ML20028B549
| ML20028B549 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1982 |
| From: | Bordine T CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028B550 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-SSINS-6820, TASK-03-06, TASK-3-6, TASK-RR IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8212030019 | |
| Download: ML20028B549 (10) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
, -. g Consurners power Company General Officos: 212 West Michleen Avenue, Jackson, Michtgen 49201 *(517) 788-0550 November 24, 1982 Dennis M Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No 5 liuclear Reactor Regulation US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 DOCKET 50-155 - LICENSE DPR BIG ROCK POINT PLANT - RESPONSE TO REQUEST LOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IE BULLETIN 80-11 Consumers Power Company provided a 60-day and 180-day response to IE Bulletin 80 Masonry Wall Design by letters dated July 9,1980 and November 3, 1980. NRC 1ctter dated September 20, 1982 requested additional information in response to a review of our IE Bulletin 80-11 submittals.
On September 29, 1982, via telephone conversation, approval for additional time was provided by a member of your staff to prepare our response. This letter provides that response.
The NRC staff reviewers must recognize that the Big Rock Point response to IE Bulletin 80-11 is somewhat unique. This is because Big Rock Point was essentially without a seismic design basis at the time of issuance of the bulletin. However, through the SEP Topic III-6, Big Rock Point does have a l
site specific spectra (free field) from which selected time histories have been calculated for use in evaluating the capacities of block walls under the j
auspices of the SEP Topic.
Because of the design basis for the facility and
{~ )g g/
very low level of static seismic input specified by the Final Hazards Summary Report (FHSR), all 24 walls were characterized and and were analyzed as 3
adequate per ACI 531-79 in response to IE Bulletin 80-11 work. The walls were able to sustain a degradation in allowable stresses recommended by ACI 531-79 for cases where construction inspection records are not available.
I h[()
In response to SEP Topic III-6 effort, an analysis was prepared by Structural Mechanics Associates (SMA).
Since the S!!A work supplements the IE Bulletin, it is provided as an attachment to this letter. The analysis was done by time histories provided by D' Appolonia which were derived from and associated with the Big Rock Point site specific spectra.
Interstory drift was accounted for by employing time histories as a function of elevation. USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.61 provides no damping values for masonry. Thua, the guidance of oc1182-0090a142 8212030019 821i24 PDR ADOCK 05000155 G
PDR i
.o o
D M Crutchfield, Chief 2
Big Rock Point Plant IE Bulletin 80-11 November 24, 1982 NUREG/CR-0098 by N M Newmark and W J Hall were employed. SMA employed Code (ACI 531-79) allowables for in plane loads.
Note that the analysis considers 19 rather than 24 walls. The SEP Analysis is based upon the scope of the piping program. Because fire piping in the turbine building was judged to not be a viable flow path per the SEP seismic work, walls M100.20 and M100.21 were eliminated from concern. Wall M100.22 near the fuel cask loading dock was eliminated based upon similar concerns.
Because Consumers Power Company is considering valving out the heat exchangers in the clean-up system, wall M101.4 was eliminated from concern. An inspec-1 tion of wall M101.3 established that the block was runninF bond and that the failure of those block could have no significant impact on any safety-related equipment.
The following is provided as our response to the 12 Staff questions. The answers respond to our evaluations resulting from the IE Bulletin and do not reflect results from the SEP program:
1.
Indicate whether the walls are stack or running bonded.
If any stack bond wall exists, provide sample calculations of tensile and shear stress for a typical wall.
RESPONSE: All safety related walls which come under the auspices of IE Bulletin 80-11 are of running bond construction.
2.
Explain and justify the difference (if any) between the load combinations provided in the plant FSAR and the load combinations given in Reference 4.
The SEB Criteria (5) indicate that the load combinations provided in the plant FSAR should be used in the reevaluation of masonry walls at operating plants.
RESPONSE: The original Big Rock Point design criteria include a single load combination for seismic considerations. That load l
combination sums dead load, live load and seismic effects.
i The FHSR criteria were used for the block wall evaluation.
3.
The Licensee is requested to clarify whether a dynamic analysis of masonry walls was performed.
If so, the Licensee is requested to provide the following:
Provide sample calculations to indicate how the effects of higher a.
j modes of vibration are accounted for in the masonry wall analysis and how the equipment loads are accounted for in the seismic analysis.
b.
