ML20072V193

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design. Updated FSAR Review Revealed That Existing Pipe Restraints Provide Reasonable Protection Against Pipe Reactions Per GDC 40 & 42
ML20072V193
Person / Time
Site: Robinson Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 04/05/1983
From: Hurford W
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To: Varga S
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
REF-SSINS-6820 IEB-80-11, LAP-83-87, NUDOCS 8304110521
Download: ML20072V193 (2)


Text

_ .

, i s

@p&L Carolina Power & Light Company SERIAL: LAP-83-87 April 5, 1983 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing Un ited States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-261 LICENSE NO. DPR-23 IE BULLETIN 80-11 MASONRY WALL DESIGN

Dear Mr. Varga:

In a letter dated February 4,1983, Carolina Power & Light Company

(CP&L) informed you that additional analysis was required for a missile shield wall. . This additional analvsis involved loadings due to a postulated pipe rupture. Up on further eva' .ation, CP&L has concluded from the review of the updated FSAR that existing pipe restraints should provide reasonable assurance of protection against pipe reactions in accordance with General Design Criteria (GDC) 40 and 42. Therefore, protection against the dynamic effects associated which the postulated rupture of piping is met, and no additional analysis is necessary.

In addition, there is a two foot by two foot block-out section in i the North exterior wall of the Auxiliary Building which is subject to l postulated wind 'and tornado loadings. This block-out section was previously analyzed and subsequently modified for seismic loading. An additional l analysis has been conducted which verifies that this block-out section, as l modified, has sufficient margin for protection against postulated wind and i

tornado loadings. In light of these determinations, CP&L requests that the following statement:

, "No Category I masonry wall is subjected to loads due to pipe

! rupture, wind, or tornado wind loads."

i '

which was made as part of the response to NRC question 1 in our January 1983 Report, be revised to read as follows:

l l "All Category I masonry walls determined to be within the scope of IE Bulletin 80-11 have sufficient margin for protection against loads due to pipe rupture, wind, or tornado wind loads."

l

[ 8304110521 830405 ^

j gDRADOCK 05000261 I

.. . . , .cevme Street

  • P. O. Box 1551
  • Rafeigh, N C. 27602

_ ._ __. __ _ _ . . . _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ , _ . _ _ _ _ ~ _ .

i , >

S. A. Varga If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact a member of the Nuclear Licensing Staff.

Yours very truly, c

W. . Hurford Manager Technical Serv ces DCW/kjr (6487DCW) cc: Mr. J. P. O'Reilly (NRC-RII) 1 Mr. G. Requa (NRC)

Mr. Steve Weise (NRO-HBR) i l

h

.- __ . _ . _ __ ,_, _ . . _ , . . _ . . _ - . . , _ _ _ _ . _ . . - _ _ _ . , . - . - _ . - _ . _ , , . . . . . . . , - . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ - - - - , -_. ._ _ ,.._ _