ML17215A296
| ML17215A296 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 02/29/1984 |
| From: | John Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Williams J FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17215A297 | List: |
| References | |
| IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8403120240 | |
| Download: ML17215A296 (8) | |
Text
"L Docket No. 50-335 Mr. J. ll. Williams, Jr.
Vice President Nuclear Energy Department Florida Power 5 Light Company.
P. 0.
Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408
Dear Mr. Williams:
'D IS IBUTION:
ocket File NRC PDR L PDR ORB83 Rdg DEisenhut OELD EJordan JNGrace,,
ACRS-10 Gray File, PMKreutzer DSel 1 s CMTrammell
SUBJECT:
MASONRY HALL DESIGN, IE BULLETIN 80-11 In conducting its review of your submittals concerning masonry wall design, the staff has identified a number of ar'eas where additional information is required in order to complete the review.
The specific requests are con-tained in Enclosure l.
To aid you in preparing your response, the Structural arid Geotechnical Engineering Bran'ch positions, along with. supporting technical evaluation reports prepared by the Franglin Research
- Center, on.the "Use of Joint Reinforcing in gualifying Unreinforced Masonry, Walls". and "Use of Arching Action Theory. to gualify Unreinforced Masonry.Halls in Nuclear Power Plants" are provided in Enclosure 2.
You are requested to respond to this request for additional information by April 9, 1984. If you are, unable to meet.this date, please advise me of the date that you can meet.
If you have any questions concerning this request please contact the project manager; D. Sells, at (301) 492-9735.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements, associated with this information collection affect fewer thIarl ten, respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required. under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely, Original Signed by J. R. Miller 8403120240 840229 PDR ADOCK 05000335 8
Enclosures:
As stated James R. tliller, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 4'3 Division of Licensing OFFICE/
SURNAME)
DATE0
~
~ ~ ~ ~
cc:
S e next page 4
ORB)3:D Pl zer.
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I 0
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
OR DS 2/jf
~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~
/84
'DL
~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
M mmell
/84 ORB L
er 2/
84 NRC FORM 318 110/80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- U.S. GPO 1983~00.247
~ ~
Florida Power 8 Light Company CC:
Harold F. Reis, Esquire Lowenstein,
- Newman, Reis 8 Alexrad 1025 Connecticut
- Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Mr. Jack Schreve Office of the Public Counsel Room 4, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Norman A. Coll, Esquire McCarthy, Steel, Hector 8 Davis 14th Floor, First National Bank Building Miami Florida 33131 Resident Inspector c/o U.S.N.R.C.
Senior Resident Inspector 7585 S.
Hwy AIA Jensen
- Beach, Florida 33457 Administrator Department of Environmental Regulation Power Plant Siting Section State of Florida 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Weldon B. Lewis County Administrator St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue, Room 104 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV Office ATTN:
Regional Radiation Representative 345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Mr. Charles B. Brinkman Manager - Washington Nuclear Operations C-E Power Systems Combustion Engineering, Inc.
7910 Woodmont Avenue
- Bethesda, Maryland 20814 State Planning and Develpment Clearinghouse l
Office of Planning and Budgeting Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II Office of Executive Director for Operations 101 Marietta Street, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Enclosure I Request for Additional Information Masonry Wall Oesign, IE Bulletin 80-11 St. Lucie Plant, Unit 1
Oocket No. 50-335 Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Structural Engineering Section A
1.
With reference to the reinforcement in masonry walls, the ACI 531-79 Code (1) specifies that the minimum area of reinforcement in a wall in each direction, vertical or horizontal, shall be 0.0007(0.07%)
times the gross cross-sectional area of the wall and that the minimum total area of
- steel, combined vertical and horizontal, shall not be less than 0.002 (0.2X) times the gross cross-sectional area.
Clarify whether the reinforced walls at this plant meet the above requirements.
It should be noted that the horizontal reinforcement is installed to satisfy the minimum reinforcement requirement for a reinforced wall.
If the joint reinforcement is used to resist tension in the walls meeting the above minimum requirements, it should follow the working stress design method which limits its allowable to 30 ksi.
Please clarify whether this requirement has been satisfied.
If this requirement is not satisfied, identify all affected walls along with the calculated stress value for each wall and indicate specific actions planned to cor rect this situation.
Indicate if there are any walls that may have been qualified using the tensile resistance of the joint reinforcement but not satisfying the above stated minimum requirements.
It should be noted that the NRC>
at present, does not approve the use of joint reinforcement to qua.lify this type of wall" (see attached staff position).
In view of this, indicate all walls belonging to this category and your intended actions to bring those walls in compliance with the staff criteria.
