ML18047A565
| ML18047A565 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 09/07/1982 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Vandewalle D CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| IEB-80-11, LSO5-82-09-028, LSO5-82-9-28, NUDOCS 8209130132 | |
| Download: ML18047A565 (6) | |
Text
..... *.;
..A*\\'
l
... /
-.e..
'1 e
Septembe_r ?,, 1982 DISTRIBUTION Docket Docket No. 50-255 LSOS-82-09.. 028 NRC PDR Local PDR ORB Reading NSIC DCrutchfield HSmith TWambach OELD Mr. David J. VandeWalle Nuclear L@censfog Adminsitrator Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson~ Michigan 49201
Dear Mr. Vandewalle:
OI&E ACRS (10)
SEPB CTrammel l
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RESPONSE TO IE BULLETIN 80-11, "MASONRY WALLS" - PALISADES PLANT We have reviewed your responses to IE Bulletin 80-11 which \\*1ere req submitted by letters dated July 9.and November 6, 1980, as well as the Palisades Plant.Licensee Event Report 81-004 submitted on February 11, 1981 *. We find that we require additional information to complete our review. The enclosure to this letter identifies the information.required. Please respond within 60 da,Ys of the date of this letter.
Since the request -is specific to the P&Disades Plant and affects fewer then ten respondents, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/enclosures:
See.next page Sincerely, Original signed by Denhis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #5 Div1on of L kensing
~~
I 0209130.132, a20907 (
,.:~..,. ~I PDR~ ADJJCK1.:.050oo*255
.:
- 1
',. G PDR i J j
Mr. David J. Vandewalle cc M._ I. Miller, Esquire Is-ham, Lincoln & Beal&
Suite 4200 One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60670 Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary.
Consumers Power Company _
212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Judd L. Bacon, Esquire Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue.
'Jackson, Michigan. 49291 CHERRY
~ FLYNN Suite 3700 Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinoi~ 60602
_Ms. *Mary P. Sinclair Great Lakes Energy A 11 i ance 5711 Summerset Drive
.. Midland, Michigan 48';40.
William J. Scanlon, Esquire 2034 Pauline Boulevard Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103
, t:
Township Supervisor Covert Townshi Route 1, Box 10 Van Buren. County, Michfgan 49043 Office of the Gov~rnor (2)
Room 1 - Capitol Building
.Lansing~ Michigan 48913 Palisades Plant ATTN:
Mr. Robert Montross
- Pl ant Manager Covert,.Michigan 49043..:-*
~-
September 7, 1982 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Activities Branch
- Region V Office ATTN:
Regional Radiation Representative
- 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 *.
Mr. James A~* Laurenson, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
~. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
. Dr; *G.eorge C. Anderson D~partment of Oceanography
- University of Washington *..
Seattle, Washington 98195 Dr. M. *Stanley Livingston' 1005 Ca11e Largo Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
~siden~Inspector c/o U.
S.....,N~C Pal isade-r:P1ant Route 2, P. O. Box 155.
Covert, Michigan 4901~-
- James'G. Keppler, Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
PALISADES PLANT TECHNICAL EVALUATION
'Y,
."*.:,fj*..
The Licensee's response to IE Bulletin 80-11 was technically_evaluated.
In general, the response was satisfactory, but additional information is required to permit a proper final technical evaluation.
Sufficient information was not provided to justify certain increase factors for allowable stresses, and conclusive evidence is needed for the applicability of "energy balance,"
"arching action," and "rocking action" techniques to the masonry walls at the Palisades plant.
Before* a final technical evaluation,report can be prepared, the Licensee is required to supply the following information:
- 1.
Indicate whether walls are stacked or running bond.
If any stack bond wall *exists, pr~vide sample calculations of the st~esses for a typical.
wall.
- 2.
With respect to multiple wythes, clarify whether the co11a:r. joint strength was used in the analysis.
I~ so, justify by any existing test data the value of 8 psi for allowable shear.and tension of collar joints. Also, provide s~ple calculations illustrating tne analysis of a multi-wythe wall.
- 3.
Indicate whether the construction practice for masonry walls at the Palisades plant conformed with the provisions specified for the special inspection category in ACI 531-79 [7].
If not, explain and justify the use of allowable stresses.
- 4.
With respect to section 4.B, Appendix A of Reference 3, :Justify the use of a~ increase factor of 1.67 for masonry shear.and tension; SEB criteria [5] allow only 1.3 for shear and tension normal to the bed joint and 1.5 for tension parailel to the bed joint. If any existing test data will be used to justify this increase factor, th~ Licensee is required to discuss the applicability of these tests to the masonry walls at the Palisades plant.with particular emphasis on the following:
-boundary conditions
-nature'of loads
-size of. test walls
-type of masonry construction (block or mortar type, grouted or ungrouted)
- The Licensee is also requested to indicate if the SEB criteria were used, how inany walls cannot be qualified, and to identify* these walls.
