NUREG/CR-1821, Forwards List of Open Issues from Draft NUREG/CR-1821, Seismic Review of Robert E. Ginna Power Plant as Part of Sep. Addl Info Re Seismic Design Consideration & Component Integrity Should Be Submitted within 30 Days

Forwards List of Open Issues from Draft NUREG/CR-1821, Seismic Review of Robert E. Ginna Power Plant as Part of Sep. Addl Info Re Seismic Design Consideration & Component Integrity Should Be Submitted within 30 Days

ML17258A749
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	01/07/1981
From:	Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Maier J ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
References
TASK-03-06, TASK-03-11, TASK-3-11, TASK-3-6, TASK-RR LSO5-81-1-002, LSO5-81-1-2, NUDOCS 8102040104
Download: ML17258A749 (9)

Text

./

à /888 DISTRIBUTION Docket JWetmore NRC PDR RDiggs Local PDR JRoe TERA DEisenhut OELD RPurple OIaE (3)

GLainas ACRS (16)

TNovak JBuchanan, NSIC RTedesco JHeltemes, AEOD SEP File WRussell DCrutchfield HSmith

)Snaider GCwalina

Dear Mr. Maier:

TCheng RHermann

SUBJECT:

SEP TOPIC III-6, SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATION AND III-ll, COMPONENT INTEGRITY - ROBERT E.

GINNA NUCLEAR POWER STATION Docket No. 50-244 gran >=8j'+~%

Mr. John E. Maier Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649 According to our revieH, some open items haVe. been identified (Enclosure 2) related to -these topics.

The detailed evaluation of these open items can be found in the attached report.

In order to complete our review on these topics, we require additional information from you.

You should submit within 30 days from the date of this letter information which is requested in Enclqstjre 2.

In the event that analysis is necessary for you to complete your evaluation, you should submit a schedule for completion of each open item.

Proposed modifications identified in our report are representative of the types of modification which should be considered to upgrade seismic safety margins.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 you should independently evaluate the necessity of any modifications to your facility.

Sincerely, As you are aware, the staff and its consultants have completed the seismic review of Ginna nuclear power plant.

Enclosed (Enclosure

1) is a copy of draft of NUREG/CR-1821, "Seismic Review of the Robert E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant as part of the Systemati'c Evaluation Program."

This report will serve as the principal input for staff's final assessment for Systematic Evaluation Program topics III-6, Seismic Design Considerations and III-11, Component Integrity.

Please inform us if your as-built facility differs from the licensing basis, assumed in our assessment.

4"

>'2~

~so 8ZOEO40/0'(",

Enclosure:

As stated Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 85 Division of Licensing cc w/en

"""See "new losure:

~page t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

0FF1CEQ SURNAMEt/

DATEP NRC FORM 318 00/80) NRCM 0240 SEI'8:DL;SL (He nn 12/Pp/

S::C Wgussell 12/y)/80

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

SSP.P.'P.1....

TCheng:dk 12/+/80 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY OR P

RSn g4j'pjs'g'"

0 L:C el d "jj/f/'sf""

USGF0.'98~29-824 t

=

I e

I I'

4 g D Ii~

I I

~

I ~

e e

I

~

I M' I ~

~'

I ~ ~

~ I h

hl ~ I 4 I I

~

aD I

~

~

I

~

t

~

I e

II e

~ I

~ I ~ ~

I t

I 4

I ~

I at I I

tt 4

a I'r II ~

~ t

~

I I

~ I Dt II

~S Rfqy P

~4 O

0 I

L O~

++*++

Docket No. 50-244 LS05-81-1-002 UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON,'. C. 20555 JAN 07 tg8O

~ h Hr. John E. Maier Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649

SUBJECT:

SEP TOPIC III-6, SEISHIC DESIGN CONSIDERATION AND III-ll, COMPONENT INTEGRITY - ROBERT E, GINNA NUCLEAR POWER STATION As you are aware, the staff and its consultants have completed the seismic review of Ginna nuclear power plant.

Enclosed (Enclosure

1) is a copy of draft of NUREG/CR-1821, "Seismic Review of the Rober t E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant as part of the Systematic Evaluation Program,"

This report will serve as the pr incipal input for staff's final assessment for Systematic Evaluation Program topics III-6, Seismic Design Considerations and III-ll,Component Integrity, Please inform us if your as-built facility differs from the licensing basis assumed in our assessment.

According to our review, some open items have been identified (Enclosure 2) related to these topics, The detailed evaluation of these open items can be found in the attached report.

I In order to complete our'eview on these topics, we require additional information 'from you, You should submit within 30 days from the date of this letter information which is requested in Enclosure 2, In the event that analysis is necessary for you to complete your evaluation, you should submit a schedule for completion of each open item.

Proposed modifications identified in our report are representative of the types of modificqtion which should be considered to upgrade seismic safety margins.

Pursuant

'o 10 CFR 50.59 you should independently evaluate the necessity of any modifications to your facility, Sincerely,

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/enclosure; See next page en ss H, Crutc

leld, hie Operating Reactors Branch 85 Division of Licensing

Mr. John.E. J1aier R.

E.

GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-244 CC Harry H. Voigt, Esquire LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae 1333 New Haapshire

Avenue, N.

W.

Suite-1100 Mashington, D. C.

20036 Mr. Michael Slade 12 Trailwood Circle Rochester, New York 14618 Rochester Committee for Sci ent ific Informati on Robert E. Lee, Ph.D.

P. 0. Box 5236 River Campus Station Rochester, New York 14627 Jeffrey Cohen New York State Energy Office Swan Street Building Core 1, Second Floor Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223 Director, Technical Development Programs State of New York Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223 Rochester Public Library 115 South Avenue Rochester, New York 14604

~

~

Supervisor of the Town of Ontario 107 Ridge Road.West

Ontario, New York 14519 Resident Inspector R. E. Ginna Plant

.c/o U. S.

NRC 1503 Lake Road

Ontario, New York 14519 Director, Technical Assessment Division Office of Radiation Programs (AW-459)

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Crystal. Mall f2 Arlington, Virginia 20460 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II Office ATTN:

E IS COORD INATOR 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 Herbert Grossman, Esq',

Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coniission Washington, D. C.

20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, D. C.

20555 Dr.

Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Mr. Thomas B. Cochran Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

1725 I Street, N. M.

Suite 600 Mashington, D. C.

20006 Ezra I. Bialik Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau New York State Department of Law 2 World Trade Center'ew York, New York 10047

ENCLOSURE 2

OPEN ISSUES R.

E.

GINNA SEISMIC REVIEW The following list documents issues that developed as a result of our seismic review of the Ginna facility.

These issues have been highlighted for a variety of reasons.

In'some cases, a lack of adequate documentation exists.

Designation here does not necessarily imply a safety deficiency.

However, the NRC staff has determined that further documentation ofthe seismic resistance capacity of these items is requested.

This documentation should include an evaluation by RGSE.

l.

Auxiliary Building Bracing - The N-S steel bracing at northeast corner above the operating floor has a safety factor (defined as fy/f) of about 0.8.

An evaluation is required to demonstrate the adequacy of the steel brace for resisting the seismic forces,,

2.

Turbine Building Bracking - Stress in the cross bracing above the operating floor in the south, north, and west walls exceed yield, An evaluation of these steel bracings is required to demonstrate the adequacy for resisting the seismic forces, 3.

Essential Service Water Pump (E$ WP) - The stress at suctj'on pipe and anchor bolts was found over yield, An evaluation js required to demonstrate the design ade'quack.

I'n addition,

1) information about pump shaft is needed to evaluate jts design adequacy and 2) the cast tron discharge bowl may require replacement by steel, 4.

Component Cooling Surge Tank - The tonk is not postjvely restrained in the longitudinal direction.

Either a more rigorous anolysjs js required or the tank requires addition of a longitudi'nal restraint, 5.

Refueling Water Storage Tank - High stresses develop jn the anchor bqlts because of the 0,2 g SSE and the flexible response of the tank, In addition, the shell will buckle from overturning moment effects, An evaluation needs to be performed to demonstrate i.ts design adequacy,

\\

6, Notor-Operated Valves - Generic analysis of motor-operated valves on lines

<4 in, in diameter should be performed to show that. resulting stresses are less thorn 10Ã of the applicable Condition B (active) or Condition D

(passive) allowable stresses, Otherwise, stresses'induced by valve eccentricity should be introduced into piping analysis to verify design adequacy.

Alternatively you may provide justification that all motor valves

<4 in. in diameter are not overstressed and therefore do not require to be externally supported.

Seismic'esting results supplied on motor operators do not demonstrate functional adequacy for Ginna.

I

"(

r 7;

Steam Generator - Insufficient information was provided to evaluate seismic design adequacy and reach adefiiitive conclusion.

However, assuming that the stress summary provided is accurate and limiting,the seismic design is adequate.

8.

Reactor Coolant Pump - Insufficient information was p ovided to evaluate seismic design adequacy and reach a definitive conclusion.

However, assuming that the stress summary provided is accurate and limiting,,the seismic design is adequate.

9.- Pressurizer - Insufficient information way provided to evaluate seismic design adequacy and reach a definitive conclusion, However, assuming that the stress summary provided is accurate and limiting,the seismic design is adequate.

10.

Control Rod Drive Mechanism - Insufficient information was provided to evaluate seismic design adequacy and reach a definitive conclusion.

How-

ever, assuming that the stress summary provided is accurate and limiting,

-the seismic design is.adequate.

ll.

Battery Racks - Racks O.K. with the exception of wooden lateral bracing, which should be replaced or strengthened to carry full seismic inertia

loads, 12.

Motor Control Center Designated 1M and 1L - A analysis is required to show.that resonance will not occur at frequencies below 5H z'3.

Switchgear - A analysis is required to show that resonance will not occur at frequencies between 15 and 30 H

z 14.

Control Room Electrical Panels - An evaluation was not performed since drawings or design calculations were not made available to us.

Provide an analysis of these components.

15.

Electrical Cable Raceways

- An evaluation was not per'formed since drawings or design calculations were not made available to us.

Provide an analysis of these components.

gpss 26 198)