2.
With respect to the increase factors for factored load cases (2), please identify all walls that would not be qualified if the SGEB criteria (3) were to be used.
Identify the percentage of exceedance for each case.
Also, explain all conservative measures (if any) used in the analysis to justify a higher increase factor.
"I 3.
In Response 1 of Reference 2, the Licensee indicated that the number of stack bond walls is 65.
Please provide the following information:
a.
Clarify whether all of these 65 walls are safety-related.
b.
Section 10.3.2 of ACI 531-79 (1) states, "where masonry is laid in stack bond, the tensile strength of masonry, grout, and mortar shall not be used in vertical continuous joints, and the shear strength of masonry, grout, and mortar shall not be utilized to transfer concentrated loads across vertical continuous joints."
Please
identify all walls that may have been qualified without complying with the above restrictions.
Also, provide the technical basis and justification for not complying with ihe above restrictions.
4.
With reference to Response 4 and the sample calculation in Attachment E
(2), please clarify the following:
a.
The moment of inertia for the cracked section of blocks 16 x 11 5/8 and 16 x 9 5/8 on pages 3 and 4 of Attachment E (2) is higher than that for the uncracked section as given on page 1 of the same attachment.
Please explain why the moment of inertia for each block is greater for the cracked section compared to its uncracked section.
b.
On page 2 of Attachment E (2), it appears that the moment of inertia of-transformed section for the multi-wythe wall was calculated based on the composite section.
If this is the case, the calculation is not consistent with Response 3 of Reference 2, in which walls were not analyzed by composite section.
Please clarify this point. If
- needed, provide any explanation necessary to make the sample calculation understandable.
5.
With regard to the nonlinear analysis technique (yield line theory and arching action, theory), please note the following information:
A~hi A I:
Th IIRC I I I hh I
<<h hh of the arching action theory to qualify unreinforced masonry walls is not acceptable; these walls should be repaired so that they can be qualified based on the SGEB criteria (3).
(The NRC position is attached.)
In view of this, indicate your intended actions and schedule to bring the affected walls in compliance with the staff position.
h.
~Yi TALI h:
hh hhh I
I I
I LI we'll be intormed as to whether or not this technique is acceptable upon completion of the review.
REFERENCES l.
ACI 531-79 and ACI 531-R-79 Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures American Concrete Institute, 1979.
2.
R.
E. Uhrig (Florida Power and Light Company)
Letter to R. A. Clark (NRC)
Subject:
Additional Information, IE Bulletin 80-11 October 4, 1982.
3.
SGEB Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation Developed by the Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch (SGEB) of the NRC, July 1981.
Enclosure 2
At achmeni SGE3 Staf position on the Use of Joint ReInforcing in guaIi=ying Unreinforced Hascnry ';tails introduction The function of joint reinforc ment in masonray walls is to prevent tha for.".. t.'cn of unacceptable shrinkage cracks.
The structural significanc (i.e., to provide resistance to tensile stresses) of joint reinforcement. in masonry:valls is not well established.
This is particularly true for unreinforcad hollow block mascnry walls subject to cyclic dynamic loading.
- However, some licensees nave proposed to use 'oint reinforcement as a structural element to quali =y unrainforcad mascnry walls in their plants.
,The staff and heir consultants have reviewed the technic I justificat-.'cns provided by same licensees for using the joint reinforc ng (such as
'".ur-v"-
'a!') as a structural element in qualifying masonry;valls which are nra'nfcrcad or do not meat :he minimum reinforcement requirements of :he Un'form Puilding Code.
The sta,f has further reviewed the tas-rasul's avaiIabla tha lit ratur a, codes, and other pertinent information.
3ased on 'hase ravi.vs, the staf has formulated the following position on"the use of join-. r infer"ing as a structural reinforcing element in unreinforced masonry walls.
Tha I
sta-.-.'s technical basis for this position is discussed in ;ha a
tac.".ad report.
Position The use of joint reinforcing as a s-ructural element (to evaluate the capaci-y of the wall in resisting applied loads) for qualifying masonry walls not meeting the minimum reinforcement requirements with respect to steel ratios, spacing, etc., of the Uniform Suilding Code-1979 edition is not acceptable" Therefore, the licensee shall fix the walls currently qualified by the 1
use of joint reinforcing as a struc ural element such that they me t the P
s-.aff's acc ptanc criteria for unreinforced walls, As noted in the attached report, the use of high allowaoles in joint reinforcment, say beyond 30,000 psi, even in the case of reinforced walls is questionable and not acceptable.
However, this position only addresses the use of joint reinfrocing in unreinforced walls.