ML19345D032

Forwards Addl Info & Clarifications Needed to Complete Independent Confirmatory Piping Analysis at Facility, Request Justification for Several Stress Intensity Values for Piping Components & Sys Reported in FSAR Tables

ML19345D032
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	11/20/1980
From:	Auge L ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP.
To:	Jackie Cook CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
References
NUDOCS 8012080805
Download: ML19345D032 (6)

Text

. _-_

m

+. ,

/

WL R -;. W NCV 2 01980 _.

e 5u un e e rocket ?!cs. 50-329/3?0 0 ETt

~~

4: 2 -9'

~a

-- c.~

Fr. J. ','. Cech !EE:- _

'M;L Vice President GP M la g Consurers Pcwer Ccepany 2 -. "E 1935 Post Parrall Fcad E U Jacksen, ?'ichiren 492C1 O $ _

Dear Vr. Ccck:

SUPJECT: EECUEST FCR INFOPf'ATICN FOR FIPIf$ Af9 LYSIS CF "ICLAt:D PLAi;T 1 At:C 2 1

Fr. L. Putenstein's letter cf ?pril 10,10E0 described the indepencent cen-firmatery piping analysis cf the *.'idland Plant to ce perferred for us by cur enncultant, Energy TecFnclegy Engineering Center (ETEC), and recuested certain infnrration to this end. On July 7,19E0, Pr. J. O. Eates of ETEC recuested that legible copies cf scre.cf the cricinal decorents previded by ycur reply be nroviderf. In additicn to these tt.c earlicr recuerts, cur censultant advises that clarifications of certain existing f oforcaticn and sece additional infer-mat cn are aise reeded for their analysis. The additicnal inferratien and i

clarificaticns needed are listed in Enclosure 1.

Cur ccntinuir review cf the Fidland FS/P has also indicated the need for justification cf several stress intensity values for piping cercenents and systers reported in FSAR Tables 3.c-15 and 2.9-15A which exceed the allcwable stress cf the /SE Foiler and Pressure Vescel Ccde. This recuest is crevided by inclosure 2.

Ycur rescense tn Enclosure 2 should be made in acccrdance with the normal cuestion and answer procedure associated with cur FSAR review. When respondino to Enclesure 1, clease send three sets of reouested dccuments and responses to us, plus one additicnal set directly tc:

Mr. L. J. Auge, f*anager

. Facility Design Engineering Energy Technology Engineering Center P.O. Ecx itA9 Canoga Park, California 91304 D f" " D "D[S~V 1 o chlS_ .

b l

8012080 l 1

4 OFF8CE h. .. . . . .

suo~ ep. . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .

i

card. .

.r . . .p . . .. . . ... . . . . . .. ..

, Nac Fom na c - n ::-

• U.S. GOVE ANS.tCN T #RINTING OFFICE: 1979 289 369

/

.j-2_

Should you require clarification of these requests, please telephone our Licensing Project Manager or ETEC. Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely, Original signerl by Robert L. TcQsco Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1 Recuests for ETEC's Analysis

2. FSAR Request 110.50 cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION:

Docket File LPOR PDR LB3 Files RTedesco FMiraglia DHood JLee RBosnak i IE(3)

NSIC/ TIC /TED.A ACRS (16)

. bn 1 (

orgia) .I LB3 ]. AD:

. DHood:ch

..LB310L.,Ij/h FMil f ja rte

" ' ~ "" " '" ' "

. il/g80 11/ l

, ... .r. . .8d'.' ~i' A[. 5d NIC FORM Jie 6 N .W0'  :: 0 . . h.3. GOV ERNMCN T P AINilNG OFFICE: 1979.~ 89 369

i i

f cc: Michael I. Miller, Esq. Mr. Don van Farowe, Chief r,.cnald u. e,amarin, .:sq. . . .

Divts:cn or. ,adiologica,t l Alan S. - Farnell , Esq.

.s . eai n d

Department of Public Health Isham, Lincoln 3 Scale Suite 4200  ?.0. 3cx 33035 Lansing, Michigan 18009 1 First National .'laza

hicago, Illinois 6C602 l James E. 3 runner, Esq. William J. Scanien, Esq.