Provide damping values used in the analysis and justify them if they exceed the 4% damping for an operating basis earthqed e (OBE) and 7%
damping for a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) allowed in Regulatory Guide 1.61.
If dynamic analysis was not performed, the Licensee should provide justification.
J oc1182-0090a142 i
i
,,.c n.,
--r
- - - ~
r o
o D M Crutchileld, Chief 3
Big Rock Point Plant IE Bulletin 80-11 November 24, 1982 RESPONSE: Dynamic analysis of the masonry walls was not performed. At the time of the masonry wall evaluation, the seismic design basis for the facility was referenced to the Uniform Building Code for Zone 1.
There were no response spectra available for the wall evauation. Therefore, the.02g was applied as an out-of plane lateral static pressure load in the turbine building and.05g static pressure load was applied in the reactor building.
a.
No multimode effects for the wall or attachments were considered.
b.
No response spectra existed or were employed. Thus, no damping was considered.
4.
Provide the technical basis for using horizontal seismic loading of 0.05g for the reactor containment and 0.02g for other structures. Also, indi-cate how earthquake forces in three directions were considered in the seismic analysis of the masonry walls.
RESPONSE: The basis for the seismic loadings employed in the bulletin work is described in Section 2.6.4 of the Big Rock Point Final Hazards Summary Report. These acceleration levels have their basis in the Uniform Building Code (1958). Only out-of plane seismic loads were considered.
5.
Justify the use of a 33% increase in allowable stresses 'er load combina-tions including seismic loads if the seismic loads ine loads.
Provide any increase factors that may have been used fu stresses under abnormal conditions and justify them if
.igher than those listed in the SEE criteria (5). The SEB factors are listed below by type of stress:
Axial or flexural compression 2.5 Bearing 2.5 Reinforcement stress (except shear) 2.0 but not over 0.9 fy Shear reinforcement and/or bolts 1.5 Masonry tension parallel to bed joint 1.5 Shear carried by masonry 1.3 Masonry tension perpendicular to bed joint:
reinforced masonry 0
unreinforced masonry
1.3 RESPONSE
Per the Big Rock Point Final Hazards Summary Repart, there are no OBE or SSE loads. There is prescribed only seismic loading. The original plant design criteria states that
" Allowable stresses may be increased 31-1/3% when loadings are combined with wind or seismic." The analysis conducted for the IEB 80-11 work employed the 33% increase factor in all 8 oc1182-0090a142 J
7..*
o.
D M Crutchfield, Chief 4
Big Rock Point Plant IE Bulletin 80-11 November 24, 1982 cases referred to in the question. For the two walls which contained vertical reinforcement, analysis was performed as per an uncracked section. Thus, the 33% increase for masonry tension perpendicular to a bed joint should apply to rein-forced as well as unreinforced masonry.
6.
Indicate if any non-linear technique (ie, not based on working design method) was used to qualify masonry walls.
If so, provide justification for its use.
If any existing test data are used to justify the tech-nique, discuss the applicability of these tests to the masonry walls at the plant, with particular emphasis on the following areas: boundary conditions, type of loads, size of walls, and type of masonry construc-tion (block type, grouted or ungrouted, reinforced or unreinforced).
RESPONSE: No non-linear analysis techniques were employed in work associated with IE3 80-11.
7.
Describe how interstory drift (both in plant and out-of-plane) was accounted for.
RESPONSE
Interstory drift was not considered in the analysis because no overall seismic structural analysis of the Big Rock Point structures was available at the time of the bulletin work.
It is noted, however, that a free top boundary condition was assumed for all walls. Therefore, no interstory drift consid-erations are applicable.
8.
Provide sample calculations for:
- block pullout analysis I
- missile impact (if applicable).
RESPONSE: The masonry walls at Big Rock Point are generally very lightly loaded where they are loaded at all.
In addition, the lateral seismic (.02g) loads are very small with regard to the weight of the equipment mounted on the walls. Preliminary calcula-tions proved block pullout to be nonlimiting with regard to overall wall stresses. Therefore, block pullout analysis proved unnecessary.
No missile impact loads were considered in the bulletin scope.
Missiles were considered as part of SEP Topic III-4.A.
