.. . _-_

m

+. ,

/

WL R -;. W

.

NCV 2 01980 _.

5e uun 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"EConsurers Pcwer Ccepany 2 -.

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

Fr. L. Putenstein's letter cf ?pril 10,10E0 described the indepencent cen-1

firmatery piping analysis cf the *.'idland Plant to ce perferred for us by curenncultant, Energy TecFnclegy Engineering Center (ETEC), and recuested certaininfnrration to this end. On July 7,19E0, Pr. J. O. Eates of ETEC recuestedthat legible copies cf scre.cf the cricinal decorents previded by ycur replybe 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 andi

clarificaticns needed are listed in Enclosure 1.

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

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

Mr. L. J. Auge, f*anagerFacility Design Engineering.

Energy Technology Engineering CenterP.O. Ecx itA9Canoga Park, California 91304

D f" " D "D[S~V 1

chlS_ . bo

|

8012080 |4 1

OFF8CE h. .. .. . . .. . . . . .

isuo~ ep. . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .

; 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 ourLicensing Project Manager or ETEC. Your prompt attention to this matteris appreciated.

Sincerely,Original signerl by

,

Robert L. TcQsco

Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Directorfor Licensing

Division of LicensingOffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:1 Recuests for ETEC's Analysis2. FSAR Request 110.50

cc: See next page

DISTRIBUTION:Docket FileLPOR PDRLB3 FilesRTedescoFMiragliaDHoodJLeeRBosnak

i IE(3)NSIC/ TIC /TED.AACRS (16)

:

. bn1 (

.I LB3 ]. AD:. ..LB310L.,Ij/h FMi f

| ja rteorgia)

DHood:ch" '

, . il/g80 11/ .8d'.'~ ""'' " '" ' "

~i' A[. 5dl... .. . ..,. . ... .. . . . .. . .. .. ...r. . .

NIC FORM Jie 6 N .W0' :: 0 . . h.3. GOV ERNMCN T P AINilNG OFFICE: 1979.~ 89 369

__ ____

!. .

i,

i,

.

cc: Michael I. Miller, Esq. Mr. Don van Farowe, Chieff

r,.cnald u. ,amarin, .:sq. . . ..;

| Alan S. - Farnell , Esq. Divts:cn or. ,adiologica,te. eai nd.s

Department of Public HealthIsham, Lincoln 3 Scale ?.0. 3cx 33035Suite 4200 Lansing, Michigan 180091 First National .'laza;hicago, Illinois 6C602

| James E. 3 runner, Esq. William J. Scanien, Esq.Consumers ? wer Comcany 203a Pauline Soulevard

!

j 212 West Michigan Avenue Ann Arscr, Michigan 48103. Jackson, Michigan J9201!

U. S. Nuclear Regula: cry ^ mmissionMyr:n M. Cherry, Esq. Resident :nscectors Office1 :3M Plaza R:u:e 7Chicago, Illinois 6:5 1 Midl and, 'iichigan 28520"s. Mary $ircl air Ys. 3ar0ar3 3:amlris5711 Summerse: Drive 5795 *i. Rivervidland, Micnigan 18640 Freel and , 'iicnigan 25623

Frank J. Kelley, Esc. Ms. Sharon <. Warreni :: rney General 526 uillcres:State of Micnigan Envir:nmental Micland, Michigan 2361CProtection Civision

720 Law 3uildingLansing, Michigan 18912

Mr. Wendell Marshall; Route 10| '4idland, Michigan 48640

Mr. Steve Gadler2120 Carter AvenueSt. Paul, Minnesota 55103

0**D lib l'Ed ~ k ia u' A IL L-

.

.

... .

Enclosure 1* Information Needed for ETEC'S picine Analysis

1) The " pressure-Temcerature Data Sheet" Drawing No. H-611, Sheet 1 givesthe temperature and pressure data for 7 modes of cceration at 9 nodalpoints. Hcwever, there is no information included as to where these,

!' ncdal points are located in the system. Identify the lccation ofthese nodal points.

2) Information is recuired'concerning the loadings to be considered fornormal, upset, emergency and faulted conditions. This should include,where a;clicable, pressure, temcerature, thermal transients, and dynamicloadings other than CBE and SSE and the number of cycles projected foreach 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:icnstates nat the data,for Unit 2 can be cotained by following the procedurecuttined in specificaticn 13-1235000012. provide this specification.

5) Clarify wnether the seismic deflections and the response spectra for theccre 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 otherwisenoted pi;e bends have a minimum centerline radius of 5 times the nominalpice diameter. This recuires clarification for several areas of the cice;

,' for examcle, the distance between ncdes 180 1 190 is 50.29 inches. Witha 5 diameter radius bend en eacn end, a 100 inch length would be requiredfor a 10 'acn diameter cipe. ETEC assumes that note 9 is in error andhas usca a 1 1/2 diameter radius bend except where a 5 diameter bend isspecifically called cut. ETEC also used a 5 diameter bend at nede 260 unerea 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 theCHR piping. Mcwever, Orawing No. H-611, Sheet 1(Q), Revision 6 does not.

,

Clarify this discrepancy.

-

- .- . . - -

a >

-2-

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

11) The drawings for the snubber installations list Mechanical Shock Suppressorscer Figures 306 and 307. These figures are not in the ITT Grinnell CategoryPH79. Provide informaticn on these snubbers as to load carrying capabilityand 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

l1

1