ML20195C364

Clarifies Items 2 & 3 of DG Eisenhut 780502 Memo Re Proposed Mod to Plant Spent Fuel Storage Rack Proceedings.Design Engineer Activities in Fuel Bldg Design Should Be Considered Supporting Role

ML20195C364
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	05/26/1978
From:	Broehl D PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:	Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC-07551, TAC-08348, TAC-7551, TAC-8348, NUDOCS 8811030042
Download: ML20195C364 (2)

Text

___ -.

~

7. hp PonTLAxn GnxuuaL ELucTurc Co> waxy 49/7f -

ial S. W. S AmoN Stater PomTLANo, OntooN 97204

....... . #c ...... n .  ;

May 26, 1978 Trojan Nuclea Plant -

Docket No. 50-344 L License NPF-1

~

Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ATTN Mr. A. Schwencer, Chief S{V Operating Reactors Branch #1 C Division of Operating Reactors k U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555  ;

Dear Mr. Schwencer In regard to D. G. Eisenbut's memorandum of May 2, 1978 to M. J. Crossman, ,

forwarded to all parties in the Trojan proposed modification to the spent fuel stcrage rack proceedings by J. R. Gray, we would like to bring to your attention two matters we feel require clarification. Specifically, on Page 2 of the memorandum, it is felt that Items 2 and 3 require clarification.

L Iten 2 states that "the design engineer for the Control Building did no other 3

Ttrian analysis. Therefore, he was not involved in the design of the Fuel Building or other Trojan structures". It has come to our attention since the distribution of the above memorandum that the Design Engineer of the i Control Building did participate in the Fuel Building design. However, his participation was limited to design of nonstructural shield walls and some '

reinforced concrete slabs supported by steel beams. He was not in a position to make decisions on framing or design methodology of main load support

, elements and he did not design any shear walls. As such, his activities in e the Fuel Building should be considered a supporting role and not a pt inciple '

or primary role. Outside of the Control and Fuel Buildings he also designed  ;

steel columns, beams and shield walls in the Auxiliary Building, but once [

again he only performed such work in a supporting role. Further, these f structures have been rechecked to our satisfaction.

Item 3 states "the actual design calculations of the Fuel Building were i examined and found to confor,a to the FSAR criteria". h is is not exactly what was meant by our statement at the meeting. What we meant was that an f

independent new review of the Fuel Building indicated that the structure ,

I complies with the FSAR criteria. While we examined some of the original calculations and used some information we could readily verify, (especially  !

I i

" t 8811030042 700526 o%

P M.

p Apocn oo g 4 31.,4711 go

i PomfLANo otNtmak ELECTmic coupANY ,

?

Mr.. A. Schwencer May 26, 1978  :

Page two  ;

loading) our satisfaction was net based on a full examination of all past calculations as the present record may imply. In other words, we satisfied ourselves with the adequacy of the structure rather than finding satisfac-tion with each page of the calculations. The original seismic analysis of the Tuel Building was based upon 2 percent damping for OBE as the most limit-ing criteria. The design v.ticulations of this building consist of several hundred pages. Our review of tne calculations indicate that they were based on the design criteria as defined in the TSAR. Furthermore, an independent review was conducted and check calculations were prepared to verify the capability of this building to resist the required level of seismic loads.

Major load carrying elements of the Tuel Building are conventional rein-forced concrete and the nonconfermances encountered in the Control Building were not present in the Fuel Builiing design. The review and check of calculations indicate that tha Turi Building does in fact meet the TSAR criteria.

We trust these clarifying comments can be added to correct the intent of our earlier statements that have been reported by your staf f. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you but wish the record to be clear and fully understood by all parties. Our prior conclusion that the Control Building design criteria nonconformance is not related to the Trojan Spent Tuel Pool capacity increasing licensing action that is underway is unchanged.

Sincerely,

'l /

/ V' DJ3/CA /crw3A19 I

_