9.
Provide the number of unreinforced walls and a sample calculation illustrating the analytical approach used for single-wythe and multiple-wythe walls.
1 RESPONSE: Only walls designated M-100.19 and M-100.20 have vertical reinforcement. This reinforcement is in the form of number 3 bar at 24 inches. All M-100 walls except M-100.2 have Duro-l oc1182-0090a142 l
l U
=
~.
o D M Crutchfield, Chief 5
Big Rock Point Plant l
IE Bulletin 80-11 November 24, 1982 wall. All unreinforced walls were evaluated per an uncracked analysis. For multiple-wythe walls, the wythes were handled independently and no credit was taken for collar joint shear.
All walls were evaluated with a free boundary condition at the top and a load comparison was taken with regard to ACI 531-79 with degraded allowables.
Where irregular wall geometries, cutouts or many attached equipment weights were involved, a finite element model employing plant elements was used.
10.
Indicate the acde of failure of each wall not qualified under the working i
stress conditions. Provide details of proposed modifi ations for each wall, with sketches, and demonstrate through sample calculations that the wall will be qualified after modification. Also, provide legible copies of Figures C1 through C4 in Reference 4.
RESPONSE: All walls were evaluated under working stress conditions. No modifications were proposed based upon the IB 80-11 work.
In addition to the attached copies of the figures, larger legible copies of Figures C1 through C4 (in Reference 4) are being provided by separate cover directly to you for distribu-tion to the appropriate staff reviewers.
11.
Explain the proposed removal of battery rack attachnents from walls M100.14 and M100.16. Also, indicate whether they have already been removed and if this modification is required to qualify the walls.
RESPONSE: The seismic resistance of the station power battery racks was reviewed before IEB 80-11 was issued. This review was con-ducted under the scope of IE Information Notice 80-21.
Based upon this review, it was determined that the basic rack design j
lacked significant seismic resistance regardless of any assumptions with respect to the anchorage capacity in the masonry. Therefore, it was decided to totally redesign the l
racks to require only floor anchorage and thus eliminate any rack loads from the scope of the IEB 80-11 program.
l To design the racks for floor support only rather than lateral l
l support from masonry was intended to reflect good practice for seismic design. The racks have been redesigned and the r
masonry attachments have been removed. The masonry was never evaluated with the attachments in place.
12.
Since this plant is a part of the systematic evaluation program (SEP) for seismic analysis, the Licensee is requested to clarify whether SEP loadings have been used.
If not, provide justification.
I oc1182-0090a142
D M Crutchfield, Chief 6
Big Rock Point Plant IE Bulletin 80-11 November 24, 1982 RESPONSE: SEP Topic III-6 addresses seismic analysis for Big Rock Point.
At the time that work was being conducted for IEB 80-11, neither overall in plane loadings or response spectra were available for use.
Therefore, SEP loadings were not used as part of the bulletin work. SEP loadings will be considered as applicable under the auspices of the SEP Topic III-6.
av Thomas C Bordine Senior Licensing Engineer CC Administrator, Region III, USNRC NRC Resident Inspector-Big Rock Point Attachment l
oc1182-0090a142 J
f _.
h.
l
,q i
3__ lb i't -
1lI(1, 1
ea t5 t-I Il iire:
t,.
4; m": 1:
il ibi
- V 45 o
'8 b l
$~
, [ ]k
[ l.
j s
s=;
3, a
Y--
)
y N_Ye.9 I
$j 3
- N...
4 g
- c*
a a
- c' er 9,.i k b,'. Nf & x ? -
i
(
h N 7 +ldh'I! I!!0 il(=4 '. d k.[ m y g fl:
~
T
~ & t I
l !!il s
y a
es.. w.
- g
\\ ip(w.
. :.gr Q
!=Y 44,_$)72Qy;@,.y'dP M:
- O j
1*'%E 1, n
'4
,[i j
5
)
'y T.% 2lT @ '
.. %E e
. - If -. pl i lii MT3
- A
_ll i 1 b! %
1~ ll
,.. :g p - - J. . l) i f ut % 4
.Q,.,.,..je !.. f.
