ML20058E531
| ML20058E531 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 07/19/1982 |
| From: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Tauber H DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207300021 | |
| Download: ML20058E531 (6) | |
Text
.
DIST:
~ Document Control (50-341)
JUL 191982
[jo NSIC Docket No.:
50-341 TERA ACRS (16)
LB#1 Rdg.
Mr. liarry Tauber MRushbrook Vice President LKintner Engineering & Construction Attorney, OELD Detroit Edison Company OIE 2000 Second Avenue BSiegel Detroit, Michigan 48226 KWichman
Dear Mr. Tauber:
Subject:
Fermi 2 Mark I Containment - Plant Unique Analysis Report One of the open items in the Fenni 2 Safety Evaluation Report is Mark I containment analyses.
The NRC staff and consultants are reviewing the Fermi 2 Plant Unique Analysis Report (PUAR). As a result of our review to date we have developed the enclosed requests for additional information. A draft version of these requests was teletyped to Mr. Keener Earl on July 15, 1982.
Please amend your application to provide the information that is requested in the enclosure. The information should be provided in the same manner as that provided in response to our June 29, 1982 requests for additional infor-mation regarding the PUAR. Our review schedule is based on the assumption that the enclosed requested additional information will be available for our review by August 6,1982.
If you cannot meet this date, please telephone the licensing prtiject manager, L. L. Kintaer, within 7 days of receipt of this letter.
Sincerely,
. 9,1 siFMCO U,5
, y lotugblo001 B. J. Youngblood, Chief l
Licensing Branch No. I l
Division of Licensing i
Enclosure:
l As stated i
l cc w/ encl.: See next page 8207300021 820719 PDR ADOCK 05000341 A
PDR DL:LB#1 ! ( DL:L$.,.~..'
omcep
....i 1
BJYo bri bl d
cua.u.= >.LKin tn82
',9, 7N "........ ".
7 amy L nnc ronu ais oom> nacu oua OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom i,u-mu
Mr. Harry Tauber Vice President Engineering & Construction 2
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.
l 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 1
I Mr. Bruce Little U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector's Office 6450 W. Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 Dr. Wayne Jens i
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 i
NRC REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT FOR THE FERMI 2 MARK I CONTAINMENT (Requests and pages are numbered sequentially with respect to previously transmitted requests)
Certain items in the Fermi Unit 2 plant unique analysis (PUA) report indicate noncompliance with the requirements of the criteria in NED0 24583-1. Also, several aspects of the analysis require further information to indicate compliance with the criteria.
The following sections indicate the areas requiring justification for noncompliance with the criteria or additional information to indicate compliance and are provided to assist in understanding our requests.
Provide the information requested on pages 8 and 9 of this enclosure.
DEFICIENT AREAS IN PUA REPORT
- 10. SUPPRESSION CHAMBER 10.1 Tne PGA report does not indicate compliance with the criteria requirement that a beam model representing at least 180' of the torus, columns, and seismic restraints should be analyzed to consider the effect of seismic and other lateral loads.
10.2 Proper justification is not provided to indicate the applicability of test results based on which only 20% of the total mass of water is assumed to, contribute to lateral seismic loads in the suppression chamber.
10.3 Proper justification is not provided for the modal correction factors given in Sections 1-4.2.3 and 2-2.4.1 of the PUA report which are used to convert forced vibration response to free vibration response.
10.4 In the analysis for the suppression chamber support columns, the effect of bending moments 'has not been included, and there is no indication of any interaction formula used.
10.5 Although net tensile forces are indicated in the columns (Table 2-2.5-4 of PUA report), there is no indication that the Licensee performed a nonlinear time history analysis as required by the criteria.
10.6 The PUA report indicates on page 2-2-94 that the allowable stresses in the suppression chamber components and the vertical support system are based on a 173'F temperature as compared to 100*F temperature for the vertical support system baseplate.
11.
SAFETY RELIEF VALVE (SRV) PIPING ANALYSIS
- ~
~-
~
11.1 Section 5-2.2.3 of the PUA report indicates that'the'psak'resN ns'es'~
resulting from safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) and loss of coolant accident (DDCA) loads are combined using the square root of a sum of the squares (SRSS) technique, which does not conform to the criteria requirement that the responses should be combined using the absolute sum method or the cumulative distribution function method.
is 11.2 The fatigue evaluation given in Section 5-2.4.3 of the PUA report based on Markl's fatigue equation, which is less conservative than the SN curve given in Figure XIV-1221.3(c)-1 of the ASME code (Section III 4 Division I 1977 Edition )
for the range of cycles less than 2 x 10.
