ML20237G847
| ML20237G847 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1987 |
| From: | Harrison J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237G843 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-341-87-33, NUDOCS 8708240267 | |
| Download: ML20237G847 (2) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _.
NOTICE OF VIOLATION Docket No. 50-341 Detroit Edison Company As a result of the inspection conducted on August 3-7, 1987, and in accordance I
with 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C - General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions (1985), the following violations were identified:
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, requires that activities affecting 1.
quality shall be accomplished in accordance with prescribed procedures.
Contrary to the above, Stone and Webster, as a standard practice, has not evaluated expansion anchor spacing violations in accordance with the methodology prescribed in Specification No. 3071-226, Revision G, July 15, 1985.
(341/87033-01)-
This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement I).
f i
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, requires that the design bases are 2.
to be correctly translated into design documents.
Contrary to the above, the design bases were not correctly translated into design documents in that:
In Calculation DC No. 974, Revision C, the torque requirement a.
for 1 1/4 inch diameter wedge anchors was calculated using the shear capacity)of the bolt instead of the tensile capacity.
(341/87033-02A Revision I, the minimum edge distance On Drawing 5C721-2002, b.
for 1 1/4 inch diameter wedge anchors was incorrectly specified as six inches.
(341/87033-02B)
In Specification No. 3071-226, Revision G, Appendix A, the c.
definitions for " manufacturer or supplier" and " seller or distributor" were incorrectly stated.
(341/87033-02C) d.
In Calculation DC No. 4497, Revision A, the following errors were identified:
f (1) Moment calculations for Masonry Wall Nos. 219 and 234 were incorrect.
(2) Bending stress calculations for Masonry Wall Nos. 219 and 1
234 were incorrect.
f 8706240267 Qh4i PDR ADOCK pgg G
4 0
l I
a
4 h
i i
(3) Design assumptions for Wall No. 219 are acceptable, but justifications must be made so that the calculated moments and stresses reflect the actual boundary condition.
(4) The door frame in Masonry Wall No. 219 was assumed to be a simply supported member resisting seismic loads. However, the door frame was not analyzed to assure that it could withstand the calculated seismic loads.
(5) Seismic shear stress was not considered in the design evaluation.
(6) The ratio of the horizontal to the vertical dimension for Masonry Wall Nos. 216, 218 and 221 was not consistent with the design formula. Accordingly, the calculated natural frequency was incorrect.
(7) The use of the zero period acceleration (ZPA), based on the calculated frequency of 12.91 HZ, was inappropriate.
(8) Section 6-6 on Drawing 6C721-2608 was not deleted on Revision H as stated in Revision G and DCN 10831.
(341/87033-020)
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are required to submit to this office within thirty days of the date of this Notice a written statement or explanation in reply, including for each violation:
(1) corrective action taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective action to be taken to avoid further violations; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown.
4
~
1 AUG 191987
)'
J. J.Marrison, Chief l
Dated Engineering Branch 1
l
' I, i
)