!.. - - l
-; = =
-A
, u,.. -,...
e t
sr--
3[3N?-- [E(( I.[lIh191UINjihss aka[
11 e%r.-q.fyf
. n v*e~b
+.
r h 1
$ [udIE gi !4 ti
~
" g [ b
'! : { d !
1 l 4 1; n
3 i
i F
- ;h A.]
l
$ z. c
.g
!! h 3d h" ' ! U' # J y %Eff - W
.'3'B..h "N e
V i
7 S
.lj i
mM::v. h
- m.. m r q144 J g.s %.n I f JI
..$,i,,
p i. i o, i q4
.m.r i.n
...s.aaW
.i r
,. e ji
~;
- +.,. - -3, r l
d.
i
.Y#p
- li
, h, N (Mq -
h.. 'iY '...;;. cod !j ! ; g.,h.gd
.2 m
h 5!
l a-
'E i
l 1 c J.i jj,,. !
dl I
..C. j..
.k
!b,1 {Tw.!j! jk[Q 3 3w - w I
I i b:
yi r
4f l
- ! Y
,!>.e i
< 4
-,g.
i l
-J
,I (Th L
i 41 v. -g e
,.L1 j
t.
i v.,
i
.- y h
Ih I
ill' I
8 i
I
j ~
1.1_.._ + -
s-
=
c.1. 4
. -,h
.. f.. <
i l
i i
j d.,
(-
i ai i
.. Q.)m Q. 3. f g>.; --
^32^ 1 e,La s
s a
s e
e ;
(
J
- t. t J
e a
dh I'
y P
. I il 4
it FN s
'-[,
,H $ ' gr' h de I
Gt 10
' 5.gi 't 1:
sgg' i
.. c Ob M
4x a.
2 k, Ih_
1 ii
' li gh' f s
g i
a g
L -3 a
,3-
, h'I'* ; 3 s
os d
L I
li,1
- j 4
'l n
,j4 i
5 rl;%. d
~
MQ
.?/
11 S - -
E g, i m
~
{'
t_ _
iO i
/
e su
-A 7>
-t_
~a.l pt 3
.o.
.q
,. - =,...., J,..
2n 111 y
q
,9 6
a g
o<e
.. 4..
. T
,,.9
..w,.. # ' ' '"
iM' F.,.,
j w8 F
,. h-
- sn g
y,
c w
=:
t 1
- 3i,,,
r 4
.3,ig,
- s
, 1.,
.,tf-1 a
n,,
o.
s..i.i-l.
e
- ,i3-N... -
3 u
( ;,
91;;
5
'_ ), ry 2..---
i a.y c c
.F p, W -- f i., r ya
- -- - ; 7ur. -
~
Ai i'1 m,. ( x i. a. :i
- i' l a-(!
- ara'1 j
s s
vy v
s
.). :t xqn a.
a-N J=.Id;2.N *g,,
- e
!w
,y..
.pj f1 5 i
sg
~c iA 2 r.1. '"h I
(gg 2.: td j]
li r
i
, =$ w,ig
.,,;,g..,..'_
- {< c'~
,,. e a.
7 g,; 1
/.
mN r l-76 l t,b, a t _ i t
ll^
[r] f I
5 N d.'-
4 d,!
i ii8 i
l :.+ e g., !,,;.-p g'.
1 l 'y[..JE i4@4 j13 M'
I.i a
j:
[ ~'-/j;b.C,H r_, M L.i~ b,s l % es..)
. a, i
- 7) a l
j);=
l 7,,7, y --
- s. -
}
'l ;
/ ;-li F,m f.fyl !!
J 10
- it. ln.b
_id L :r vib 'I 11 '
i
/
-!!...ud i
. -t p:- om,.m- -
- - _,.;G.
- c.,
m
.I y;
(
i
-bu y'
g, i
a.2. e ia i
- y-1 1
,l u
!~
b r,_rbii
\\ s --
,
'k
~
i 1
s i
J 3
se
\\
kI
/
I,
't ll
," Y jl F.!
p'.,'[:n..,
2
,._ _ = )
I l
[J d%.
i i
i
.a
.. w 4
-=>ge.m.
eme spam 4
i.
l 5 c i
Wh p
t 3rif 2 e.
<O b2 J
Ml 4I 3
%s ll
';1 a.
