ML20040H014
| ML20040H014 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1982 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hukill H GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| References | |
| IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8202170003 | |
| Download: ML20040H014 (8) | |
Text
E l
e JANUARY :a g Q,JISTpintIT10N cket Fi' e-) EBlackwood m
e NRC POR H0rnste
_y L PDR PWagne Docket No. 50-239 RECElVED B
ORBf4 Rdg FEB 2 1982s DEisenhut jA n ema naem %' }
t
- u.c n OELD Mr. Henry D. Hukill, Vice AE0D D
s President and Director - THI-l IE-3
~ b.
GPU Nuclear Corporation ACRS-10
- ' kit [I$
P. O. Box 480 RJacobs Hiddletown, Pennsylvania 17057 RIngram Gray File
Dear Hr. Hukill:
CTrammell K.C. Leu, SEB We have reviewed your responses to IE Bulletin 80-11 regarding masonry walls, and find that additional infomation is needed for us to complete our review. Therefore, we ask that you provide the information requested in the enclosure to this letter within 45 days of its receipt.
Since this information request is for specific THI-l related information, fewer than ten respondents are affected; therefore OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511 If you have any questions on this subject, please contact your NRC Project Manager.
Sincerely,
%.Cc :.t.L c:cn n 3.gi ica y, s:om.,,
John F. Stolz, C6tef
~
Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information s
cc w/onclosure:
See next 3 pages 8202170003 820122 PDR ADOCK 05000289 0
ORB # DL C.0RB#4:DL ornce>
..n.........
PWa 3.g,ne r......
..R.J
..,J.,S.t. <
su:wic k y
3
.L.....
om>
Nnc ronu sis oo-so Nacu eno OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usceo.a.i-m w
Metropolitan Edison Company cc w/ enclosure (s):
Mr. Marvin I. Lewis Dr. Walter H. Jordan 6504 Bradford Terrace 881 W. Outer Drive Philadelphia Pennsylvania 19149 Oak Ridge,' Tennessee 37830 Walter W. Cohen, Consumer Advocate Dr. Linda W. Little Department of Justice 5000 Hermitage Drive Strawberry Square, 14th Floor Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 lis. Gail P. Bradford Mr. R. J.' Tool e Anti-Nuclear Group Representing Manager. TMI-l York fletropolitan Edison Company 245 W. Philadelphia Street P. 0. Box 480 York, Pennsylvania 17404 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 John Levin, Esq.
1 Pennsylvania Public Utilities Comm.
John E. Minnich, Chairman Box 3265 1
Dauphin Co. Board of Commissioners Harrisburg, PennsylYania -17120 Dauphin County Courthouse Front and Market Streets Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Fox, Farr and Cunningham 2320 North 2nd Street
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2
Washington, D. C.
20555 Ms. Louise Bradford TMIA d
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 1011 Green Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 Washington, D. C.
20555 Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt -
- Docketing and Service Section R.D. #5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Richard Rotierts Robert Q. Pollard The Patriot 609 Montpelier Street 812 fiarket Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105
~
Chauncey Kepford Earl B. Hoffman Judith H. Johnsrud
" Dauphin Count) C'ommissioner
{
Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power'~ Dauphin County Courthouse
-433 Orlando Avenue Front and Market Streets State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.17101 Judge Gary J. Edles, Chairman Ms. Ellen R. Weiss, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1725 I Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Suite 506 Washington, D. C.
20006 s..
J. B. Lieberman, Es_q.
Mr. Steven C. Sholly -
Berlock, Israel & Liberman.
linfon of Concerned Scientists 26 Broadway 1725 I Street, N. W., Suite 601 New York. NY 10004 Washington, DC
.20006
. Metropolitan Edison Company
- General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency Mr. Thomas Gerusky ATTN:
Docket Clerk Bureau of Radiation Protection 1725 I Street, NW Department of-Environmental Resources Washington, DC 20472 P. O. Box 2063.'
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Karin W. Carter Esq.
505 Executive House s rg nsyhania m 20
'l Jeffe s Stre t Madison, Wisconsin 53711 York College of Pennsylvania Country Club Road York, Pennsylvania 17405 G. F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Dauphin County Office Emergency Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Preparedness 1800 M Street, N.W.
Court House, Room 7 Washington, D. C.
20036 Front & Market Streets Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Mr. E. G. Wallace Licensing Manager Department of Environmental Resources GPU Service Corporation ATTN: Director, Office of Radiological 100 Interpace Parkway Health Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 P. O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania' 17105 Williams.bordan,III,Esq.
