ML20077B545
| ML20077B545 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1983 |
| From: | Bayne J POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| To: | Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20077B544 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-SSINS-6820 IEB-80-11, JPN-83-54, NUDOCS 8307250278 | |
| Download: ML20077B545 (5) | |
Text
123 M m Su wt
~
WhrtJ Plains. NowWrk 10601 3
914 681.6240 0
i k
[
J. Plimip Bayne Executive Vce Pressdent Nuclear Generaton Jume 10,1983 JPN-83-54 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Attention:
Mr. Domenic B. Vassallo, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No.' 2 Division of Licensing
Subject:
James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-333 Request for Additional Information I.E.
Bulletin No. 80-11, " Masonry Wall Design" l
Reference:
1.
NRC letter, D. B. Vassallo to J. p. Bayne, dated May 25, 1983 - same subject.
Dear Sir:
In response to your request for additional information l
regarding I.S. Bulletin No. 80-11 " Masonry Wall Design" l
(Reference 1), attached is the Authority's response.
The Authority is providing this information to be responsive I
to your requests.
However, as indicated in our responses all of this information has previously been provided to you.
Responses to NRC requests for additional information I
often consume many hours of Authority staff time.
Requests for information already available to the NRC staff require that we needlessly slow or stop work on other licensing issues to prepara responses.
This redirection of resources may make iteappear that the Authority is not responsive to NRC requests, when just the opposite is true.
As we stated during the May 20, 1982 SALP meeting, a successful licensing effort requires a high level of cooperation between the Authority and the NRC.
We look forward to working with your staff to eliminate unnecessary information requests and improve our cooperative licensing efforts.
8307250278 830721 PDR A00CK 05000333 i
G PDR l
_ ~ _
Y t
. l i
i If you have any questions, please contact Mr. J. A. Gray, Jr.
f i
of my staff.
Very truly yours, J acutiveVichPresident Suclear Generation 4
cca Mr. J. Linville Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 136 Lycoming, New York 13093 4
5 l
t e
I l
ATTACHMENT TO JPN 54 NE4 YORK POWER AUTHORITY JAMES A.
FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT l
RESPONSE PO MAY 25, 1983 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING MASONRY 4ALL DESIGN NRC QUESPION:
In your June 17, 1982 response (Reference 6)- to our April 26, 1982 Request for Additional Information (Reference 5),
you indicated that a 30% increase in allowable stresses for load combination including OBE loads is consistent with the requirements stated in the FitzPatrick FSAR.
It is our intent, as previously stated in our acceptance criteria, that no increase f actor be allowed for load combinatior.s including 088 loads.
In view of this, please provide the following information:
1.
If no increase f actor is considered, state whether the walls can still be qualified for OBE loads.
Justify this statement, i.e.
review possible worst case loads.
NYPA RESPONSE:
1 The Authority justified the uso of increased allowable stresses in response to your April 26, 1982 request for additional information (Reference 5).
Our response (Reference' 6) is reproduced below for your conveniences j
Section 6c of the Power Authority of the State of New York 180-Day Response to IE Bulletin No. 80-11 dated Nov.
3, 1980 in part states:
l Allowable stresses for reevaluation are based on the American Concrete Institute
' Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures' (ACI 531-79).
A one-third increase of the permissible stress values is taken in consideration of severe environmental loads (088)... "
Paragraph 10.1.7 of ACI 531-79 states:
"For stresses due to wind or earthquake combined with dead and live loads, allowable stresses may be increased 33 percent provided tae strength of member is not less than that required for dead and live loads alone."
_i_
r
/
Paragraph 10.1.7 of ACI 531-79 is c$nsiotont with
~'
i the plant FSAR Table 12.4-3, (Structural Design Stress Levels).
Loads condition 3 (Normal Dead +
]
Live Load + Operating Basis Earthquake) permits a "l/3 increase in stress levels."
The structural damping factor used in reevaluation of masonary walls was conservatively selected as 0.5 percent of critical damping for severe environmental loads (088) based on plant amplified response spectra for piping and equipment.
FSAR Table 12.4-2, (Damping Factors for Structure and l
Equipment Calculations) permits a concrete structure damping value of 2.0 percent of critical damping.
Additional conservatisms in 'the analysis include peak broadened amplified response spectrum (ARS) and the floor level of the ARS chosen for the analysis.
l The 1/3 increase in allowable stresses for load combinations including 088 loads is in keeping with l
'the 180 Day Response dated Nov. 3, 1980; with ACI 531-79: and the FitzPatrick ESAR.
NRC QUESTION:
S 2.
If the walls cannot be qualified without including an increase factor over allowable stresses, identify and i
explain all consorvative measures used in the analysis l
to justify the proposed increase factor.
Identify all i
af f ected walls and the actual increase f actor associated I
with each.
j MYPA RESPONSS:
The methodology used to analyze masonry walls including a description of all conservative measures, was submitted to the NRC via References 2, 6,
and 7.
Reference 7 specifically identifies those walls evaluated by the Authority which have stress factors greater than those specified by the NRC Structural Engineering Branch for extreme environmental conditions -
(1.5 for tension parallel to bed joint and 1 3 for tension normal to the bed joint and masonry shear.)
REFE RENCES 1.
I.E.
Bulletin No. 80 il,
" Masonry dall Design" dated May 8, 1980.
2.
PASNY letter, R. J. Pasternak to B.
H.
Grier, dated July 10, 1980 (JAFP-80-565).
Includes 60-day response report to I.
E.
Bulleting No. 80-11.
i 3.
PASNY letter, R. J. Pasternak to B. H. Grior, dated November 4, 1980 (JAFP-80-856).
Includes 180-day
)
response to I.E. Bulletin No. 80-11.
4.
NRC letter, D. B. Vassallo to L. W. Sinclair, dated April 19, 1982.
Request for additional information.
5.
NRC letter, D.
B. Vassallo to L. W. Sinclair, dated April 26, 1982.
6.
PASNY letter, J.
P. Bayne to D. B. Vassallo, dated-June 17, 1982 (JPN-82-51) regarding request for additional information on I.E. Bulletin No. 80-11,
" Masonry Wall Design."
~
j.
r l
7.
PASNY letter, J. P. Bayne to D. B. Vassallo, dated January 26, 1983 (JPN-83-06).
Response to telephone i
questions.
l 8.
James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Final Safety l
Analysis Report (PSAR), Revision 0, dated July 1982, j
Section 12.4, " Structural Loading Conditions."
l I
9.
PASKY letter, R. J. Pasternak to d. H. Grier, dated April 2, 1981 (JAFP-81-0300 ).
Status report on masonry wall efforts.
- 10. PASNY letter, R. J. Pasternak to B.
H. Grier, dated June 29, 1981 (JAFP-81-0661).
Requests schedule extension for completion of modifications.-
l i
i i
t
..