ML19344F494
| ML19344F494 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 08/29/1980 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Parker W DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8009150333 | |
| Download: ML19344F494 (5) | |
Text
-
CA
~m
/
h,
, UN TED STATES y'
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
..C WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o
5
%4****]
AUG 2 31980 Docket Nos.:
50-369 and 50-370 Duke Power Company ATTN: Mr. William 0. Parker, Jr.
Vice President - Steam Production Post Office Box 33189 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
Dear Mr. Parker:
Subject:
Category I Masonry Wall Design McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 We have reviewed the information regarding Category I masonry wall design submitted with your letter of July 2,1980, and find that we require some additional information which is described in the enclosure.
We request that this information be provided no later than September 19, 1980.
Sincerely, 1
Nh Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing cc: See next page 300915.0333 9
9 l
{
a..
ENCLOSURE k
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON MASONRY WALL DOCKET N0s. 50-369/370 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH (Ref.: DPCo Letter dated July 2,1980) 1.
In response to Staff's concern No. 3 you stated implicitly that no tornado missiles are to be considered because the masonry walls are i
located inside the auxiliary building and therefore are shielded
.j from the effects of this type of missile. However, in load combinations (1) and (3) listed in attachment 1, wind loads are included. An l
explanation should be given for the discrepancy in your basic design i
consideration.
l 2.
In. attachment 1 you stated that allowable stresses, S, are as outlined in ACI 531.
In section 10.1.7 of ACI 531 for load combinations involving wind or earthquake the allowable stresses may be increased 33 percent.
However for seismic Category 1 structures in nuclear power plants such f
increases are not permitted (see SRP section 3.8.3 and 3.8.4 for concrete structures).
In view of such a criterion your consideration of the load combination D + L + E is requested.
3.
In your response to staff's concern No. 4 you stated that for the dynamic analysis the walls are assumed to be rigid and the building accelerations at the masonry wall supporting floor are used with an added design factor of 1.875. For the in-plane seismic forces the assumption of rigid wall appears to be reasonable. However for out-of-plane seismic forces the assumption of rigid wall is far from the truth.
In your sample calculation on page 4 of attachment 3 the natural. frequency of the wall is computed to be 14.8 cps. and a response of 0.4159 under OBE is obtained.
For SSE the response is obtained by multiplying the OBE response by 15/8. Provide the justifi-cation for assuming the wall as rigid and also indicate if the added design factqr 1.875 is used for both the OBE and SSE designs.
4.
The following items relative to seismic analysis of the walls should be provided:
(a) For the multiwythe walls, indicate how the out-of-plane seismic loads were calculated, and how the shear transfermechanism through which the composite action of multiwythe was ascertained.
(b)
Indicate why only the bottom floor response spectra were used in ot'taining the seismic loads for the walls, and the top floor response spectri were not considered.
(c)
Indicate how the in-plane and out-of-plane forces due to interstory drift were accounted for.
(d) D.iscuss how the effect of the three components of earthquake were considered.
5.
A more clear copy of attachment #2 should be provided.
y
- l L 6..
With respect to the' attachment; #3, provide the following information:
l 4
- (a) L0n p. 5 provide the response spectra used.
- (b)- On p'. 6 indicate the coordinate system used on this page and page 16.
~
(c) On p. 7 reference.is made to' page 8a of the calculation AB-200-09, Rev.#20, for the maximum allowable moment. This calculation should.be part of this package.. Discuss how the composite action was. considered. - Effects of other components of seismic forces, relattve:interstory drifts and.other loads should also be considered on the overall behavior of the wall.
(d) On 'p. 8-thru 15, discuss the effects of the combined action of local and global loads using the appropriate load combinations.
7.
Drawings supplied with attachment #4 are not legible.
Provide a set of full
. size. drawings.
(
k YY y + i' g-
+
p-y r-'w.
yg, y- - -
r
+-'"-(T T
T*@8
'F"
-T'"d1N T
4'C
""-"""-%*r-f
- "P"O"
M
n-c'
~
Mr. William 0. Parker, Jr.
Vice President, Steam Production Duke Power Company P. O. Box 2178_.
422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 cc: Mr. W. L. Porter David Fiesichaker, Esq.
Duke Power Company 1735 Eye Street, N. W.
P. O. Box 2178--
Suite 709 422 South Church Street Washington, D. C.
20006 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
Mr. R. S. Howard Assistant Attorney General i
Power Systems Divi: ion State of South Carolina Westinghouse Electric Corporation 2600 Bull Street P. O. Box 355 Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Mr. E. J. Keith EDS Nuclear Incorporated 220 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94104 Mr. J. E. Houghtaling NIJS Corporation 2536 Countryside Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33515 Mr. Jesse L. Riley, President The Carolina Environmental Study Group i
854 Henley Place i
Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Rober t M. Lazo, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20555
~
Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board j
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr., Director Bodega Marine Lab of California P. 0. Box 247' Bodega Bay, California 94923
),
r A
tV
~
Mr. William O. Parker, Jr.
2 i
cc: David Flesichaker, Esq.
1735 Eye Str eet, N. W.,
Suite 709 Washington, D. C.
20006 9
Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General State of South Carolina 2600 Bull Street g
Columbia, South Carolina 29201 I
Office of Intergovernmental Relations 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 1
County Manager of Mecklenburg County I
720 East Fourth Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ATTN: EIS Coordinator Region IV Office 345 Courtland Street, N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308 e
l t
.e i
i 4 -
4 e
O c_