S.
In Reference 3, the Licensee indicates that the energy balance, arching action, and rocking *action techniques have been used to qualify some of the masonry walls.
The NRC at present does not accept the application of these methods to masonry walls in nuclear power plants in the absence of conclusive justifying evidence. _The Licensee is requested to indicate the number of walls which have been analyzed by each.of these technique~ and to provide sampl~ calculations for each technique.
In addition, the following areas need technical verification before any conclusion can be made about these techniques:
5.1.
Energy Balance o
For the walls which were analyzed by the energy balance technique, provide a technical basis to ensure that walls will undergo ductile failure if they fail.
o Provide justificatioh and test data (if available) to validate the applicability of the energy balance technique to the masonry structures at the Palisades plant, with particular emphasis on.the following areas:
- a.
nature of the load
- b.
boundary.conditions
- c. material strength
- d.
size of test walls.
5.2 Arching Action o Explain how the arching action theory deals with cyclic loading, especially when the load is reversed..
o Provide justification and test data (if available) to validate the applicability of arching action theory to the masonry structures at Palisades, with particular emphasis on the following areas:
- a.
nature of the load
- b.
boundary conditions
- c. material strength
- d.
size of test walls.
o If hinges are formed in the walls, the capability of the structures to resist an in-plane shear force will be diminished, and shear failure might take place.
This in-plane shea*r force.
would also' reduce the out-of-plane stiffness.
Explain how.the effect of this phenomenon can be accurately determined.
5.3 Rocking Action o
Provide the technical basis for the safety factor of 2 for OBE and 1.5 for SSE loads used against overturning forces.
- 6.
Show, by sample calculation, how the effect of higher modes.of.
vib~ation was con~idered in the analysis.
- 7.
Indicate how earthquake forces in three directions were considered in the analysis.
- a.
Indicate if block pullout was considered in the evaluation.
If it was, provide a sample calculation of the block pullout analy.sis.
- 9.
Specify the number of masonry walls analyzed for impact and suddenly applied loads.
Provide the results (stresses, displacements) of.
these analyses.
In addition, provide a sample calculation illustrating the analysis for impact and suddenly applied loads.
J
- 10. In Section 4 of Reference 3, it was indicated that the reevaluation was expected to be completed by December 1980 and that Reference 3 would be reissued at that time.
Provide this reissued report.
- 11. Provide a description and the current status of the required modifications.
Also, provide detailed drawings of some sample modifications and a sample calculation to show that the modified walls will be qualified in accordance with the working stress design method.
- 12. The following drawings in Appendix A of Reference 2 are illegible.:
- page A-78, walls C-109; Page A-85, walls C-306; Page A-86, walls C-46.
Provide legible copies of these drawings.
- 13. Since the plant.is a part of the syst~matic evalua~ion program (SEP)*
for seismic analysis, the Li~nsee is ~equested*to clar!fy whether SEP loadings have been used.* If not, provide justificatlon *
~nklin
- R~search Center A*Diyision of The.Franklin Institute
.U
- 1.
IE Bulletin 80-11 Masonry Wall Design NRC, 08-May-81
- 2.
D. P. Hoffman REFERENCES
- Letter to J.G. Keppler, NRC.
Subject:
Palisades Plant Response to IE Bulletin 80-11; Masonry Wall Design (Sixty Day Response)
Consumers Power. Co., 09-Jul-80
- 3. s. R. Frost
... : ~=~..
Letter to J *. G. Keppler, NRC~. Subjec~:
Palis~des Plant - Response to IE Bulletin 80-11 Masonry Wall Design (180 Day Respo'l'ls~)
- Consumers Power Co, 06-Nov-80
- 4.
D. P. Hoffman Letter to J. G. Keppler, ~RC.
Subject:
- Palisades Plant -'Transmittal of Licensee Event Report 81-004 - Masonry Walls Consumers Power Co., ll-Feb-81
- 5.
Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation Standard Review Plan, Section 3.8.4, Appendix A NRC, OO-Jul-81
- 6.
Uniform Building Code International Conference.of Building Officials,,1979
- 7.
Building Code Reqliirements for concrete Masonry Structures Detroit:
American Concrete Institute, 1979 ACI 531-79 and ACI 531-R-79
~nklin Research Center A Division ofTh., Fronklin Institute