.n w
se l til,,, yI oC if 5
2 m.
ga
.d.
b d
a '.4
+
u s
4 t Y"
[jj I-I C r I; 6 d ea
--- e 3}l ev.
tg E e
ni 2
g g
t-]r -
}
3,,
d Wg4 gE i
9 i
"l1
]<*d
/'
13d'I i n
/
.Ta
_i a
L 80A I
y
..l l
7 p
a l s*<iI, 3
'l'l w g er j
C'
?
e44 g2:
ei OO e i I< t it 8
3 i
r== u 8'
- i. ! $ hf 1
15 Y Il[
5
( "i.
- 9 3r -
'- ) is I
m2 P
,3 o
eJ, p(. I. j p *o I!)
e; o
i I
o
.i
,yj t
_.9 Im y
,d J
+ -
-- ____ n l/
\\
!1A Fi E I I) l es j p.i I c.;
il 5
s l,4 JJ <Il
?) ;
83 8
I M
1
'Qg**
U.3
.. (gH yc
}
s.
?
g_t s. 3 i,. h
. m ----
=
., Ay, :
1
-uin i
g d4 s.
- I e
.g 4
Y kO Q,
a s
.B l
!l lI c
2 3
W l' ;j 7, F8 g
['
il
~ ~ d.
i s p ;
,p h
'.o 2
b1,
.. N... e ei g
3 m,_,.
m,.
3 ls u.
P 7 ;,
s c
l~
l r
.Y)i,j e
w tk; W e 1
C E
C
- l v'. r
=Ja g
l 6-g !
a 4
i 4 5
k']l 5
] 1:
fI ll I>
25 i
I u
.l l i. g i,9, u
n 7,
a
,M 4
,a a r,_
a
.I~
7 Ea in 1 : E : ma mm um
,p 9
Ile
'j i
p.
.g.:
L] @
tt m
v.
N.
,,I
'. h!}
I:
2i' i
!g, 4{,.
y _ _ _ _ _
i s$;
@(
t I
6 G
f f
m*
i
.a.nu L r.L.sur.s.' y g' i' e,-,
2 a e a~e-roes
'V A[
, _9 e > 8 *b"i
-~
r W
m**..,,,,*=*e* car >w l
-ctwramr-nr outwee g,
3.%
s
>* r 'e'n'r~waj^a. <
w e.vce
- ecowba~cmers)
K ssor oas,seg us e.,se,,,s a..
e.e sw.,
ma re ctwme
,i.
~
~
e,
..we
,m,,,,,,n,..,,e arg, e o ossaga A*~'*r-
-erosus e v neeno*2
.m aa. cat u arr.
.-2*orro.s. or
- .,,go s,-
r@~rC MLU ucrt : aa eter goc,22l!D 0E ernNOd20 m 4TL.QE2 $ctunC.anut.
recr40!Aa awrrnIOt her edaemG
.rcass Pao * '" CCNC Block. WALL m * '
'Y' ';O' A T Isr FL CD4C SL AB dC** m '2 '* o CONC OLoC% WALLS AR.
g pusrEREOCYILM l'
~
~'i) j'2%eewa to e r*4*a c.
c r;
- 'la***3 f e c o4ma pueews macuanh wa *
-,oote r.s fg a
& t g,,
g,,,
octarroeur m rue t p.o r g.^ }, /
p anonovec enwL omtenetG85 1 pd'ser1:LarN /p* asses *,
t23rm
~/,
. y u P clareo rria
+ ryo aume ong O
mm sco r
'1 0
! #'c'.mo'ca" O'I SMepce4 f**
tJ a.C.
casos ~,~****oes.ne Z
y
/
co~
us asso-z.
4 lE $OLL ETigt S9=ll
.rarr 4
m
(
,o
/'
s y
DAfeo $/S/90
~
/
b
~
x r
- i r 7l* 9 '
~TYR Ct>vC.
- l CtM6 AT ctwC stocu wasts
- \\
I (Jua f 3es rL 4s]
.9,
- s.-roporet c s.
- s } fowoe su>a
.a 4,
fa
- a* l ?'o &
W.,
L y.-
DETA IL@ATCt>K*BLOCKMLL nt2 mwscor Mee s * * % * **
p Qg,g fogg fg,Ang AfTdwpix
- c". Flecita C 4
.