ML19210E843
| ML19210E843 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1979 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Jens W DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912130078 | |
| Download: ML19210E843 (6) | |
Text
%
.g
'4 UNITED STATES
[ 'f ) e, f' i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3., \\
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
% % GL5f 5
%,' ' "... /
NOV 2 31979 Docket No. 50-341 1
Dr. Wayne H. Jens Assistant Vice President Engineering & Construction The Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226
Dear Dr. Jens:
SUBJECT:
REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN FERMI 2 FSAR As a result of our continuing review of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2, we have developed the enclosed requests for additional information.
Please amend your FSAR to comply with the requirements listed in the enclosure.
Our review schedule is based on the assumption that the additional information will be available for our review by January 4,1980.
If you cannot meet this date, please inform us within 7 days after receipt of this letter so that we may revise our scheduling.
Sincerely, LL c
/
Joh'p F. Stolz, Chief,
Li t Water Reactors Branch No.1 Di@ision of Project Management v
Enclosure:
Requests for Additional Information cc w/ enclosure:
See ;nge 2 1543 008 O D> 7 p 7912180 e.
t I
{
Dr. Wayne H. Jens NOV 2 31979 cc:
Eucene B. Thomas, Jr., Esq.
David E. Howell, Esq.
Le5ceuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 21916 John R 1332 New.Hamoshire Avenue, N. W.
Hazel Park, Michigan 48030 Washington, D. C.
20036 Peter A. Marquardt, Esq.
Co-Counsel Mrs. Martha Drake
(
}
'? Cetroit Edison Company 230 Fairview i
2000 Second Avenue Petoskey, flichigan 49770 Detroit, Michigan 48226 Mr. William J. Fahrner Project Manacer - Fermi 2
]
The Detroit Edison Company r
j 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 i
"r. Larry E. Schuerman Licensing Encineer - Fermi 2 Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 e
l Charles Bechhcefer, Esq., Chairman 1
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel j
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cctmission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. David R. Schink Department of Oceanography l
Texas A & M University College Station, Texas 77840 I'r. Frederick J. Shon I
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Washington, D. C.
20555 i
1 Mr. Jeffrey A. Alson l
772 Green Street, Building 4 J
Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197 i
k i
e I
i t:-; V. ; :, 1::..' e.:'
...x.
~:f' :.?.'. :.,.....s 7.,.n.,. x,.x.
ENCLOSURE REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ENRICO FERMI ATOMIC POWER PLANT UNIT 2 DOCKET N0. 50-341 t
Requests by the following branches in NRC are included in this enclosure.
Requests and pages are numbered sequentially with respect to previously transmitted requests.
Branch Page No.
Hydrology-Meteorology Branch 321-2 Hydrologic Engineering Section Structural Engineering Branch 130-8 130-9 1543 0109
321-2 321.0 HYDROLOGY-METEOROLOGY BRANCH - HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING SECTION 321.5 The breakwater (also called a shore barrier) serves a safety-related function in attenuating wind waves and therefore should be included in the Q-list (FSAR Table 3.2-1).
The quality assurance program for the breakwater should assure that it is designed and built in accordance with high quality standards and that it remains functional throughout the plant life.
Provide a description of the following elements of the quality assurance program for the breakwater:
1.
A quality assurance program during construction to assure that the breakwater is built as designed and to good engineering standards.
Included in this program should be items such as verification of
'oundation conditions and verification of rock weights by random weighing.
Drawings, photographs and cross-sections of the structure during construction and when complete should be included.
2.
An initial survey of the breakwater.
Survey lines perpendicular to the breakwater should be spaced no greater than 100 feet apart and '
should extend past the toe of the breakwater.
Photographic docu-mentation and visual descriptions of the breakwater condition should also be included.
3.
Re-surveys at least annually and after any major storm or when damage to the breakwater is observed.
4 A commitment to repair in a timely manner any damage or degradation identified; 5.
Documentation of all of the above.
The plant annual reports can be used for items 3 and 4 1543 01)
130.0 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH 130.5A After reviewing the responses to staff's ccncerns as contained in item 120.5, the staff has reservations about the adequacy of the method of analysis used in the design of the sacrificial shield cue to the following reasons:
a) The role played by the concrete fill is ambigwus, on one hand you stated that the concrete fill only transfers' shear and on the other hand you indicat; t the concrete will have the capability to hold the studs in place so that the plates to which the studs are welded will not buckle. tiote that in order to have the studs functional in such a way, the concrete should have bearing as well as shearing capability, b)
In the desiga the stiffness of the concrete fill is neglected.
However in computing the stiffness of the shield it appears that the thin steel plates on the interior and exterior of the shield wall are censidered as one and the stiffness of the columns is smeared into that of the plate. The structure thus idealized is considered as a shell of unifom thickness.
The results of analysis based on such'an idealized model are unlikely representative of the actual behavior of the shield structure.
Under the assumotion that the stiffness of concrete fill is neglected, and with the stiffness of the columns much greater than that of the steel plates, a rational analysis for such a system should be ene in which the steel plates with the concrete fill is considered.as one way slab and the columns as beams supporting the slab. Provide an analysis of the sacrificial shield on the basis of such an idealization.
In your information so far provided,de all the pertinent information there is no mention of the size and the weight of the column. Provi required for the design of the columns.
Indicate if the anchor bolts under the columns are different from those in between the columns.
120.6A Your response to question 1 of Item 130.6 is not satisfactory. The references which you gave in your response are not specific. Provide on each figure in Section 4.1 the specific source of information on which each figure in section 4.1 is established, indicating particularly the source figure number and report number.
In resconse to questien 9 it is indicated that link elements are used to connect the water mass and torus beam element. Since the positicn of the centroid of the water mass varies with the pool swell and other cynanic loads indicate hcw this variation is taken into account in your analysis.
In response to cuestion 18 it is indicated that you would. finish 1543 012 s2 cole calculations only for areas which we could specify. The staff wants to see sample computations for structures or structural com;onents where the ccmputed stress are near or exceed the allowables, specifically (a) the comouted stress intensity of 22 ksi in table 6.2.1-4, (b) the calculated tensile force of 104 kips (c) the computed
130-9 stress intensity of 37 ksi and 29.3 ksi in table 6.2.5.1 and (d) the weld stress of 11.3 ksi in table 6.2.5.2.
List the contribution of force or stress due to each load in the loading combination, f
s 1543 013
.