ML20081C878

Responds to 840209 Request for Addl Info Re IE Bulletin 80-11 Concerning Masonry Walls.Block Walls Qualified by Energy Balance Methods Listed

ML20081C878
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	03/05/1984
From:	Clayton F ALABAMA POWER CO.
To:	Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
IEB-80-11, TAC-42861, TAC-43966, NUDOCS 8403150055
Download: ML20081C878 (3)

Text

- _ ___

Malling Addr;ss

.. Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street

• Post Office Box 2641 Birmingham Alabama 35291 Telephone 205 783-6081 F. L Clayton, Jr.

Senior Vice President Flintridge Building AlabamaPower ite soumem ekcoc sys:em March 5, 1984 Docket No. 50-348 Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Mr. S. A. Varga Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Unit 1 I.E. Bulletin 80-11 Masonry Walls Gentlemen:

Alabama Power Company has reviewed the NRC's February 9,1984 request for additional information relating to masonry walls in Farley Nuclear Plant Unit 1. In accordance with this request, Alabama Power Company hereby submits the following response.

NRC Request

1. Clarify whether the energy balance technique is still used to qualify wall s. Identify the total number of safety-related walls and how many of them are qualified by this technique, and also identify each of them.

APCo Response The energy balance technique was utilized in the analysis of certain Unit 1 masonry walls. A list of all Unit i safety-related block walls was provided in APCo's July 7,1980 letter to Mr. J. P. O'Reilly. A list of all Unit 1 walls qualified utilizing the energy balance technique is provided in Attachment 1.

NRC Request l 2. State whether a revised seismic analysis will be performed to remove l some sources of conservatism for the OBE case (if the results and l conclusions of the analysis performed for Farley 2 are applicable,

! indicate so and provide explanations as to why). If not, explain why.

l The Licensee should not use the SGEB acceptance criteria for SSE to evaluate for OBE load case. \

l 8403150055 840305 l PDR ADOCK 05000348 )\

G ppg

~ - _ .

I 4

Mr. S. A. Varga March 5, 1984 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 APCo Response It is Alabama Power Company's position that since Unit 1 is essentially a mirror image of Unit 2, the Unit 2 analysis criteria (which was outlined in APCo's November 19, 1982 letter to the NRC) is applicable to Unit 1. The walls listed in Attachment 1 are fundamentally similar in location and structure to the walls in Unit 2 which were ceanalyzed and qualified utilizing the NRC's criteria (Standard Review Plan, Section 3.8.4, Appendix A Interim Criteria for Safety Related Masonry Wall Evaluation" NRC, July 1981). The structure and location of the walls listed in Attachment 1 were provided by Alabama Power Company's May 22, 1981 letter to the NRC. The results of the Unit 2 reanalysis, submitted by letter dated November 19, 1982, proved that conclusions about the structural integrity of concrete block walls based upon the original energy balance technique were valid. In addition this reanalysis showed that sufficient conservatism exists in the original FSAR GBE case to ensure that stresses are maintained well below yield. Based on the above, it is Alabama Power Company's position that specific reanalysis of the Unit I walls is unnecessary and that the existing Unit I walls are seismically qualified.

If you have any questions, please advise.

Yours very tru ,

O < 'C5 5

g. L. Clayton, Jr.

FLCJ r/RWS.lsh-036 Attachment cc: Mr. R. A. Thomas Mr. J. P. O'Reilly Mr. E. A. Reeves Mr. W. H. Bradford Dr. I. L. Myers

e 4

Attachment 1 i The following Unit 1 block walls were qualified by the energy balance method.

i 1CBW-8 4

1CBW-9 I 1CBW-12 1CBW-13

! 1CBW-14 1CBW-15 j ICBW-16 i i

i ICBW-19 i

1CBW-21 '

1CBW-23 l 1CBW-25 ,

' 1CBW-26 1CBW-28 1CBW-32 l

3 1CBW-33 1 i ICBW-34 4 1CBW-62 I 1CBW-69 i TOTAL 16 walls i <

7 r

[

1,,

l a

I i

a i

I 4

5. i l

. - - _ _ _ _ . . ~ . ~ . . .