Ms. Lennie Prough Harmon & Weiss U. S. N. R. C. - TMI Site 1725~ I Street, NY, Suite 506 P. O. Box 311 Washington, DC 20006 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Ms. Virginia Southard, Chairman Citizens for a Safe Environment 264 Walton Street Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Babcock & Wilcox Government Publications Section Nuclear Power Generation Division Stite Library of Pennsylvania Suite 220, 7910 Woodmont Avenue Box 1601 (Education Building)
Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17126
- Ivan W. Smith, Esq.
Mr. David D. Maxwell, Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Board of Supervisors U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Londonderry Township Washington, D. C.
20555 RFD#1 - Geyers Church Raod Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Mr. C. W. Smyth Supervisor of Licensing THI-1 Metropolitan Edison Company Regional Radiation Representative P. O. Box 480 EPA Region III Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Curtis Building (Sixth Floor) 6th and Walnut Streets Philedelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 Mr. Donald R. Haverkamp Governor's Office of State Planning Senior Resident Inspector (TMI-1) and Development U.S.N.R.C.
ATTN: -Coordinator, Pennsylvania P. O. Box 311 State Clearinghoese Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 P. 0. Box 1323 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
T Metropolitan Edison Company,
Judge John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. tluclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 t -
Judge Christine N. Kohl Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingtor., D.C.
20555 Judge Reginald L. Gotchy Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Ronald C. Haynes, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I Office of Inspection and Enforcement 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 i
t i.
to ltr. dtd.1/22/82 ENCLOSURE ADDITIONAL INNRMATION REQUESTED FROM THE LICENSEE To facilitate completion of the review on this topic for TMI Unit 1, the Licensee should address the following:
1.
The Licensee used a static analysis based on multiplying the mass of the structure by the peak amplified response spectra (ARS) instead of a dynamic seismic analysis. To account for possible multi-mode
' effects, an amplification factor of 1.05 was.used to obtain the equivalent static load. The Standard Review Plan (SRP) [9] accepts an equivalent static load method if the system is shown to be realistically represented by a simple model and the method gives conservative results. Furthermore, it suggests that a factor of 1.5 be applied to the peak ARS of the applicable floor response spectra. In view of this, it is suggested that the Licensee provide information to justify use of an amplification factor of 1.05.
2.
Appendix 7.2 of Reference 3 provided a summary of stresses, in which load combination included dead load, pipe reactions, and seismic loads. The thermal effect and wind load were not accounted for.
In Reference 2, the Licensee indicated dbat the thecaal effect is insignificant, but did nst - justify this conclusion. The Licensee should elaborate on this point and also indicate if wind load was included in the analysis.
3.
In Reference 2, the Licensee.used the single wythe assumption (for out-of-plane loading) for multiple wythe walls. The Licensee should demonstrate that this assumption will result in a conservative evaluation.
4.
With regard to stresses resulting from equipment, a static analysis was used by multiplying the weight of the equipment by the peak acceleration of the response spectrum of the corresponding floor.
The Licensee should clarify whether a multiplication factor was used to obtain the equivalent static load or, if not, explain why.
r 5.
With regard to the seismic analysis, the Licensee indicated that the vertical component of the motion was not included in the analysis because the positive ef fect of the dead load on bed joint stresses was not included in the evaluation criteria. Although the positive effect is not easily detsemined, it is suggested that the Licensee attempt to identify this positive effect (from test data or literature) and include it in the analysis or neglect it altogether, which will result in a conservative evaluation. However, it does not seem justifiable to neglect the verticel component of the notion.
6.
The Licensee should describe how the interstory drif t (both in-plane and out-of-plane) during a seismic event and the loads from piping and/or equipment attached to the masonry walls were accounted for.
Both the local and global effects of piping and/or equipment attached to the masonry walls should be described and examples of the analysis provided.
7.
In section 6.1.2 of Enclosure 3 [2], ranges of + 25% and + 20% were given for the godulus of elasticity of ungrouted and grouted walls, respectively, to account for uncertainties in evaluating the frequency of the walls. The Licensee stated, "if the frequency of the walls falls on the low frequency side of the amplified region of the response spectrum adequate provisions are included to ensurc that the determination of the stress in the wall is conservative."
The Licensee should define and discuss these " adequate provisions."
8.
