ML15223A788
| ML15223A788 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1982 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Parker W DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8203220041 | |
| Download: ML15223A788 (5) | |
Text
MARCH DISTRIBUTION (WERFt Filg)5 L PDR TERA NSIC Dockets Nos. 50-269, 50-270 ORB#4 Rdg and 50-287 DEisenhut OELDRE iAFD AEOD IE MAR181982 Mr. William 0. Parker, Jr.
ACRS-10 Vice President - Steam Production PWagner Duke Power Company RIngram P. 0. Box 33189 GRay File 422 South Church Street HOrnstein Charlotte, North Carolina.28242 CTrammell
Dear Mr. Parker:
FSchauer We have reviewed the information you have provided in response to IE Bulletin 80-11 concerning masonary y all responses and find that additional information is needed for us to complete our review.
Therefore, we request that you provide the information requested in the enclosure to this letter within 60 days of its receipt.
Since this request is related solely to the Oconee Nuclear Station, fewer than ten respondents are affected; therefore, OMB clearance in not requtred under P.O.96-511.
Sincerely,.
John F. Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/enclosure:
See next page ORB#4:DL C-0 SUNAME 3N0C 82 R 3
C/
82 C NRC-FORM381O)
NRC~r2O O'FFICIAL RECORD COPYr MSGMO 1981-335-960
Duke Power Company cc w/enclosure(s):
Mr. William L. Porter Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 33189 422 South Church Street Office of Intergovernmental Relations Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Oconee County Library 501 West Southbroad Street Walhalla, South Carolina 29691 Honorable James M. Phinney County Supervisor of Oconee County Walhalla, South Carolina 29621 Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Regional Radiation Representative EPA Region IV 345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308 William T. Orders Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Kegulatory Commiso55n Route 2, Box 610 Seneca, South Carolina 29678 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division Suite 220, 7910 Woodmont Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Manager, LIS NUS Corporation 2536 Countryside Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33515 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
DeBevoise & Liberman 1200 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C..
20036
Enclosure to ltr. dtd. 3/15/82 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
- 1. In Reference 3, the Licensee states that the final reevaluation report will include the detailed justification fort the criteria used. Provide this detailed justification for review.
- 2. Provide a table showing the actual stresses and the allowable stresses of analyzed walls.
- 3. With reference to Section 5.1.2 of Reference 3, justify the assumed 12-psi allowable shear stress in collar joints. Also, provide any existing test data and discuss the applicability to the Oconee masonry walls.
- 4. With reference to Section.6.1.4 of Reference 3, provide justification for the boundary conditions and indicate whether adeqaute shear transfer mechanisms exist at supported boundaries.
- 5. With reference to Section 6.1.2 of Reference 3, indicate the number of modes considered and provide detailed modal analysis.
- 6. With reference to page 5 of Reference 5, justify the use of average floor spectra instead of the envelope for seismic analysis.
- 7. In References 5 and 7 the Licensee indicates that the "arching theory" has been used to qualify some of the masonry walls. The NRC, at present, does not accept the application of the arching theory to masonry walls in nuclear power plants in the absence of conclusive evidence to justify this application.
The following areas need technical verification before any conclusion can be made on the arching technique as applied to the masonry walls at the plant:
o Explain how the arching theory. handles cyclic loading, o
Pro-yide justification and test data (if available) to validate the applicability of the arching theory to the masonry structures at Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3, with particular emphasis on the following areas:
- a.
nature of the load
- b.
boundary conditions
- c.
material strength,
- d. size of the test walls.
o If hinges are formed in the walls, the capability of the structure to resist in-plane shear force would be diminished, and shear failure might take place. This in-plane shear force would also reduce the out-of-plane stiffness. Explain how the effect of this phenomenon can be accurately determined.
- 8. Reference 7 indicated that a test program was conducted to determine the prism strength and mortar strength and that test results confirmed the chosen values. The Licensee is requested to submit the test results (i.e., test procedures, results of individual block strength, and prism strength).
- 9. With reference to Section 5.2.1(b) of Reference 3, indicate whether the 5% damping is applied to the operating basis earthquake (OBE) as well as to the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE). If 5% damping is applied to the OBE, justify this deviation from SEB criteria [8],
which specify 4% damping for the OBE.
- 10.
With reference to Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.5 of Reference 3, justify the proposed 67% increase in allowable stresses for the SSE, thermal effects, and displacement loads. For factored loads, the.SEB criteria [8] suggest 50% increase in allowable stresses for reinforcement shear and masonry tension parallel to the bed joint and 30% increase in allowable stresses fbr masonry shear and tension normal to. the bed.joint.
- 11. With reference to Section 5.1.3 of Reference 3, justify the formula used for allowable stress in-grout core tension.
- 12.
Provide details of proposed wall modifications with sample drawings and explain, using sample calculations, how these modifications will rectify the wall deficiencies. Also, provide a status report for the proposed wall modifications..
- 13.
With reference to Section 5.1.6 of Reference 3, in the event of impact and suddenly applied loads (missile impact, jet impingement, pipe whip), the stresses are permitted to exceed.the allowables.
Identify all walls that are subjected to this loading case. Provide sample calculations to justify the method employed to calculate stresses which exceed the allowables.
REFERENCES
- 1.
IE Bulletin 80-11 "Masonry Wall Design" NRC, May 8, 1980
- 2. W. 0. Parker, Jr. (Duke Power Company)
Letter with attachment to J. P. O'Reilly (NRC)
July 7, 1980
- 3.
W. 0. Parker, Jr.. (Duke Power Company.)
Letter with attachment to J. P. O'Reilly (NRC)
November 4, 1980
- 4. A. C. Thies (Duke Power Company)
Letter with attachment to J. P. O'Reilly (NRC)
May 22, 1981
- 5. W. 0. Parker, Jr. (Duke Power Company)
Letter with attachment to H. R. Denton (NRC)
July 13, 1981
- 6. W. 0. Parker, Jr. (Duke Power Company)
Letter with attachment to J. P. O'Reilly (NRC)
September 30, 1981
- 7.
W. 0. Parker, Jr. (Duke Power Company)
Letter with attachment to J. F. Stolz (NRC)
December 29, 1981
- 8. Standard Review Plan, Section 3.8.4, Appendix A "Interim Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation"
- NRC, July 1981
- 9.
Uniform Building Code International Conference of Building Officials, 1979
- 10.
ACI 531-79 and Commentary ACI 531R-79 "Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures American Concrete Institute, 1979