ML20126M250

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Supplementary Seismic Evaluation Rept, Vols 1 & 2,re Alternative Seismic Criteria Discussed at NRC 810326 Meeting.Critical Structures & Equipment Are Capable of Withstanding Seismic Excitation
ML20126M250
Person / Time
Site: Fermi DTE Energy icon.png
Issue date: 05/27/1981
From: Colbert W
DETROIT EDISON CO.
To: Kintner L
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20126M255 List:
References
EF2-53-332, NUDOCS 8106150319
Download: ML20126M250 (1)


Text

,\St\c

\

$ lll kIO$

~8 ** 2CCO Se:W Ante i

6 dUf/ .

M,#' At n! O [Ogl- g N ~

M cm gan 482M Mdv .%s l], Dee:d ms! 2v em H- .%4

%f l-

%)>_>. n

,Vrjg May 27, 1981 EF2 - 53,332 Mr. L. L. Kintner Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Kintner:

Subject:

Transmittal of Report No. EF2-53,332, " Supplementary Seismic Evaluation for Femi-2" In response to an informal telecopy from the NRC, dated March 12, 1981,

/. j5 requesting a meeting with Detroit Edison to discuss alternative seismic t/ criteria, we met with NRC staff on March 26, 1981. During this meeting Detroit Edison committed to perform a seismic evaluation of plant structures, systems and components required for safe shutdown and cool-down, using a new site-specific ground response spectrum. Further guidance on methodology, criteria and component selection was provided in a working level meeting on April 28, 1981.

Most of the information requested was informally provided to you on May 19, 1981, with a ccanitment to subnit a ccrnplete report by May 29, 1981. Attached hereto Detroit Edison is therefore transmitting six (6) copies of the final report No. EF2-53,332 titled, " Supplementary Seismic Evaluation for Fermi-2." The report also addresses the supplementary MEB information requests in chapter 6.0. The report ccncludes that critical Fermi 2 structures and equipment are capable of withstanding the newly established seismic excitation without degradation of their operational characteristics. The overall conclusions of the report are dettonstrated by the available margins and the plants seismic capability to safely shutdcwn and cooldown the reactor under the conditions of a significantly larger earthquake excitation. In the evaluation process, we identified six specific items that require further evaluation and/or seismic documentation as shown in chapter 5.0. We expect to resolve .

these outstanding concerns within the next 90 days and see no reason to l diminish our conclusions.

You e truly i rm,

(

('v j' l

81 0615 yW l '. ' F. Col (lQ~ { rt I echnical Director j WFC:FEG/crm Enrico Fermi Unit 2 l Attachment cc: J. Knight