With regard to the in-plane effects, the strength of the strut corresponding to a strain at cracking is given in expression (1) of Section 6.5 of Enclosure 3 [2]. The Licensee should provide a complete derivation of this express > ea and discuss how this expression relates to the permissible strain levels of unconfined and confined walls.
9.
The Licensee should discuss and justify the boundary conditions used in the analysis of the 14 walls mentioned in Reference 3.
eh i
10.
The Licensee plans to provide steel brackets to reinforce the end spans of the north and south walls of the elevator shaft. The Licensee should evaluate the out-of-plane drift effects that would result from these brackets.
11.
With reference to the in-plane effects for. factored loads (Section 6.5_of Enclosure 3 [2]), a factor of 1.67 was introduced to the allowable in-plane strain.
The Licensee should provide the technical basis for this factor.
12.
With regard to the " Energy Balance Technique" and the " Arching Theory" [2], the Licensee should not resort to these approaches, if possible.
3
w f
13.
The modulus of elasticity for grouted or solid. walls was varied from
~
800 f,' to 1200 f '. ACI 531-79 (6) recommends a maximum of m
1000 f '.
If the Licensee selects 1200 f,'
in the analysis, an m
explanation should be provided.
14.
With regard to the collar joint strength, the Licensee used the same test value that was used for the Trojan plant. The Licensee should discuss the applicability of this test to the TMI Unit 1 masonry walls.
In Reference 3, the Licensee proposed that the collar joints of multiple wythe block walls be filled with non-shrink Portland cement grout. The Licensee should provide technical data to support the use of this grout and indicate how this repair will strengthen the collar joint. Furthermore, the Licensee should clarify whether the auxiliary building has any multiple wythe block walls and, if not, explain why this. proposed modification was introduced.
15.
With regard to shear for reinforced masonry, the Licensee introduced test results on shear strength of reinforced masonry. Specifically, Figure 2 of Enclosure 3 -(2) presented test data for various percentages of reinforcement.
For the case in which there is more than 0.3% horizontal reinforcement, there is only one test value for M/VD = 1.0 and there are two test values for M/VD = 0.5.
For the case in which there is less than 0.3% horizontal reinforcement, there are no test data for M/VD = 1.0.
The data presented do not appear to be sufficient to justify use of these values. The Licensee should discuss the technical basis for the applicability of these tests to the masonry walls at TMI Unit 1 with respect to the mortir type, boundary conditions,'and nature of the loads (i. e.,
dynamic, static) and should identify and provide the source of these tests.
16.
With regard to shear for unreinforced masonry, a factor of 1.5 was introduced for allowable shear for factored loads. SEB criteria (4) suggest a factor of 1.3.
The Licensee should provide any literature or test data to support the use of a factor of 1.5.
17.
With regard to allowable tensile stresses normal to bed joints, SEB criteria (4) suggest a factor of 1.3 for factored loads. The Licensee should discuss and justify the use of a factor of 1.5.
The Licensee should also discuss the applicability of those tests mentioned in Section 5.1.5 of Enclosure 3 (2] to the TMI Unit 1 masonry walls.
18.
With regard to bond stress, the Licensee should discuss and justify an increase of 33-1/3% for factored loads.
19.
Indicate the intended action to evaluate wall AB-14.
20.
Provide the schedule for the proposed modifications specified in Reference 3.
~,
a 4
4 REFERENCES' l.
" Masonry Wall Design" NRC, May 8, 1980 2.
.H. D. Hukill (Director, _TMI Unit 1, Metropolitan Edison Company)
Letter with enclosures to B. H. Grier (NRC)
November 17, 1980 3.
Metropolitan Edison Company "Three Mile Island Unit 1 - Reevaluation of Safety-related Concrete Masonry Walls, NRC IE Bulletin 80-11"
_ Topical Report No. 001, Rev. O July 14, 1981 4.
Standard Review Plan, Section 3.8.4, Appendix A,
" Interim Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation" NRC, July 1981 5.
Uniform Building Code International Conference of Building Officials, 1979 6.
ACI 531-79 and Commentary ACI 531-R-79
" Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masenry Structures" American Concrete Institute, 1979 7.
ATC 3-06
" Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings" Applied Technology Council, 1978 8.
" Specification for the Design and Construction of Load-Bearing Concrete Masonry" National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA), August 1979 9.
Standard Review Plan, Section 3.7.2
" Seismic System Analysis" NRC, July 1981
_. _