Consumers ? wer Comcany j 212 West Michigan Avenue 203a Pauline Soulevard Ann Arscr, Michigan 48103 Jackson, Michigan J9201 Myr:n M. Cherry, Esq. U. S. Nuclear Regula: cry ^ mmission 1 :3M Plaza Resident :nscectors Office R:u:e 7 Chicago, Illinois 6:5 1 Midl and, 'iichigan 28520 "s. Mary $ircl air Ys. 3ar0ar3 3:amlris 5711 Summerse: Drive 5795 *i. River vidland, Micnigan 18640 Freel and , 'iicnigan 25623 Frank J. Kelley, Esc. Ms. Sharon <. Warren i  :: rney General State of Micnigan Envir:nmental 526 uillcres:

Micland, Michigan 2361C Protection Civision 720 Law 3uilding Lansing, Michigan 18912 Mr. Wendell Marshall

Route 10 l '4idland, Michigan 48640 Mr. Steve Gadler 2120 Carter Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55103 0**D lib A kIL L l'Ed ~ i

- a u'

Enclosure 1 Information Needed for ETEC'S picine Analysis

1) The " pressure-Temcerature Data Sheet" Drawing No. H-611, Sheet 1 gives the temperature and pressure data for 7 modes of cceration at 9 nodal

, points. Hcwever, there is no information included as to where these ncdal points are located in the system. Identify the lccation of these nodal points.

2) Information is recuired'concerning the loadings to be considered for normal, upset, emergency and faulted conditions. This should include, where a;clicable, pressure, temcerature, thermal transients, and dynamic loadings other than CBE and SSE and the number of cycles projected for each occurrence.

3) provide the response s ectra fer the reac:cr vessel nor:les to which

. :ne Decay Heat Removal and Core Flooding System Unit 2 tie.

J) The rescense spectra for the core flooding tank no :les is given fer Unit

! ;er Sabccck & Wilecx s;ecification 18-139-1000012-00. The specifica:icn states nat the data,for Unit 2 can be cotained by following the procedure cuttined in specificaticn 13-1235000012. provide this specification.

5) Clarify wnether the seismic deflections and the response spectra for the ccre ficcd tank no::les as stated in specification 13-391000012-00 are for

~

ne CBE and SSE.

6) . Note 9 of the :semetric H-611, Sheet 1(Q) states that unless otherwise noted pi;e bends have a minimum centerline radius of 5 times the nominal pice diameter. This recuires clarification for several areas of the cice; for examcle, the distance between ncdes 180 1 190 is 50.29 inches. With a 5 diameter radius bend en eacn end, a 100 inch length would be required for a 10 'acn diameter cipe. ETEC assumes that note 9 is in error and has usca a 1 1/2 diameter radius bend except where a 5 diameter bend is specifically called cut. ETEC also used a 5 diameter bend at nede 260 unere

a 5 inch diameter bend is called for. Verification of ETEC's assumptions or clarificati.cn as to the actual radii is required.

7) Provide pipe support details for supports numbers 238 and 372.

3) ?rovide insulation thicknesses for 14 inen diameter pipe Class III F and !M, and 10 inch Class :: F.

9) FSAR Figure 2.5-9 depicts pipe whip restraints at different locations on the CHR piping. Mcwever, Orawing No. H-611, Sheet 1(Q), Revision 6 does not.

Clarify this discrepancy.

a >

10) Provide design and specification information on the pipe stub and root valve for the pressure transmitter 2PT-ll36B on line 2CCA-23.

11) The drawings for the snubber installations list Mechanical Shock Suppressors cer Figures 306 and 307. These figures are not in the ITT Grinnell Category PH79. Provide informaticn on these snubbers as to load carrying capability and spring rates.

Enclosure 2 110.0 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH 110.60 Aporoximately 50? of your calculated stress intensities exceed the (3.9) allowaole stresses listed in FSAR Tacles 3.9-15 and 3.9-15A. In Tacle 3.9-15, there is a footnote for the cases where the calculated stresses exceeded the allcwable, stating the " Elastic-Plastic evaluation perf ormed for justification". In Table 3.9-15A, no justifica icn is given for exceeding the listed allcwable stresses. Revise these tables to include the new allowables and provide the analysis methods usec to determine the new allcwables.

1 l

1 1