11.3 The PGA report indicates (page 5-2.103, vol. 5) that the alternating stress due to dynamic loads is combined with stresses due to dead weight thermal loads and pressure loads using an equation similar to equation 11 of ASME code Section III Subsection NC.
The actual method of combining the stresses is not indicated.
11.4 The PUA report provided the maximum stress cycle factors (R) used for the SRV piping under different loads without explaining how these factors were obtained.
11.5 The PUA report does not provide the values for the dynamic load factors used in calculating the SRV discharge loads shown in Tables 5-3.2-1 to 5-3.2-3.
11.6 The PGA report does not indicate the results of analysis of bolted or welded connections associated with the SRV piping.
12.
GENERAL 12.1 The PUA report indicates that additional fluid masses are lumped along the length of the ring beam and quencher beam (page 2-2.103) and submerged lengths of the SRV piping, T quencher, and supports (page 5-3.49) without providing the details of or justification for the method of lumping the mass of fluid.
12.2 Taole 1-4.3-1 of the PUA report indicates that several loads required to be considered by NUREG-0661 are not included in the analysis as shown in Table 1.
12.3 Section 4-2.5 of the PUA report dealing with internal structures does not present all the information necessary to demonstrate code compliance.
In particular, it is not clear that weld stresses at the points of attachment of major components to the torus shell were.
investigated according to code requirementn...
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQhIRED Question 10.1 With regard to suppression chamber analysis, provide justification for not analyzing a 180* beam segment including the torus, columns, and seismic restraints as required by the criteria for considering the effect of seismic and other lateral loads.
Also, discuss the implications of this approach with regard to stresses in the supression chamber in the region surrounding the support columns.
Question 10.2 With regard to the assumption that only 20% of the total mass of water in the suppression chamber contributes to lateral
~
seismic loads, provide justification to indicate the applicability of the tests cited in the PUA report to support this assumption.
Provide detailed calculations to indicate how the modal Question 10.3 a.
l correction factors given in Sections 1-4.2.3 and 2-2.4.1 of the PUA report are obtained.
b.
Provide justification for the applicability of these factors to 'multidegree of freedom' systems since the factors were developed using simple 'one degree of freedom' systems.
Question 10.4 Provide justification for not considering the effect of bending moments in column analysis using interaction formulae.
Question 10.5 With regard to the suppression chamber columns, provide ju,stification and/or additional information to indicate why a nonlinear time history analysis was not performed as required by the criteria when net tensile ' forces are produced in the columns.
Table 2-2.5-4 of PUA report indicates that net tensile forces are produced in the columns.
Question 10.6 Provide justification for using two different temperatures, 173*F for suppression chamber and vertical support system and 100*F for the base plate of the support system, for calculating the respective allowable stresses.
Question 11.1 Provide justification for using SRSS method to combina the SSE and LOCA responses for SRV piping analysis instead of the absolute sum or cumulative distribution function approaches'as required by the criteria.
Question 11.2 Provide justification for using Markl's equation for fatigue analysis of 'SRV piping instead of the SN curve given in ASME code Section III, Division 1 Appendices..
Question 11.3 Provide justification for not using Equation,11, o,f ASHE code Section III Subsection NB for calculating the fatig' e u
stresses, and explain the method used.
Question 11.4 Provide justification and reference for the maximum stress cycle factors given in Table 5-2.4-4 of the PUA report.
Question 11.5 Provide the magnitudes of the dynamic load factors used in Ta'.les 5-3.2-1 to 5-3.2-3 of the PUA report and the' justification.
Question 11.6 Provide the results of the analysis of bolted or welded connections associated with the SRV piping.
Question 12.1 Prov'ide justification for the method of lumping additional fluid masses along the ringbeam, quencher beam (page 2-2.103 of PUA report), submerged length of SRV piping, T quencher, and supports (page 5-3.49 of' PUA report) as indicated in the PUA report.
Question 12.2 Provide justification for not considering dhe loads indicated in Table 1 which are required in the analysis according to NUREG-0661.
l Question 12.3 Provide information on the analysis of the attachment welds of regions connecting the internal structures to the torus shell, indicating whether the criteria requirements have been satisfied.
9
--