ML20054M174
| ML20054M174 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 06/29/1982 |
| From: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Tauber H DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207120058 | |
| Download: ML20054M174 (7) | |
Text
Dist.:
Dqcume W eentroin(60-341)
NRC PDR L PDR NSIC TERA ACRS (16)
JUN 2 91962 Docket No.: 50-341 LB#1 Rdg.
MRushbrook L. Kintner Mr. Harry Tatber Attorney, OELD Vice President OIE Engineering & Construction Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226
Dear Mr. Tauber:
Subject:
Femi 2 Mark I Containment - Plant Unique Analysis Report One of the open itens in the Femi 2 Safety Evaluation Report is Mark I contairnent analyses.
The NRC staff and consultants are reviewing the Femi 2 Plant Unique Analysis Report (PUAR). As a result or our review to date we have developed the enclosed requests for additional infomation. A draft version of these requests was teletyped to Mr. Keener Earl on June 21, 1982 and discussed with him and your representativos by phone on June 24, 1982.
Please amend your application to provide the information that is requested in the enclosure. The infomation should be provided in the same manner as that provided in response to our requests for additional infomation in the FSAR (i.e. the applicable pages in the PUAR should be revised and dated with changes identified by lines in the margin, and supplemental infomation provided in response to the requests should be included as an appendix to the PUAR). The nurter of copies and addressees for this additional information are the same as those identified in our March 23, 1982 letter regarding Mad I containment analyses. The subject of your transmittal letter should include
" Mad I containment' to assure proper distribution within the NRC.
The review of Mark I containment analyses is on the critical path to completion of our licensing effort for Femi 2 prior to the scheduled fuel load date. Our review schedule is based on the assumption that the enclosed requested addi-tional infomation will be available for our review by July 15, 1982.
If you cannot meet this date, please telephone the licensing project manager, L. L.
Kintner, within 7 days of receipt of this letter.
Sincerely,
Originsioigneatvs A J. Your.gblood 8207120058 820629
)
{DRADOCK05000
- 8. J un blood, Chief DNtB#1 icensin.........9..........
..D..L..:..L.k....f.
Division of L omc, >
acm > cnclosura:....
.LKi ntng,r/,dj,,,Bg,y,d,,u,n,g b1,
,,6/28/82.........6/g82.,,,,,
$5. 5. tate.d..
- m.,
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam mi-mm,,
unc ronu mocw hoch caa nm+ n=na
Mr. Harry Tauber Vice President
' Engineering & Construction Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 cc:
Mr. Harry H. Voigt, Esq.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Peter A. Marquardt, Esq.
Co-Counsel The Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Mr. William J. Fahrner Project Manager - Fermi 2 The Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Mr. Larry E. Schuerman Detroit Edison Company 3331 West Big Beaver Road Troy, Michigan-48084 David E. Howell, Esq.
3239 Woodward Avenue Berkley, Michigan 48072 Mr. Bruce Little U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector's Office 6450 W. Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 Dr. Wayne Jens Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Mr. James G. Keppler Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
ENCLOSURE NRC REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT FOR THE FERMI 2 MARK I CONTAINMENT The items mentioned below have been identified as exceptions taken in the Fermi 2 Plant Unique Analysis Report (PUAR) when campared with the acceptance criteria (AC) in NUREG - 0661 or as areas wher: some clarification and additional informa-tion is necessary to canplete our review of the PUAR.
Provide the information re-quested in each item, as well as any additional information or details concerning these itens which can be of assistance to justify the exception.
In order to avoid duplication of information, the references we have available for our review are in-cluded with the appropriate item.
The specific PUAR and AC sections referenced below are not complete listings of all appplicable sections for each issue but are provided to assist in understanding our requests.
1.
PUAR section 1-4.15, AC section 2.14.1 Published acceleration drag volumes were used to detemine the drag loads on sharp cornered submerged structures instead of the equivalent cylinder procedure specified in the : acceptance criteria. Provide a list of structures which were treated in this manner.
For the ring bem, provide specific dimensions of the structure, as well as the 10-cal acceleration and velocity for the post-chug landing condition.
A copy of K. T. Patton's MS thesis from the University of Rhode Island (1965) would be useful in resolving this issue if it is availa',2e.
References:
1.
Patton, K. J., " Tables of Hydrodynamic Mass Factors for Trans-lational Motion" ASME Manuscript, Chicago, November.7-11,1965.
2 References (cont'd) 2.
Miller, R. k.. "The Effects of Frequency and Amplitude of Osci1~
1ation on the Hydrodynamic Masses of Irregularly-Shaped Bodies",.
M.S. Thests University of Rhode Island, Kingston, R. I.,1965.
2.
