ML13310B337
| ML13310B337 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 04/12/1984 |
| From: | Medford M SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| To: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13310B339 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-60090, NUDOCS 8404170494 | |
| Download: ML13310B337 (6) | |
Text
Southern California Edison Company 2
P. 0. BOX 800 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEMEAD. CALIFORNIA 91770 M.O. MEDFORD TELEPHONE MANAGER, NUCLEAR LICENSING April 12, 1984 (213) 572-1749 Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:
D. M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Docket No.
50-206 Masonry Wall Test Program San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 By letter dated July 19, 1982, we provided a description of a test program to demonstrate the conservatism of the seismic analyses of the masonry walls at San Onofre Unit 1. In response to NRC review and comments on the test program description, additional information was provided in letters dated November 22, 1982 and March 2, 1983.
By letter dated April 5, 1983, the NRC provided agreement with the test program subject to the conditions that (1) no credit be taken for the masohry tensile strength unless flexure tests are performed, and (2) pretest analyses of the test panel walls were submitted to the NRC prior to commencement of the tests.
By letter dated April 8, 1983, we submitted a "best estimate" pretest analysis for test panel Type 1. A summary of masonry wall analyses representative of all three test panel types was submitted by letter dated April 28, 1983.
As outlined in the test program description, the intent of the program was to assure that at least two samples of panel Type 1 and one sample each of panel Types 2 and 3 were successfully tested. Backup panels were constructed to assure this result. In actuality, tests were completed for three Type 1 panels (Walls 1A, lB and 1C), one Type 2 panel (Wall 2A) and two Type 3 panels (Walls 3A and 3B).
Wall 3B was tested because of an actuator malfunction during the testing of Wall 3A. The test of the first panel (Wall 1A) occurred on May 5, 1983 and was witnessed by the NRC staff and its
'4 consultants. The remaining tests were performed from May 18 to July 14, 1983.
ro Provided as enclosures to this letter are five reports which provide the results of the masonry wall test program. It should be noted that these reports include information which is considered proprietary to SCE. In o0 conformance with the requirements of 10 CFR Section 2.790, as amended, provided as Enclosures 1 and 2 are an application for withholding from public t
R disclosure and an affidavit. The affidavit sets forth the basis on which the N
information should be withheld from public disclosure by the NRC. Proprietary information is clearly marked at the top of each page in the proprietary reports provided as Enclosures 3 through 7. Non proprietary versions of these reports are provided as Enclosures 8 through 12.
Mr. D.
April 12, 1984 is a report entitled "Masonry Wall Test Program, Results From Testing Walls 1A, lB and lC."
This report provides a detailed description of the test facility, the test specimens, the input time histories, the test procedures and the test results for the three Type 1 walls, which represented typical walls of the Fuel Storage Building and Ventilation Equipment Building at San Onofre Unit 1. Enclosure 4 is a report entitled "Masonry Wall Test Program, Correlation With Analysis Results."
This report provides a correlation between the response parameters obtained from the test program and those values predicted by the analyses for the three test walls described in Enclosure 3. The following conclusions can be made as a result of the tests as described in these two reports: (1) the reinforced masonry walls were able to retain their structural integrity when subjected to seismic input motions representative of the Design Basis Earthquake at the appropriate location of the Fuel Storage Building, (2) the consistency between the important response parameters of the three walls was very close indicating that repeatability of the tests was achieved, and (3) the analytical procedure used to evaluate the masonry walls is both valid and conservative.
Enclosures 5 through 7 provide test result summaries for Walls 2A, 3A and 3B. Wall 2A represented typical walls in the Reactor Auxiliary Building and Walls 3A and 3B represented typical walls in the Turbine Building. Appropriate lumped masses were attached to Walls 3A and 3B.
Enclosures 5 through 7 summarize the key test parameters for the three tests.
The description of the test program submitted by our July 19, 1982 letter indicated our intention at that time to provide detailed test and correlation reports for each of the test walls.
However, as discussed with the NRC staff, the preparation of these detailed reports is not necessary.
This conclusion is based on the following considerations: (1) detailed test and correlation reports were prepared for the worst case walls (Type 1), (2) based on the reports for the Type 1 walls, the analytical procedure used to evaluate the masonry walls is both valid and conservative, (3) no anomalous results were observed in the tests of the Type 2 and 3 walls, (4) the results of the tests of the Type 2 and 3 walls, as indicated by maximum displacements and rebar strains are significantly lower than for the Type 1 walls, and (5) the results of the tests of the Type 2 and 3 walls, as indicated by maximum displacements and rebar strains, are significantly lower than predicted by the analyses summarized in our April 28, 1983 letter.
