ML20041E962
| ML20041E962 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1982 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Crouse R TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8203160020 | |
| Download: ML20041E962 (5) | |
Text
.
i l
y MARCH 3 1982 DISTRIBUTION
' Docket Fife
' NRC-PDR ' )
L PDR TERA Docket lio.50-34G NSIC r
ORB #4 Rdg
//
RECEWED DEisenhut OELD
!!r. Richard P. Crouse AE0D g
MAR 1'01982>
l Vice President, fluclear IE g/
" s m emmu m Toledo Edison Company ACRS-10 auas ansasa Edison Plaza ADeAgazio 6
88 300 ltadison Avenue RIngram Toledo, Ohio 43G52 Gray File EBlackwood
Dear !!r. Crouse:
H0rnstein
SUBJECT:
itASONARY WALL DESIGN; IE BULLETIrl 80-11, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL IllFORMATION We have reviewed your responses of !!ay 8,1980, flovember 4,1980 and September 29, 1981 to IE Culletin 80-11. He find that additional infomation is required to complete our review. Please provide the infomation identified in the enclosure within 30 days of receipt of this letter.
This request for infomation affects fewer than ten respondents; therefore, 008 clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely,
% k s cic a 37
!?* STOL4*/
John F. Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Licensing Encksure:
Request for Additional Infomation cc w/ enclosure:
See next page i
l l
l l
...9Rpf4;p
,,,,,,0RB,#,4,,: DL l
o,,,co
...ap.eA90. 9.;5 f...
ola....
l sua m o 3/3 /82 33/
i bed 31'60020 B20303
""""~~"""" '
" " " " ~ ~
' " " ' ~ ~
! } PDR ADOCK 05000346 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam on-us. so O
,3 3,.y
.~
s ~
- L Q R Q
.....x Toledo Edison Company ccw/ enclosure (s):
s Mr. Donald H. Hauser Esq.
The Cleveland Electric
~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Residerit Inspector's Office Illuminating Company 5503 N. State Route 2 P. O. Box 5000 Oak Harbor. Ohio 43449 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Mrs. Julia Baldwin, Librarian Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Government Documents Collection Shaw, Pittman, Potts William Carlson Library and Trowbridge University of Toledo 1800 M Street, N.W.
2801 W. Bancroft Avenue Washington, D. C.
20036 Toledo, Ohio 43606 i
Paul M. Smart, Esq.
Fuller & Henry 300 fiadison Avenue P. O. Box 2088 Regional Radiation Representative Toledo, Ohio 43603 EPA Region V 230 South Dearborn Street Mr. Robert B. Borsum Chicago, Illinois 60604 Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 220 Bethesda, !!aryland 20814 Ohio Department of Health ATTN: Radiological Health Program Director P. O. Box 118 President, Board of County Columbus, Ohio 43216 Commissioners of Ottawa County Port Clinton, Ohio 43452 Attorney General Department of Attorney General 30 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 Harold Kahn, Staff Scientist Poww Siting Comission 361 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43216 I
Mr. James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Mr. Ted Myers Manager, Nuclear Licensing i
Toledo Edison Company Edison Plaza 300 Madison Avenue 4
Toledo, Ohio 43652 l
3
-y
~.-~.-...-m-,--n.n m.
to ltr. dtd. 3/3/82 REQUEST FOR ADDITI0t!AL INFORMATION 1.
Table I [2] refers only to the edge conditions as indicated in the masonry wall drawings. Provide the boundary conditions assumed for the analysis.
2.
Indicate how the effects of higher modes were considered in cases where the analysis was bas 4d on the " block wall
- program, which includes only three modes.
3.
Indicate whether any of the walls was analyzed as a plate, with special reference to walls having cut-outs.
4.
Explain why the Table V [2] factors for operating basis earthquake (CBE) and wind load are 1.0, while the plant FSAR specifies a factor of 1.25 for these loads.
5.
Indicate how equipment weight was considered in the analysis of the masonry walls. Standard Review Plan (SRP), Section 3.7.2 [7],
suggests that the equipment weight should be multiplied by a factor of 1.5 times the peak floor acceleration.
6.
With reference to Section 7.1, Appendix E [2], use the envelope of the floor spectra or provide justification for using the average spectral acceleration.
7.
With reference to Table II [2], indicate possible variations in the value E for masonry, and deter:2ine the actual value of E such that the spectral curve provides a conservative estiatate for acceleration.
8.
With reference to page 8 of Reference 2, provide sample calculations to illustrate that single wythe analysis of multiple wythe walls is conservative.
9.
It is the NRC's position that the energy balance technique and the
(
arching theory should not be used in the absence of conclusive evidence of their validity as applied to masonry structtir~ies. With reference to Table I [2], explain the following points:
Provide sample calculations to show the procedure used to a.
determine the ductility ratio of walls and explain the effect of wall boundary conditions on this ratio.
b.
Explain why the ductility ratios for several walls are less than unity even though the working stresses have been exceeded.
e
.v.
1
. *e.
_A
~
e t
- z. h. = z.=
=
e
~
' Le+L %6L.,,;&.,W i
?,
~
c.
Explain how a ductile mode of failure of the masonry walls can be guaranteed since it depends on several factors, such as the amount and distribution of reinforcements and the anchorage provided.
d.
Explain how wall deflections are estimated for specific ductility ratios.
10.
With reference to Table IV [2], specify the allowable stresses for shear (shear walls and flexural members where reinforcement takes the shear), tension parallel to the bed joint, and tension normal to the j
bed joint.
11.
With reference' to Table IV [2], justify the maximum value of 1200 psi j
specified for allowable stress in axial compression
.o.
12.
With reference to the proposed allowables for factored loads in Table IV [2], justify the increase facters of 3.17 for bearing,1.5 for masonry shear, 1.67 for reinforcement shear, and 1.33 for bond. The SEB criteria [4] propose 2.5 for bearing, 1.3 for masonry shear, and 1.5 for reinforcement shear.
13.
With reference to Table IV [2], justify the value for maximum allowable compression for reinforcement since it exceeds the ACI 531-79 maximum of 24,000 psi (6].
14.
Provide details of proposed wall modifications with drawings, and indicate how these modifications will help to co' erect the wall deficiencies. Indicate how out-of-plane drif t effects due to bracing are considered in the analysis.
15.
Provide a schedule for wall modifications, t
r f
G e
4 k
1"U
., -.v...
c
~
REFERENCES 1.
" Masonry Wall Design" NRC, May 8, 1980 2.
R. P. Crouse (Toledo Edison Company)
Letter with attachments to J. G. Keppler (NRC)
Nove:4ber 4, 1980 3.
R. P. Crouse (Toledo Edison Company)
Letter with attachments to J. G. Keppler (NRC)
September 29, 1981 l
l t
4.
Standard Review Plan, Section 3.8.4, Appendix A l
" 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 531R-79
" Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures" American Concrete Institute, 1979 7.
Standard Review Plan, Section 3.7.2
" Seismic System Analysis" NRC, July 1981 l
l e
B s
e b
9