefly discuss the code verification performed to establish the validity of the GIPPER and l

, TANKV computer programs.  !

8. Referring to Table 6-6 of ANO-2 seismic evaluation report, discuss how the outlier tanks, 2T-57 A & B were resolved.

9. Section 7.1.1 of the seismic evaluation report states, " Essentially (underline added) all of the raceway systems in ANO I and 2 Safety Related Buildings were included in the i walkdown." Discuss the approximate percentage of the raceway systems that were not covered in the walkdown with listing of a few examples of such items and the reasons for not including the items within the scope of the walkdown.

10. In Section 7.1.3 of the report, several assumptions (e.g., structural steel, weld filler metal) were made for the Limited Analysis Review of the raceway systems in ANO-1 and ANO-2. Identify if the assumptions regarding material data was verified against plant design and material procurement documentation.

)

11. Was there any basic difference between ANO-1 and ANO-2 with respect to providing engineered flexibility for cable tray and raceway systems between safety related building 1 interfaces? Does this type of generic concem, which was mentioned in the ANO-2 )

evaluation report, apply to some of the ANO-1 build:ng interfaces? If yes, discuss how was this concem adequately addressed? I i

l l

I

_