PGAR sections 1-4.1.7.1, etc., AC section 2.11.1, etc.
A statistical basis was used to account for random phasing of the los-ding hamonics for condensation-oscillation and chugging loadings. The randas phasing approach consists of multiplying the absolute sum of the responses (i.e., the AC accepty approach) by a scale factor determined from the FSTF data. Provide more detailed documentation for the justification of the 0.65 value of the scale factor and conment on the' remaining conservatism after application of this factor for both the condensation oscillation and chugging loading. List all loads (such as C.O., post chug, etc.) and all structures (such as torus shell, ring beam, etc.) for which the scale factor is used. In addition provfde the basis for the statenent that alternate 4 leads to a 205 increase in the loads and verify the numbers given in Table 1-4.1-4 on page 1-4.48.
In particular, check the consistency of these numbers with those given in the FSTF letter reqport M1-LR-81-01.
References:
1.
" Mark I Contaisteent Progran, Evaluation of Harmonic Phasing for Mark 1 Torus Shell Condensation Oscillation Loads", General Elec-tric Comparty. MEDE-24840, October 1980.
- 3. The downconer dynmic load rethodology derived frcui the suppiamental FSTF tests was for tied downcomers. Justify the use of the raethodology for the untied downcmers as shown in the PUAR.
3 4.
PUAR section 1-4.1.8.2, AC section 2.12.2 The acceptance criteria specified that for multiple downcomer chugging.
the force per downconer shall be based on an exceedance probability of 10-4 per.LOCA.. A correlation between load magnitude and probability level derived from a statistical analysis W F5TF data was utilized in the PUA. Provide the details of the derivation and justification for 1
the use of the correlation.
5.
PUAR section 1-4.2.4b, AC section 2.14.4 (a) On page 1-4.113, it is stated that the peak positive bubble pres-suire and maximum bubble pressure differential from the Monticello T-Quencher test data are 9.9 psid and 18.1 psid, respectively. Our information (Table 3-3, page 3-10, NEDE-21878-P) indicates that these values are 9.3 psid and 17.4 psid. Provide infomation to pemit clar-ification of this discrepancy.
(b) We require additional infomation to detensine WH!ther modifica-tion of the bubble pressure boundire factor frae the LDR value of 2.5 to the proposed value of 1.75 is justified. Specifically, the peak positive and negative bubble pressure predicted by the SRV bubble pressure methodology when the 1.75 nultiplier is employtd should be re-ported. The initial conditions for this calculation are to correspond to the CP, NWL, SVA case as listed in Table 3-2 of NEDE-21878-P.
- 6. PUAR section 2-2.2.1. AC section 2.14.6 The post-chug submerged structure loads, as specified in the acceptance criteria, were to be computed on the basis of the two nearest downcomers chugging at the maxiesuu source strengths with phasing be-tween the downconers that maximizes the local acceleration. On PUAR
4
- 6. (cont'd) page 2-2.39 it is stated that the loads were developed using the aver-age source strength. Please clarify the ' situation by documenting the calculation in detail for the ring beam giving the source strengths l
used and their-locations.
7.
PUAR section 1-4.1.7.3. AC section 2.14.5 Provide a more' detailed discussion of the method use'd to account for FSI affects on condensation oscillation and chugging submerged struc-ture loads. Include an explanation of how the local pool fluid ac
- celerations are detemined.
8.
PuAR section 1-5.1, AC section 2.13.8
~
Provide a complete description of the bases for the local to bulk pool temperature differences which are presented in Section 1-5.1 of the. -
PtRR. The AC (Section 2.13.8.2) stipulate that this permeter should l
be supported either by existing Monticello pool temperature data or in-plant tests.
If the first of these options is aployed, the ap-plicant must demonstrate the applicability of the Monticello data base by providing a detailed casparison of the respective quencher and sup-pression pool geometries. Also. since credit for RHR effectiveness in reducing the local to bulk tesperature difference is being taken by the applicant, comparison of the suction and discharge geometries of the respective RHR systens should also be provided. If the Monticello data l
base is used in conjunction with any analytical modeling to estimate l
plant unique values of local to bulk tenperature differences, a co-lP ete description of the analyses'should be supplied together with a
5 desenstration of the credtht11ty of the model in terms of its ability to accurately' predict experimental suppression pool tesperature re-sponses to extended SRV discharges.
- 9. PuAR section 1-5.2. AC section 2.13.8.3
.The description of th'e Suppression Pool Tenperature Monitoring Systen (SPTMS) which is provided in the PUAR is inadequate.' Additional inforsetion is needed to provide a clear demonstration that the FERMI 2 SPTMS design is in acconiance with the requirenents of AC section 2.13.8.3.
_