Based on the results of the masonry wall test program as described in the enclosed reports, the analyses of the masonry walls are valid and conservative. Therefore, the masonry walls at San Onofre Unit 1 are able to withstand a 0.67g Housner earthquake.
If you have any questions regarding any of the enclosed information, please let me know.
Very truly yours, Enclosures APPLICATION FOR WITHHOLDING PROPRIETARY INFORMATION FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE This application for withholding is submitted by Southern Caliornia Edison Company ("SCE") pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations. Withholding from public disclosure is requested with respect to information regarding the testing of masonry walls which is further identified in the affidavit accompanying this application.
The information sought to be withheld was prepared under the supervision of the undersigned and the undersigned is authorized to apply for its withholding on behalf of SCE.
The affidavit accompanying this application sets forth the basis on which the information may be withheld from public disclosure by the Commission and addresses with specificity the considerations listed in paragraph (b)(4) of Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations.
Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the subject information which is proprietary to SCE and which is further identified in the affidavit be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with 10 CFR Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations.
Correspondence with respect to this application for withholding or the accompanying affidavit should be addressed to the undersigned.
Very truly yours, M. 0. Medford Manager, Nuclear Licensing Southern California Edison Company AFFIDAVIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared M. 0. Medford, who, being by me duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is authorized to execute this Affidavit on behalf of Southern California Edison Company ("SCE") and that the averments of fact set forth in this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief:
Respectfully submitted, By:
,j.~.
M. 0. Medford Manager, Nuclear Licensing Southern California Edison Company Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of dZ
, :?/'
Notary Public in and for, he County of Los Angeles, State of California noY PU2LIC - CALFORNIA OS ANGELES COUNTY m
Ex. asAug.24, 1937
-2 (1) I am Manager, Nuclear Licensing, of the Southern California Edison Company ("SCE") and as such, I have been specifically delegated the function of reviewing the proprietary information sought to be withheld from public disclosure in connection with San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, and am authorized to apply for its withholding on behalf of SCE.
(2) I am making this Affidavit in conformance with the provisions of 10 CFR Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations and in conjunction with the SCE application for withholding accompanying this Affidavit.
(3) Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b)(4) of Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, the following is furnished for consideration by the Commission in determining whether the information sought to be withheld.from public disclosure should be withheld.
(1) The information sought to be withheld from public disclosure is owned and has been held in confidence by SCE and its consultants.
(ii) Although the information is of a type which is not customarily held in confidence by SCE, in view of the substantial cost to SCE to obtain the information and of the potential to recover some of these costs by marketing this information, SCE has elected in this case to hold this information in confidence.
There are sound policy reasons behind the SCE decision to hold this information in confidence, including the following:
(a) The use of such information by SCE gives SCE a competitive advantage. It is, therefore, withheld from disclosure to protect such a competitive position.
(b) It is information which may be marketable in many ways.
The extent to which such information is publicly available could diminish SCE's ability to sell products and services involving the use of the information.
(c) Use by others could put SCE at a competitive disadvantage by reducing their expenditure of resources at SCE's expense.
(d) The SCE capacity to invest corporate assets in research and development depends upon the success in obtaining and maintaining potential competitive advantages.
(iii) The information is being transmitted to the Commission in confidence and, under the provisions of 10 CFR Section 2.790, it is to be received in confidence by the Commission.
(iv) The information is not available in public sources to the best of our knowledge and belief.
-3 (v) The proprietary information sought to be withheld in this submittal is that which is appropriately marked in Enclosures to the letter from M. 0. Medford to 0. M. Crutchfield dated April 12, 1984 concerning the testing of masonry walls.
The information enables SCE to seismically qualify the masonry walls at San Onofre Unit 1 as part of SEP Topic 111-6, Seismic Design Considerations and IE Bulletin 80-11.
Further, the information has substantial commercial value as follows:
(a) SCE can sell the use of this information to other utilities having similar masonry walls.
(b) SCE can sell services based upon the experience gained and the methods developed.
Public disclosure of this information is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of SCE because it would enable others having the same or similar masonry walls to use the information to meet NRC requirements for licensing documentation without purchasing the right to use the information from SCE.
The information is the result of many months of testing and the expenditure of a considerable sum of money. This information could only be duplicated by a competitor if he were to invest similar sums of money.
M. 0. Medford Manager, Nuclear Licensing Southern California Edison Company